Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 02/03/13 16:17, Erik Johansson wrote: On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: So - *must* you make your database of user-sourced geodata available to the OSM community? I answer no, so long as it resulted from a produced work and This feel very iffy, I thought this had been disproven already, I might be wrong, but that would mean that the ODBL is really totally useless. You have obviously given this much thought so I'm interested Map data copyright does not magically disappear just because you print it with a free map design. When doing methodical extraction of geo data, you are not copying the produced work, but the map data so it is still a copy of a copyrigthed database. [..] The ODbL definition of a produced work specifically includes images, and its definition of conveying the database specifically excludes produced works. In the discussion on legal-talk back in October, everyone seemed to agree that this means that produced works do not have to be licensed under ODbL. If they are not (and they usually aren't), then of course nothing derived from the produced work is either. I will reiterate, as long as you treat our data as a DB it will have to be licensed as ODbL, all produced works from ODbL data should include an attribution stating that it has information licensed under ODbL (see section 4.3a). I don't think that thread will make me change my mind but I will read it and try to spot any mistake on my part. /Erik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Hello, Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not worried about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any case, Technically, it is possible to export in a format where accuracy is 100% preserved, e.g. any vectorized format like PDF or SVG. If you export all tags in a concatenated text string, your map is maybe not readable for humans but you could in this way rebuild the full database under a new license... Yes it is, but is it defendable? I mean could then anyone prove in court that it is a work resulting from and not the Database itself? It would take a few more steps (eg. arrange some inbetween maps to lose the trace) to do it on purpose, I think. For me this is more a question of using 'normal' tiles to make just another map, and I don't see there's a way to prohibit it in ODbL. Sincerely, Tadeusz Knapik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Am 04.03.2013 11:29, schrieb Tadeusz Knapik: How come? ODbL doesn't enforce PW's license - if Produced Work is licenced Public Domain, how do you reach somebody who used this PD Produced Work to credit OSM? Sincerely, This is patently wrong, see ODbL 1.0 paragraph 4.3 (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). It is true that the OBbL does not prescribe a specific licence for produced works, however it -does- require the conditions in 4.3 to be adhered to. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On 04/03/13 11:53, Pieren wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not worried about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any case, Technically, it is possible to export in a format where accuracy is 100% preserved, e.g. any vectorized format like PDF or SVG. If you export all tags in a concatenated text string, your map is maybe not readable for humans but you could in this way rebuild the full database under a new license... That was touched on last time round, yes. Giving someone a vector-format image might count as conveying a database. I think it's ambiguous. The ODbL essentially treats images and databases as though one thing can never be both. It's another thing that could usefully be clarified in a future version, IMO. J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Am 04.03.2013 13:39, schrieb Jonathan Harley: On 04/03/13 11:53, Pieren wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not worried about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any case, Technically, it is possible to export in a format where accuracy is 100% preserved, e.g. any vectorized format like PDF or SVG. If you export all tags in a concatenated text string, your map is maybe not readable for humans but you could in this way rebuild the full database under a new license... That was touched on last time round, yes. Giving someone a vector-format image might count as conveying a database. I think it's ambiguous. The ODbL essentially treats images and databases as though one thing can never be both. It's another thing that could usefully be clarified in a future version, IMO. There is legal precedent that a map can be both an image (on paper) and a database (don't forget that we are not discussing databases in a technical sense). In the end if something like this went to court it is likely that it would be judged on the intent, not on technicalities. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Hello All! Again thank you for all your feedback. Unfortunately after the feedback that I have gotten so far on my initial 4 use-cases, and the 4 extra sub-use-cases I added later, I still do not know for sure if the use-cases I presented would trigger the ODbL share alike clause or not. My confusion about this has though forced me, over the last weeks, to dig a lot deeper into the licenses and rules surrounding our map than I have ever done before as a contributor and a casual user. It is obvious that there still is a lot of discussion going on on how to interpret the license and what cases of copying and use, should trigger the share alike and attribute clauses, and what should not. I would like to argue that a lot of these questions are no longer open for debate. The set of rules that the redaction bot followed, to enable the license change, is by the bots work now coded into the history of our database in such a way that changing them would force us to revert the entire license change. I would suspect (I am no lawyer) that if a license dispute about OSM ever end up in court, we will not be able to argue for more copyright protection than what we gave to those contributors who did not want the license to change. I would also like to argue that, when a question comes in if a user can or can not do something without breaching our copyright, we should always start the discussion by looking for similar examples in our own change to the ODbL. I have searched for these rules, but I have not found them, at least not in the form of a list that clearly states, This is the final list of rules that the reduction bot is based upon, preferably with references to relevant sections of the bots source code. Where can I find the final version of the source code for the redaction bot that was run to do the license change? Help in finding these would be appreciated. I know about these: What is clean (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F), are these the rules the bot is based on? Some code, but it states that it is only an example ( https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change ) As I said in an earlier posting: As far as I understand our license change, it can be described as this: (Please correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit history where someone not willing to change the license (decliner) had edited anything was reverted back in history until no edits by any decliner where left, thereby creating a clean database. All cleaning operations where based on data history in the database. This could also be described as: A user has the full copyright to any point they add to the map that they add regardless of surrounding data. Left out examples of multiple users, The page What is clean talks about The Safe Approach, This is what I think I know so far, based on what I have read over the last weeks so I can not give links for reference, and if I am wrong, please correct me: The only copyright taken into account by the redaction bot is what is stored in the history of the database for a point. Redaction bot All cleaning operations where based on data history in the database. I am currently spending a lot of time thinking about the license and what can be considered