Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 30.10.2012 13:30, Michael Collinson wrote: I propose that we base a re-write on: *OpenStreetMap considers **Open Data to be a usefully collected set of intelligently or machine-made physical observations only. Purely algorithmic augmentation of data and re-casting of data to use, store or transmit it in different manners is not part of the data IP. Share Alike may however apply to physical observations inside the augmented or re-cast data; in this case the physical observations must be provided to the public in a commonly used or documented open format as per ODbL clause 4.6b*. The wording might be improved, but that is the general idea. I just want to say that I like this suggestion. It is the first time I've seen a possible definition of what would be required to be published because of the Share Alike clause - and what wouldn't - that draws a clearly understandable line and where I could actually imagine that it would be reasonably applicable in practice. Tobias ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
From: Tobias Knerr [mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 12:14 AM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL On 30.10.2012 13:30, Michael Collinson wrote: I propose that we base a re-write on: *OpenStreetMap considers **Open Data to be a usefully collected set of intelligently or machine-made physical observations only. Purely algorithmic augmentation of data and re-casting of data to use, store or transmit it in different manners is not part of the data IP. Share Alike may however apply to physical observations inside the augmented or re-cast data; in this case the physical observations must be provided to the public in a commonly used or documented open format as per ODbL clause 4.6b*. The wording might be improved, but that is the general idea. I just want to say that I like this suggestion. It is the first time I've seen a possible definition of what would be required to be published because of the Share Alike clause - and what wouldn't - that draws a clearly understandable line and where I could actually imagine that it would be reasonably applicable in practice. I like that interpretation, the question is if it is supported by the text of the ODbL. If it isn't then the statement is of no value. Reading 4.6.b and the paragraph below it there might be some justification for such an interpretation in the lower paragraph. The lower paragraph talks about the alteration file (under b.) In my mind, this is envisioning the file under 4.6.b being a diff of some kind adding new data, not a file describing a purely algorithmic transformation of data that includes no new data. You would of course be required to state how to apply the diff (e.g. take this .osc and use osmosis to apply it to planet.osm). It could also be something more complicated (e.g. use this program that reads in the OSM file, matches the objects against this shapefile and adds extra attributes from the shapefile). Additional support for this would be that the act of converting a copyrighted work (e.g. a map, to the extent that it's protected by copyright) from one format to another does not generally attract copyright protection. Weighing against this interpretation is the broad definition of derivative database in the ODbL. I like the proposed text, I just have an itching feeling it might require ODbL 1.1 to implement. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 01/11/12 04:20, James Livingston wrote: On 30 October 2012 20:46, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org wrote: On 10/30/12 08:19, Igor Brejc wrote: Some then say that these in-memory data structures are also Derivative Databases. In what form can you then offer such a Database to someone that requests it? I don't think there's a way how one could require the making available of such a transient structure without making OSM data processing totally impractical. I'm pretty sure I was the one who mentioned that issue last time the question came up, or at least one of the few who did. The main issue is that there isn't really a clear line between a permanent database and a transient structure. Consider some scenarios: The license says you must either give people the derivative database, or the method of making it. If you can't give away the derivative database (because it was transient), then you must surely give the method (source code). [snip] Also important is that as someone who receives a copy of the Produced Work, you can't tell how it's produced. What is to stop someone doing (1) and then when you ask for the database just saying it was all done in-memory, there's no database? The risks if they were found out, perhaps? (Bad PR, losing their job, going to jail for fraud etc.) Turning it the another way, say you had OSM data and another database, which you had separately rendered to images. I'm pretty sure that you could then overlay one image on another and serve the combined one to people (provided you satisfy the attribution requirements for the OSM data). If on the other hand you combined the two databases and then rendered the images, you would have a Derived Database you need to release. That depends on the way you did the combination. If the second data set remained independent of the OSM data then you would have a Collective, not Derivative Database. How is anyone else supposed to tell the difference? If they ask you to release the combined database and you replied They were rendered separately and then combined, I don't have to release it, is there anything to do? That's a question of license enforcement, isn't it? I don't have an answer, but in the case where people are going to break the license and lie about doing so, it probably doesn't matter what the license says. 