copying, derived works etc. I just realized that there is one recent event that sets an unprecedented precedence in how to look upon these questions, it is of course our own recent license change to ODbL. sourcecode, get rules direct linear history of the database edits As I understand our license change, it can be described as this: (Please correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit history where someone not willing to change the license (decliner) had edited anything was reverted back in history until no edits by any decliner where left, thereby creating a clean database. All cleaning operations where based on data history in the database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Hello All! Forgive me for the previous unfinished version of this mail, here is the complete version. Again thank you for all your feedback. Unfortunately after the feedback that I have gotten so far on my initial 4 use-cases, and the 4 extra sub-use-cases I added later, I still do not know for sure if the use-cases I presented would trigger the ODbL share alike clause or not. My confusion about this has though forced me, over the last weeks, to dig a lot deeper into the licenses and rules surrounding our map than I have ever done before as a contributor and a casual user. It is obvious that there still is a lot of discussion going on on how to interpret the license and what cases of copying and use, should trigger the share alike and attribute clauses, and what should not. I would like to argue that a lot of these questions are no longer open for debate. The set of rules that the redaction bot followed, to enable the license change, is by the bots work now coded into the history of our database in such a way that changing them would force us to revert the entire license change. I would suspect (I am no lawyer) that if a license dispute about OSM ever end up in court, we will not be able to argue for more copyright protection than what we gave to those contributors who did not want the license to change. I would also like to argue that, when a question comes in if a user can or can not do something without breaching our copyright, we should always start the discussion by looking for similar examples in our own change to the ODbL. I have searched for these rules, but I have not found them, at least not in the form of a list that clearly states, This is the final list of rules that the reduction bot is based upon, preferably with references to relevant sections of the bots source code. Where can I find the final version of the source code for the redaction bot that was run to do the license change? Help in finding these would be appreciated. I know about these: What is clean (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F), are these the rules the bot is based on? Some code, but it states that it is only an example ( https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change ) As I said in an earlier posting: As far as I understand our license change, it can be described as this: (Please correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit history where someone not willing to change the license (decliner) had edited anything was reverted back in history until no edits by any decliner where left, thereby creating a clean database. All cleaning operations where based on data history in the database. This could also be described as: A user has the full copyright to any point they add to the map that they add regardless of surrounding data. If I now look upon my initial use-case questions again and but this time start by looking for similarities in our license change and the set of rules it was based upon, what conclusions do I reach? (As always correct me if I assume anything about the license change that is incorrect.) 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use the coordinates they clicked on as part of the meta-data for a place in our application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? To clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the map to for example London and then click somewhere in London. If a user adds a point to OSM they have full copyright over that point and are free to also add the same point to another database, or as in this case, only add the point to another db. We as a community can not claim any copyright over this point even though our map is used as a base for the placement of the point. We get to claim no copyright here as we gave no copyright to decliners where their data made up the base map on which we added our points before the license change. 2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and let the user click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? Again, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on. Presenting the markers would of course help the user find a place, such as London. As long as the presenting of alternatives does not directly expose the underlying point from the OSM db, for example by clicking on a marker and thereby copying the exact coordinates from the db, than this is basically same as 1. If the coordinates are copied, it would be a case where the share alike clause should kick in. I do not see that case 3 and 4 change in the light of our own license change. Comments? /Olov
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On 28/02/13 14:58, Olov McKie wrote: Hello All! Hi Olov, I'll give this a go. My answers are a long way down because I think cases 1-3 are all essentially the same: First off, thank you for the feedback I have gotten so far! I had an idea about what answers I would get on my questions, but some of your answers were not what I expected, so let me reason a bit about each case and I would love your feedback on my reasoning. Please also look on case 3 and 4 as no one has said anything about them yet. 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use the coordinates they clicked on as part of the meta-data for a place in our application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? To clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the map to for example London and then click somewhere in London. I was expecting this to be OK. If I were to use my old paperback world atlas to find the latitude and longitude of different places around the world, and then store those coordinates along with an awful lot of other information in a database, in no way would I expect whoever wrote that atlas to have copyright claims on my database. I see this as fair use of the atlas and I see the use of an application showing a map where the user clicks on the map as equivalent to an atlas and was therefor not expecting this to be an issue. As some of you see this as copying would I like to ask sub questions: 1a. What license would a coordinate extracted this way be under? As the application displaying the map keeps track of the coordinates and normally can display any map layer (OSM and others) and we are not extracting raw data from the database, but just using the rendered view (CC-BY-SA) to help us orient the applications coordinate position to a place we can find on the globe. Will the coordinates extracted from the application be CC-BY-SA or ODbL? 1b. If I move the map to a place that is not yet mapped, for instance a small village not at all represented on the map, but I know its location relative to surrounding places, roads etc., then I ask the application for its position, do you also see this as copying of map data? 1c. If I use another map layer (NOT OSM) to position my application to a specific place on the globe, then ask the application to change the mapping layer to an OSM representation, then ask the application for the coordinates by clicking on the map, would you consider this copying of OSM data? 1d. If I have a printed OSM map of the world and use that to find coordinates for places that I then put in our database, would you consider that copying of OSM data, if so, would the coordinates be CC-BY-SA or ODbL? 2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and let the user click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? Again, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on. Presenting the markers would of course help the user find a place, such as London. I saw this as very similar to case 1, and using the same atlas reference as in case 1 (using the map registry to find the correct page), I would consider this OK. But I am in this case using raw map data to display positions on the map, so it is definitely getting closer to copying data, and I was expecting some people to find this as ok and some as not ok. 3. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and if we have more then one result ask the user to fill in more details about the place such as, country, region, close to major city, local name, etc until overpass only returns on result, would the user entered data be considered a derived database? To clarify, in this case would we not extract the coordinates or any other data from the map. I can not see this as anything but OK, we are not storing any information from the map, just user entered data. But if someone has an idea how this could be considered copying in such a way that the ODbLs share alike clause would kick in, would I definitely like to hear it. All these cases are of course OK in the sense that yes, you can do them. The only question here is whether you would you be required to release the resulting data for free. It seems to me that all these points involve presenting your user with a map (a Produced Work in ODbL terms), and getting them to give you geodata relative to that. Produced Works don't have to be licensed under ODbL - they don't have to have any specific license - so if you use map tiles whose license doesn't require any derived data to be shared back to
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then distribute it as some kind of “OSM but better” without releasing the proprietary data is a feature of share-alike licenses, not a bug. Not every feature is a good feature, just like in software. There are features that are just a bad idea. In this case, the share alike feature protects us from something that just won't hurt OSM anyway, in fact it would help OSM. Someone goes mixes OSM with proprietary data, sells the result? Awesome! This is exactly what's going on today with tiles, no? If the individual, company or organization who sells improved OSM data does not give back into the OSM ecosystem by creating better tools or contributing unencumbered data, they're just plain dumb. Open source or open data is not something you're forced to do, you're doing it because you're smart. There is further a false premise that most potential data users who have to weigh opening non-OSM data they're mixing in somehow have a choice. They more likely don't and hence we lose them as contributors entirely. Specifically: - they more likely just don't own the data they'd like to mix with OSM - they more likely work in a bureaucratic organization where opening data is just a multi year endeavour What we wind up with is a well intentioned share alike clause that keeps people away rather than help grow the open geo data space. It comes down to this: incentive to contribute by opening OSM data to any uses incentive to contribute through retaining share-alike The public domain argument is a bit of a red herring. If OSM used a PD-like license like PDDL or CC0 then we would be unable to make use of most of the external sources that we use, having to drop at a bare minimum 40% of the ways in the DB, and likely much more. Interesting, can you expand on this a little more? Like for instance what's a good example of a current external source or two effectively requiring us to have a share-alike license? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:36:48 -0500, Alex Barth wrote: On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Paul Norman wrote: The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then distribute it as some kind of “OSM but better” without releasing the proprietary data is a feature of share-alike licenses, not a bug. Not every feature is a good feature, just like in software. There are features that are just a bad idea. In this case, the share alike feature protects us from something that just won't hurt OSM anyway, in fact it would help OSM. But OSM doesn't exist to gobble up data. It exists to ensure that everyone is free to use its data. Please note that by use I mean interact with, not prevent other people from using. If you want to lock people out of access to OSM data in your application, you are preventing use of that data. Someone goes mixes OSM with proprietary data, sells the result? Awesome! This is exactly what's going on today with tiles, no? If the individual, company or organization who sells improved OSM data does not give back into the OSM ecosystem by creating better tools or contributing unencumbered data, they're just plain dumb. No, they are smart because they are giving their shareholders value rather than leaking it to third parties. Open source or open data is not something you're forced to do, you're doing it because you're smart. But where you do it, you should actually do it. And where the condition of being free to use that data is that others should be free to use it, that is not unreasonable. There is further a false premise that most potential data users who have to weigh opening non-OSM data they're mixing in somehow have a choice. They more likely don't and hence we lose them as contributors entirely. You are arguing that users of OSM data should not be free to use OSM data just in case someone decides to gift back some data to OSM (despite the economic irrationality of this) so that people can benefit fromnot being free to use it. That...doesn't work. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:53:44 +0100 (CET), Olov McKie wrote: As I understand our license change, it can be described as this: (Please correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit history where someone not willing to change the license (decliner) had edited anything was reverted back in history until no edits by any decliner where left, thereby creating a clean database. All cleaning operations where based on data history in the database. Yes. This was to ensure there was no possible legal conflict, and no possible emotional upset. Now imagine this: A decliner adds street names on two streets Street A and Street B, they have an intersection. Then I by Local knowledge know that there is a shop in the intersection of Street A and Street B add that shop (Shop A) to the map. Someone else adds another shop (Shop B) to the right of the shop I added (Shop A) based on the fact that Shop B is right of Shop A. Now the license change happened and the street names where removed, but as far as I know the shops where left as they had no direct history in the database related to the decliners edits. The positions of Shop A is directly deducted from the decliners copyrighted information about what the streets are called. The position of Shop B is then based on the position of Shop A, therefor indirectly deducted from the copyrighted information of the decliner. Which part of the data from the decliner's edit sets is incorporated in your additions? - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On 02/28/2013 05:54 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote: I'm a little confused. The way I interpret your comment, merely storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share alike. But on the use cases wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says: 'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or together in the same database software, whether that is a RDBMS, NOSQL, filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't derived from OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a Derivative Database.' In other words, storing ODbL and non-ODbL data together does not trigger share alike. What I understand is that the difference between Derivative Database and Collective Database is whether or not the data is published under a common namespace. What storage is used does not matter. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On 28/02/13 08:04, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: On 02/28/2013 05:54 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote: I'm a little confused. The way I interpret your comment, merely storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share alike. But on the use cases wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says: 'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or together in the same database software, whether that is a RDBMS, NOSQL, filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't derived from OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a Derivative Database.' In other words, storing ODbL and non-ODbL data together does not trigger share alike. What I understand is that the difference between Derivative Database and Collective Database is whether or not the data is published under a common namespace. What storage is used does not matter. What publication techniques you use are as irrelevant to database share-alike as what storage techniques you use. A set of data forms a Derivative Database if it's derived from OSM (modified, arranged, adapted etc); and if not - if it's just stored next to it or retrieved together with it - it's a Collective Database. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3d._If_I_use_your_data_together_with_someone_else.27s_data.2C_do_I_have_to_apply_your_license_to_their_data_too.3F says this in slightly different words: If the two datasets are independent ... this is a *Collective Database*. If you adapt them to work together (for example, by taking footpaths from the OSM data, roads from the third-party data, and connecting them for routing), this is a Derivative Database. J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
The use of the term Database in an intellectual property context has essentially nothing to do with the CS/IT concept of a database. The statement on the wiki is correct, and Alexs statement was a bit misleading. I don't think this discussion has made any progress since the last time it came up. I'm still waiting for a concrete (geocoding) use case which we would reasonably want to allow without triggering share-a-like. Simon Am 28.02.2013 05:54, schrieb Jake Wasserman: Alex, I'm a little confused. The way I interpret your comment, merely storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share alike. But on the use cases wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says: 'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or together in the same database software, whether that is a RDBMS, NOSQL, filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't derived from OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a Derivative Database.' In other words, storing ODbL and non-ODbL data together does not trigger share alike. Just trying to get some clarification. Thanks, Jake On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com mailto:a...@mapbox.com wrote: Rob - as long as you don't mix ODbL data and other data in the same database, ODbL's share alike cause doesn't kick in. So using the OSM tiles on your web site doesn't mean that data in your web site is affected. I recommend reading the ODbL, it's pretty clear that way http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ (And yes, I know, an open license shouldn't be that long and that complicated, but that's another story). On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Rob smartt...@gmail.com mailto:smartt...@gmail.com wrote: It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used. What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is trivially disprovable. Where is the line in the sand? For example I have a website which is driven by several databases whichinclude everything from website members info t I then integrate OSM into the website by including interactive map tiles, address searches (geocoding), POI placement / inclusion, routing, etc... Sent from my iPhone On Feb 27, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net mailto:rich...@systemed.net wrote: WhereAmI wrote: It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used. What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is trivially disprovable. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org mailto: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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Hello All! First off, thank you for the feedback I have gotten so far! I had an idea about what answers I would get on my questions, but some of your answers were not what I expected, so let me reason a bit about each case and I would love your feedback on my reasoning. Please also look on case 3 and 4 as no one has said anything about them yet. 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use the coordinates they clicked on as part of the meta-data for a place in our application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? To clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the map to for example London and then click somewhere in London. I was expecting this to be OK. If I were to use my old paperback world atlas to find the latitude and longitude of different places around the world, and then store those coordinates along with an awful lot of other information in a database, in no way would I expect whoever wrote that atlas to have copyright claims on my database. I see this as fair use of the atlas and I see the use of an application showing a map where the user clicks on the map as equivalent to an atlas and was therefor not expecting this to be an issue. As some of you see this as copying would I like to ask sub questions: 1a. What license would a coordinate extracted this way be under? As the application displaying the map keeps track of the coordinates and normally can display any map layer (OSM and others) and we are not extracting raw data from the database, but just using the rendered view (CC-BY-SA) to help us orient the applications coordinate position to a place we can find on the globe. Will the coordinates extracted from the application be CC-BY-SA or ODbL? 1b. If I move the map to a place that is not yet mapped, for instance a small village not at all represented on the map, but I know its location relative to surrounding places, roads etc., then I ask the application for its position, do you also see this as copying of map data? 1c. If I use another map layer (NOT OSM) to position my application to a specific place on the globe, then ask the application to change the mapping layer to an OSM representation, then ask the application for the coordinates by clicking on the map, would you consider this copying of OSM data? 1d. If I have a printed OSM map of the world and use that to find coordinates for places that I then put in our database, would you consider that copying of OSM data, if so, would the coordinates be CC-BY-SA or ODbL? 2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and let the user click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? Again, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on. Presenting the markers would of course help the user find a place, such as London. I saw this as very similar to case 1, and using the same atlas reference as in case 1 (using the map registry to find the correct page), I would consider this OK. But I am in this case using raw map data to display positions on the map, so it is definitely getting closer to copying data, and I was expecting some people to find this as ok and some as not ok. 3. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and if we have more then one result ask the user to fill in more details about the place such as, country, region, close to major city, local name, etc until overpass only returns on result, would the user entered data be considered a derived database? To clarify, in this case would we not extract the coordinates or any other data from the map. I can not see this as anything but OK, we are not storing any information from the map, just user entered data. But if someone has an idea how this could be considered copying in such a way that the ODbLs share alike clause would kick in, would I definitely like to hear it. 4. If we present several places (all data about the place including coordinates originates from other sources than OSM) on an OSM map to help find duplicates, and then lets the user click on two places marked on the map, to merge them into one, would the resulting database be considered a derived database? I can not see this as anything but OK. A mapping application would solve this use-case with or without a map as a background layer, just visualizing the places on the coordinate grid with a scale present would immediately show duplicates so the OSM layer is only a nice visual touch and I can not see how it would be considered copying of OSM data. But if anyone has a different view