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] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 10/31/2012 09:20 PM, James Livingston wrote: there isn't really a clear line between a permanent database and a transient structure. Other than that the former can be made available and the latter cannot (practically speaking). - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 30/10/12 13:47, Michael Collinson wrote: On 30/10/2012 13:07, Jonathan Harley wrote: [snip] One thing that's confusing me, is that http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright does not say what license applies to the contents. ODbL specifically says that it only applies to the database and a separate license is required for the contents. It suggests that a notice should be inserted prominently in all relevant locations which surely includes the copyright wiki page. I remember earlier discussions on this list about using ODcL for the contents. Was this what was agreed on? LWG, anyone? Hi Jonathan, The short answer is the the contributor terms control content and that the relevant wording there is heavily modelled on ODcL. As a low priority TODO, I'll trace back the exact mechanism to see if we can be more obvious about the relationships on the copyright page without using tortuous language. It has been a while. I really think it does need to be more obvious. The copyright page is the obvious place for prospective consumers of OSM data to find out what they can do with it. It doesn't currently mention the CTs, nor would a consumer who is not an OSM contributor think of looking at the CTs. ODbL itself recommends that we give a clear statement about what license applies to the database contents, and we're not doing that. Also, thanks for your clarification yesterday about copyright. It strikes me that the Community Guidelines pages are not structured in a way that's very easy for a prospective data consumer to use, and that what we need is something more goal-oriented; perhaps broken down by use-cases, if you want to do this... your legal requirements are this. 1) does something like that exist and I've missed it? 2) if no, has the LWG considered doing something like that? 3) if no, should I have a stab at a draft for OSM-legal-talk to comment on? 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] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
2012/10/30 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: See also: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#What_sort_of_access_to_Derivative_Databases_is_required.3F The page is quite old; the green boxes represent legal advice that we have received at the time. It is also acceptable to provide a copy, diff or instructions for the latest version of the derivative database - it isn't necessary to retain old versions of the database. You are not required to provide regular dumps - the only requirement is that you provide them on request. What if you make a derivative database and render from this. Every time you have rendered a feature, you remove the rendered feature from the database. Your latest derivative database will be empty ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
(After a hiatus - I've been discussing this off-list with Anthony and others.) On 22/10/12 23:13, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/22 Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net: Anyway, the ODbL is explicit that an image is an example of a produced work, so for anyone creating them, their responsibility is clear: include the notice required for produced works. It's also explicit that a produced work is not a derivative database (4.5b), so it follows that a map image does not have to be licensed using ODbL. So, the hypothetical person wishing to publish on a stock art website only has to decide whether they wish to impose ODbL or some other restriction on their work, or not. Not imposing any restrictions on an image is clearly allowed. (In which case a database derived from the image would not be bound by ODbL.) Then this is clearly a loophole. You could render (with a dedicated style) the whole world in a very high zoom level (even as raster, if you're in doubt whether vectors might fall under ODbL), apply image recognition on it (would be simple if you used one rendered layer per feature) and reassemble the whole database. I am simplifying this process, but it is clearly possible. This (both Jonathan's comment and your response) confuses copyright law. Yes, you don't have to release a Produced Work under ODbL. But if you don't have a license on the Produced Work, then all rights are reserved. Only *if* copyright is there at all. What is in question is whether a substantial amount of material that is OSM's copyright is present in a map I make using OSM's data. If it isn't, then it follows that OSM cannot reserve any rights in my work, explicitly or otherwise. To recap, OSM does not assert database rights on a produced work such as a map image, so only copyright is in question. One thing that's confusing me, is that http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright does not say what license applies to the contents. ODbL specifically says that it only applies to the database and a separate license is required for the contents. It suggests that a notice should be inserted prominently in all relevant locations which surely includes the copyright wiki page. I remember earlier discussions on this list about using ODcL for the contents. Was this what was agreed on? LWG, anyone? 