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote: 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use the coordinates they clicked on as part of the meta-data for a place in our application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? To clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the map to for example London and then click somewhere in London. I was expecting this to be OK. If I were to use my old paperback world atlas to find the latitude and longitude of different places around the world, and then store those coordinates along with an awful lot of other information in a database, in no way would I expect whoever wrote that atlas to have copyright claims on my database. I see this as fair use of the atlas and I see the use of an application showing a map where the user clicks on the map as equivalent to an atlas and was therefor not expecting this to be an issue. As some of you see this as copying would I like to ask sub questions: You're letting users pinpoint locations on a map created using OSM data. How is this different from tracing roads and buildings from a map created using OSM data? I think most people agree that such tracing indeed creates derivative data based on the OSM database. And I think it makes no difference if the tracing is on a point by point basis or via lines or polygons. So my opinion is that those coordinates should be licensed under the ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Jake Wasserman jwasser...@gmail.comwrote: 'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or together in the same database software, whether that is a RDBMS, NOSQL, filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't derived from OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a Derivative Database.' This looks off. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On 28/02/13 00:17, Frederik Ramm wrote: As I said in my opening paragraph, the share-alike license never prohibits you from doing something with the data; it just prohibits you from prohibiting stuff! 3 - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On 28.02.2013 01:17, Frederik Ramm wrote: Just to make this one point clear: What you *can* do with the data is pretty clear and pretty easy. This is not really true. At the core of the ODbL is the idea that produced works and derivative databases should be treated differently, and that distinction is difficult to make and unclear for everything that is not explicitly listed as one of the examples of a produced work. Just as one example, Matthias Meißer recently forwarded a question about the legal nature of 3D city models in the light of ODbL to this list and apparently no one was able to clarify. I believe that such ambiguous and complex distinctions go against the purpose of a free license to make it easy and safe to reuse data. You are right that there are also cases where it is clear that something is not permitted, and the problem is merely that some of us would want it to be legal instead. The original question probably falls into this category. But I still wanted to point ot that this clarity does not exist for all possible use cases. As I said in my op*ening paragraph, the share-alike license never prohibits you from doing something with the data; it just prohibits you from prohibiting stuff! It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative databases. For example, merging some OSM data now forces you to prohibit the use of your improved database as a source for Wikidata - or for OSM if we ever change our license again. Tobias ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On 27/02/13 20:24, Marc Regan wrote: I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand. +1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the cloud of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data is pretty terrifying. -1 This is obvious nonsense. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On 27/02/13 21:19, Rob wrote: Rather than share-alike I would like to share-what-I-like but that is not an option. And I'd like you to make me a sandwich. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On 28/02/13 23:45, Tobias Knerr wrote: It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative databases. That doesn't prohibit anything. You can make derivative databases. You just can't prohibit people from using them freely. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
It would prohibit me from using the CC0 license if I use any data with a ODbL license to create a derived database. - Svavar Kjarrval On 28/02/13 23:49, Rob Myers wrote: On 28/02/13 23:45, Tobias Knerr wrote: It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative databases. That doesn't prohibit anything. You can make derivative databases. You just can't prohibit people from using them freely. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think that the OSM community is already very open towards commercial use; This is bigger than just commercial use. The ODbL is an obstacle to contribute to OSM for anyone - business or not - who is bound by the constraints of using third party data whose license they can't control or for anyone who's bound by law to keep their data in the public domain. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then distribute it as some kind of “OSM but better” without releasing the proprietary data is a feature of share-alike licenses, not a bug. The public domain argument is a bit of a red herring. If OSM used a PD-like license like PDDL or CC0 then we would be unable to make use of most of the external sources that we use, having to drop at a bare minimum 40% of the ways in the DB, and likely much more. Even if OSM went with PDDL or CC0 we wouldn’t truly be PD, and that could still pose issues. In many ways this is similar to GPL vs BSD license debates from the software world, although ODbL is closer to LGPL with its weaker share-alike and produced works. Both licenses have their benefits and drawbacks. From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:21 PM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think that the OSM community is already very open towards commercial use; This is bigger than just commercial use. The ODbL is an obstacle to contribute to OSM for anyone - business or not - who is bound by the constraints of using third party data whose license they can't control or for anyone who's bound by law to keep their data in the public domain. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: My understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but at the moment it is not. Correct? Correct. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: My understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but at the moment it is not. Correct? Actually to be more specific: I'm saying I would like geocoding-like use cases to be clarified, at the moment it is not clear. Here is what we should do: specifically allow narrow extractions of OSM for geocoding-like use cases to happen without the share-alike clause to kick in.. I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand. +1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the cloud of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data is pretty terrifying. Instead of rallying around the community and getting excited about improving OSM, you instead spend time looking at alternatives and trying to find lawyers who are experts in software licensing who you can afford to talk to. The share-alike clause makes the barrier to using OSM data very high. -- Marc Regan On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Alex Barth wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com (mailto:k...@maploser.com) wrote: My understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but at the moment it is not. Correct? Actually to be more specific: I'm saying I would like geocoding-like use cases to be clarified, at the moment it is not clear. Here is what we should do: specifically allow narrow extractions of OSM for geocoding-like use cases to happen without the share-alike clause to kick in.. I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org (mailto: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] License question, user clicking on map