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] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi Igor and fellow legal-talk, A rather long email, so summary: I am rather hijacking Igor's email, but I hope it will help provide an answer though not immediately. The present Trivial Transformation Community Guideline, [1], is applying tactics and discussion without having any overriding strategy or conclusion. It is therefore confusing and difficult to develop further as is. I propose that we base a re-write on: *OpenStreetMap considers **Open Data to be a usefully collected set of intelligently or machine-made physical observations only. Purely algorithmic augmentation of data and re-casting of data to use, store or transmit it in different manners is not part of the data IP. Share Alike may however apply to physical observations inside the augmented or re-cast data; in this case the physical observations must be provided to the public in a commonly used or documented open format as per ODbL clause 4.6b*. The wording might be improved, but that is the general idea. If follows the general direction of discussion within the License Working Group but takes it to a more extreme, but I think logical, conclusion. Argument follows using Igor's posting. I've read it carefully and it doesn't really answer my questions, it just raises some new ones. I rather feared that. *is there a place for proprietary/closed source software in OSM ecosystem*? Yes, that is a key question. I will argue below that yes there absolutely is a place. However, this is not necessarily a consensus view and it is presented for discussion. I see some serious issues with the way how we approach the whole ODbL thing. I do not think the issue is ODbL. The issue is the application of Share Alike to open data under whatever license. ODbL 1.0 has made a tremendous leap forward here. But it is like climbing a mountain. You need to climb the first ridge to start understanding what the rest of the climb looks like. I understand this causes issues for commercial companies, but our primary concern is growing open geodata and *very carefully* evolving open data IP to lower barriers on everyone using it in creative, productive, or unexpected ways. To properly answer Igor, we need to do two things: 1) Establish a general principle that the OSM community is happy with. 2) Determine whether the general principle can be translated into unambiguous wording without gotchas and whether it jives with specific issues, for example as per Frederik's email. It should be presented as a well-written Community Guide line. Once really understood, we can then look at whether ODbL can be improved and give input for other open licenses, such as CC. Here is what I, personally, see as the general principle and the argument for it. OSM, and possibly any open data project, is about collecting a set of physical observations and making them open in an open format. Additionally, (and not used by other projects, like US government data), we want to apply a certain amount of pressure on folks who take advantage of the results to open up and share more physical observations of their own. For that we use Share Alike. Some like this, some don't. But it is what we do. It has some great advantages for commercial entities; it has some headaches. The key words here are physical observations. Messing around with fancy algorithms and neat ways to store data efficiently provides no added value to the data itself. It does not generate more observations. It may provide more interesting information or knowledge, but that is a creative process unrelated to the data itself. [This is the contentious bit, counter comments welcome]. It is a somewhat weak software IP analogy, but if Igor writes an amazing book using vanilla Libre Office, then what he does with the book is irrelevant to Libre Office licensing. He has not done anything to improve Libre Office. The major exception to this is if Igor has somewhere along the line added some more physical observations. Share Alike may apply to these and proprietary transformation or storage mechanism may block access. The obvious solution is to make available the physical observations, just the observations, in an open format, such as OSM XML. And so hence the first attempt at creating clear, unambiguous wording with no side-effects: *OpenStreetMap considers Open Data to be a usefully collected set of intelligently or machine-made physical observations only. Purely algorithmic augmentation of data and re-casting of data to use, store or transmit it in different manners is not part of the data IP. Share Alike may however apply to physical observations inside the augmented or re-cast data; in this case the physical observations must be provided to the public in a commonly used or documented open format as per ODbL clause 4.6b *. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline On 29/10/2012 18:07,
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi Michael, For my part, I really like your proposed wording and I hope we'll reach consensus on these issues in a way that satisfies both producers and consumers of OSM data. Best regards, Igor On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: ** Hi Igor and fellow legal-talk, A rather long email, so summary: I am rather hijacking Igor's email, but I hope it will help provide an answer though not immediately. The present Trivial Transformation Community Guideline, [1], is applying tactics and discussion without having any overriding strategy or conclusion. It is therefore confusing and difficult to develop further as is. I propose that we base a re-write on: *OpenStreetMap considers **Open Data to be a usefully collected set of intelligently or machine-made physical observations only. Purely algorithmic augmentation of data and re-casting of data to use, store or transmit it in different manners is not part of the data IP. Share Alike may however apply to physical observations inside the augmented or re-cast data; in this case the physical observations must be provided to the public in a commonly used or documented open format as per ODbL clause 4.6b*. The wording might be improved, but that is the general idea. If follows the general direction of discussion within the License Working Group but takes it to a more extreme, but I think logical, conclusion. Argument follows using Igor's posting. I've read it carefully and it doesn't really answer my questions, it just raises some new ones. I rather feared that. *is there a place for proprietary/closed source software in OSM ecosystem*? Yes, that is a key question. I