It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used. That may be an appearance, but it is not true. Actually, you should be fine, this is a very common use case. There are some details, but when making tiles, as long as they are only rendered together, not put together in a single database, there's no share-alike. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases#Case_3:_I_want_to_publish_something_based_on_OSM_and_my_own_data I agree this isn't clear. Confusion is certainly an issue with ODbL. Alex's issue with geocoding is different. I agree, we need to take a serious look at this, and have it clarified. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron From: Rob smartt...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:19 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map +1 +1 +1 Would love to use OSM data to create a tile server for a project I have in the works but the share-alike clause has stopped me from moving forward with OSM. Rather than share-alike I would like to share-what-I-like but that is not an option. Currently there seems to be no limit to what OSM could claim rights to under the share-alike clause. It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used. Rob Sent from my iPhone On Feb 27, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Marc Regan marcre...@gmail.com wrote: I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand. +1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the cloud of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data is pretty terrifying. Instead of rallying around the community and getting excited about improving OSM, you instead spend time looking at alternatives and trying to find lawyers who are experts in software licensing who you can afford to talk to. The share-alike clause makes the barrier to using OSM data very high. -- Marc Regan On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Alex Barth wrote: On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: My understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but at the moment it is not. Correct? Actually to be more specific: I'm saying I would like geocoding-like use cases to be clarified, at the moment it is not clear. Here is what we should do: specifically allow narrow extractions of OSM for geocoding-like use cases to happen without the share-alike clause to kick in.. I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand. ___ 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 ___ 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] License question, user clicking on map
WhereAmI wrote: It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used. What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is trivially disprovable. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used. What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is trivially disprovable. Where is the line in the sand? For example I have a website which is driven by several databases whichinclude everything from website members info t I then integrate OSM into the website by including interactive map tiles, address searches (geocoding), POI placement / inclusion, routing, etc... Sent from my iPhone On Feb 27, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: WhereAmI wrote: It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used. What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is trivially disprovable. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] License question, user clicking on map
Rob - as long as you don't mix ODbL data and other data in the same database, ODbL's share alike cause doesn't kick in. So using the OSM tiles on your web site doesn't mean that data in your web site is affected. I recommend reading the ODbL, it's pretty clear that way http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ (And yes, I know, an open license shouldn't be that long and that complicated, but that's another story). On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Rob smartt...@gmail.com wrote: It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used. What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is trivially disprovable. Where is the line in the sand? For example I have a website which is driven by several databases whichinclude everything from website members info t I then integrate OSM into the website by including interactive map tiles, address searches (geocoding), POI placement / inclusion, routing, etc... Sent from my iPhone On Feb 27, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: WhereAmI wrote: It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used. What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is trivially disprovable. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Hi, On 27.02.2013 21:24, Marc Regan wrote: +1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the cloud of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data is pretty terrifying. Just to make this one point clear: What you *can* do with the data is pretty clear and pretty easy. Some use cases run into trouble specifically because an essential part of the use case is that third parties *cannot* do something. OSM are not the ones that prohibit certain uses; it is those who want to prohibit certain uses that (sometimes) have a problem with OSM. The share-alike clause makes the barrier to using OSM data very high. It is essentially a question of business models. It is true that it is sometimes difficult to marry share-alike data with all our data belong to us business models. We've had these discussions a lot in the run-up to the license change; we had people to whom even the lighter rules on produced works that the ODbL brought were an unacceptable weakening of share-alike. I think that the OSM community is already very open towards commercial use; even in CC-BY-SA times, a large majority explicitly approved of commercial use of our data which is not something you can take for granted in a volunteer project, and ODbL has made things easier at least for those use cases where non-database works are considered. Before we complain and ask for more and more concessions from the OSM community in order to build more and more commercial products with OSM instead of proprietary geodata, we should think about what we already have - it is a lot, and represents a huge value. Personally while I'd be happy with a PD license, I don't think that the concept if you want to build proprietary solutions and make $$$ from the fact that they're proprietary then you have to pay someone $$$ to buy proprietary geodata is too outrageous. As I said in my opening paragraph, the share-alike license never prohibits you from doing something with the data; it just prohibits you from prohibiting stuff! 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] License question, user clicking on map
Alex, I'm a little confused. The way I interpret your comment, merely storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share alike. But on the use cases wiki page ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says: 'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or together in the same database software, whether that is a RDBMS, NOSQL, filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't derived from OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a Derivative Database.' In other words, storing ODbL and non-ODbL data together does not trigger share alike. Just trying to get some clarification. Thanks, Jake On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: Rob - as long as you don't mix ODbL data and other data in the same database, ODbL's share alike cause doesn't kick in. So using the OSM tiles on your web site doesn't mean that data in your web site is affected. I recommend reading the ODbL, it's pretty clear that way http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ (And yes, I know, an open license shouldn't be that long and that complicated, but that's another story). On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Rob smartt...@gmail.com wrote: It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used. What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is trivially disprovable. Where is the line in the sand? For example I have a website which is driven by several databases whichinclude everything from website members info t I then integrate OSM into the website by including interactive map tiles, address searches (geocoding), POI placement / inclusion, routing, etc... Sent from my iPhone On Feb 27, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: WhereAmI wrote: It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used. What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is trivially disprovable. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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 ___ 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] License question, user clicking on map
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote: Hej Erik! Would you please consider reading my mail one more time, and clarify your answers, because I do not understand what you are trying to say. No where in my mail did I say anything about using Google maps or their API, yet for the two usecases you have answered about are you talking about using Google Maps. You are also writing about adding data to OSM, that is not the scenario I have described in our usecases. Hej Olov It wasn't a mistake to involve GMaps. Basically if you can do it in GMaps then you can most probably do it in OSM, if you can't do it with GMaps then OSM will allow it if you publish under ODBL. I just think it's much clear if I use GMaps as an example because there is a lot more material on what you can and can't do with GMaps. MvH Erik Johansson (Now back to skiing, with out a GPS :-( ) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote: I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application to handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digitalized versions of the works. To know where an item was created, a letter sent from / to, etc we need to store places and information about them. The information we normally store about a place is name, alternative names, names translated to different languages, etc. A place might be a historic one that no longer exists. [..] We will not be able to share the complete db under the ODbL as the works have all kinds of licenses that are incompatible with the ODbL. Hej Olov, this is an interesting project. You are going to produce some pretty awesome data, spend countless hours of work, money and publish it for free, and then when the project is over it will bitrot because of license issues.. This is a perfect example of where a hardline stance on license will serve you. Sure there are projects in OSM that can benefit of those historical names, but I'm saying this for you, don't waste effort unless you know what will happen to the data. Go and talk with the nice folks at: http://www.creativecommons.se/ (in Gothenburg I think) http://se.wikimedia.org/ (offices in Stockholm so you can probably pop by) 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and OSM doesn't allow to inclusion of data from Google maps that was entered this way. But lots and lots of people do it e.g. Wikipedia, so it's up to you, but it's not unproblematic. 2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, The question you have to ask is it ok under ToS of Google Maps address searching (geocoding). Well except that part where you are not allowed to use Google products behind a firewall. So I do not agree at all with Alex Barth on this, but I've been wrong before. Lycka till, och ge inte upp! Erik Johansson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Hej Erik! Would you please consider reading my mail one more time, and clarify your answers, because I do not understand what you are trying to say. No where in my mail did I say anything about using Google maps or their API, yet for the two usecases you have answered about are you talking about using Google Maps. You are also writing about adding data to OSM, that is not the scenario I have described in our usecases. /Olov On Fri, Feb 22, 2013, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application to handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digitalized versions of the works. To know where an item was created, a letter sent from / to, etc we need to store places and information about them. The information we normally store about a place is name, alternative names, names translated to different languages, etc. A place might be a historic one that no longer exists. [..] We will not be able to share the complete db under the ODbL as the works have all kinds of licenses that are incompatible with the ODbL. Hej Olov, this is an interesting project. You are going to produce some pretty awesome data, spend countless hours of work, money and publish it for free, and then when the project is over it will bitrot because of license issues.. This is a perfect example of where a hardline stance on license will serve you. Sure there are projects in OSM that can benefit of those historical names, but I'm saying this for you, don't waste effort unless you know what will happen to the data. Go and talk with the nice folks at: http://www.creativecommons.se/ (in Gothenburg I think) http://se.wikimedia.org/ (offices in Stockholm so you can probably pop by) 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and OSM doesn't allow to inclusion of data from Google maps that was entered this way. But lots and lots of people do it e.g. Wikipedia, so it's up to you, but it's not unproblematic. 2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, The question you have to ask is it ok under ToS of Google Maps address searching (geocoding). Well except that part where you are not allowed to use Google products behind a firewall. So I do not agree at all with Alex Barth on this, but I've been wrong before. Lycka till, och ge inte upp! Erik Johansson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Hi Alex, You might want to clarify because your email is a bit confusing. My understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but at the moment it is not. Correct? Yes it is important to clarify the share alike clause, but I think also important not to confuse people asking how the licensing currently works. -Kate On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: I think all of these use cases should be ok and we should adjust the community guide lines to clarify that ODbL's share alike clause shouldn't kick in here. On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote: Hello all! I have a few usecases for OSM where I do not know if I can use it or not. I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application to handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digitalized versions of the works. To know where an item was created, a letter sent from / to, etc we need to store places and information about them. The information we normally store about a place is name, alternative names, names translated to different languages, etc. A place might be a historic one that no longer exists. In the current system, metadata about a place is constructed by giving it a name, known variations of the name, which country it is in (problematic as it might change over the time) and translation of the name. As an OSM user and contributor my first reaction was, we can make the places more precise and avoid the changing countries problem by using coordinates for places, and also present them in a better way. As the applications data should be readable for a long time (forever), will we be storing all metadata together with the digitalized objects. We will over the lifetime of the application construct several thousand places. We will not be able to share the complete db under the ODbL as the works have all kinds of licenses that are incompatible with the ODbL. The resulting system will be accessible for anyone from the Internet, subsections might have restricted access. 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use the coordinates they clicked on as part of the metadata for a place in our application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? To clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the map to for example London and then click somewhere in London. 2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and let the user click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? Again, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on. Presenting the markers would of course help the user find a place, such as London. 3. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and if we have more then one result ask the user to fill in more details about the place such as, country, region, close to major city, local name, etc until overpass only returns on result, would the user entered data be considered a derived database? To clarify, in this case would we not extract the coordinates or any other data from the map. 4. If we present several places (all data about the place including coordinates originates from other sources than OSM) on an OSM map to help find duplicates, and then lets the user click on two places marked on the map, to merge them into one, would the resulting database be considered a derived database? I would love for us to use OSM in our application, but I have been unable to find out if we can use it for the four usecases presented above. with hope of a speedy answer /Olov ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Hello all! I have a few usecases for OSM where I do not know if I can use it or not. I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application to handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digitalized versions of the works. To know where an item was created, a letter sent from / to, etc we need to store places and information about them. The information we normally store about a place is name, alternative names, names translated to different languages, etc. A place might be a historic one that no longer exists. In the current system, metadata about a place is constructed by giving it a name, known variations of the name, which country it is in (problematic as it might change over the time) and translation of the name. As an OSM user and contributor my first reaction was, we can make the places more precise and avoid the changing countries problem by using coordinates for places, and also present them in a better way. As the applications data should be readable for a long time (forever), will we be storing all metadata together with the digitalized objects. We will over the lifetime of the application construct several thousand places. We will not be able to share the complete db under the ODbL as the works have all kinds of licenses that are incompatible with the ODbL. The resulting system will be accessible for anyone from the Internet, subsections might have restricted access. 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use the coordinates they clicked on as part of the metadata for a place in our application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? To clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the map to for example London and then click somewhere in London. 2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and let the user click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? Again, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on. Presenting the markers would of course help the user find a place, such as London. 3. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and if we have more then one result ask the user to fill in more details about the place such as, country, region, close to major city, local name, etc until overpass only returns on result, would the user entered data be considered a derived database? To clarify, in this case would we not extract the coordinates or any other data from the map. 4. If we present several places (all data about the place including coordinates originates from other sources than OSM) on an OSM map to help find duplicates, and then lets the user click on two places marked on the map, to merge them into one, would the resulting database be considered a derived database? I would love for us to use OSM in our application, but I have been unable to find out if we can use it for the four usecases presented above. with hope of a speedy answer /Olov ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
I think all of these use cases should be ok and we should adjust the community guide lines to clarify that ODbL's share alike clause shouldn't kick in here. On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote: Hello all! I have a few usecases for OSM where I do not know if I can use it or not. I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application to handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digitalized versions of the works. To know where an item was created, a letter sent from / to, etc we need to store places and information about them. The information we normally store about a place is name, alternative names, names translated to different languages, etc. A place might be a historic one that no longer exists. In the current system, metadata about a place is constructed by giving it a name, known variations of the name, which country it is in (problematic as it might change over the time) and translation of the name. As an OSM user and contributor my first reaction was, we can make the places more precise and avoid the changing countries problem by using coordinates for places, and also present them in a better way. As the applications data should be readable for a long time (forever), will we be storing all metadata together with the digitalized objects. We will over the lifetime of the application construct several thousand places. We will not be able to share the complete db under the ODbL as the works have all kinds of licenses that are incompatible with the ODbL. The resulting system will be accessible for anyone from the Internet, subsections might have restricted access. 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use the coordinates they clicked on as part of the metadata for a place in our application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? To clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the map to for example London and then click somewhere in London. 2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and let the user click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? Again, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on. Presenting the markers would of course help the user find a place, such as London. 3. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and if we have more then one result ask the user to fill in more details about the place such as, country, region, close to major city, local name, etc until overpass only returns on result, would the user entered data be considered a derived database? To clarify, in this case would we not extract the coordinates or any other data from the map. 4. If we present several places (all data about the place including coordinates originates from other sources than OSM) on an OSM map to help find duplicates, and then lets the user click on two places marked on the map, to merge them into one, would the resulting database be considered a derived database? I would love for us to use OSM in our application, but I have been unable to find out if we can use it for the four usecases presented above. with hope of a speedy answer /Olov ___ 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