will argue below that yes there absolutely is a place. However, this is not necessarily a consensus view and it is presented for discussion. I see some serious issues with the way how we approach the whole ODbL thing. I do not think the issue is ODbL. The issue is the application of Share Alike to open data under whatever license. ODbL 1.0 has made a tremendous leap forward here. But it is like climbing a mountain. You need to climb the first ridge to start understanding what the rest of the climb looks like. I understand this causes issues for commercial companies, but our primary concern is growing open geodata and *very carefully* evolving open data IP to lower barriers on everyone using it in creative, productive, or unexpected ways. To properly answer Igor, we need to do two things: 1) Establish a general principle that the OSM community is happy with. 2) Determine whether the general principle can be translated into unambiguous wording without gotchas and whether it jives with specific issues, for example as per Frederik's email. It should be presented as a well-written Community Guide line. Once really understood, we can then look at whether ODbL can be improved and give input for other open licenses, such as CC. Here is what I, personally, see as the general principle and the argument for it. OSM, and possibly any open data project, is about collecting a set of physical observations and making them open in an open format. Additionally, (and not used by other projects, like US government data), we want to apply a certain amount of pressure on folks who take advantage of the results to open up and share more physical observations of their own. For that we use Share Alike. Some like this, some don't. But it is what we do. It has some great advantages for commercial entities; it has some headaches. The key words here are physical observations. Messing around with fancy algorithms and neat ways to store data efficiently provides no added value to the data itself. It does not generate more observations. It may provide more interesting information or knowledge, but that is a creative process unrelated to the data itself. [This is the contentious bit, counter comments welcome]. It is a somewhat weak software IP analogy, but if Igor writes an amazing book using vanilla Libre Office, then what he does with the book is irrelevant to Libre Office licensing. He has not done anything to improve Libre Office. The major exception to this is if Igor has somewhere along the line added some more physical observations. Share Alike may apply to these and proprietary transformation or storage mechanism may block access. The obvious solution is to make available the physical observations, just the observations, in an open format, such as OSM XML. And so hence the first attempt at creating clear, unambiguous wording with no side-effects: *OpenStreetMap considers Open Data to be a usefully collected set of intelligently or machine-made physical observations only. Purely algorithmic augmentation of data and re-casting of data to use, store or transmit it in different manners is not part of the data IP. Share Alike may however apply to physical observations inside the
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 10/30/12 08:19, Igor Brejc wrote: Some then say that these in-memory data structures are also Derivative Databases. In what form can you then offer such a Database to someone that requests it? I don't think there's a way how one could require the making available of such a transient structure without making OSM data processing totally impractical. I agree, but in that case the author of the Produced Work could simply say: I choose to go by the clause 4.6a and publish the entire Derivative Database, but since the only practically publishable Database is the original OSM XML file, I'm sending you just the link to the downloadable extract from Geofabrik. I would thus satisfy the 4.6 clause. Am I wrong? Always keep in mind that the machine readable clause is only there as an alternative in cases where you would prefer not to make the derived database available; you can *always* settle for making the derived database available instead and then nobody cares about your software. I realize that, but I think anyone involved in making Produced Works will want to explore all the alternatives before deciding which one suits them most. (Btw. you always write source code but the ODbL does not talk about source code; isn't a binary just as machine readable?) You have a point. I guess I was just repeating the logic mentioned in the Open Data License/Trivial Transformations - Guideline without really thinking about it. Igor ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 30/10/2012 13:07, Jonathan Harley wrote: (After a hiatus - I've been discussing this off-list with Anthony and others.) [snip] One thing that's confusing me, is that http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright does not say what license applies to the contents. ODbL specifically says that it only applies to the database and a separate license is required for the contents. It suggests that a notice should be inserted prominently in all relevant locations which surely includes the copyright wiki page. I remember earlier discussions on this list about using ODcL for the contents. Was this what was agreed on? LWG, anyone? Hi Jonathan, The short answer is the the contributor terms control content and that the relevant wording there is heavily modelled on ODcL. As a low priority TODO, I'll trace back the exact mechanism to see if we can be more obvious about the relationships on the copyright page without using tortuous language. It has been a while. ODbL can basically be used in two ways; a (or even multiple) contents license more restrictive than the ODbL itself or less restrictive. The first case can be useful if distributing a collection of things, content, that are useful discretely, for example photos or scientific papers. In that case, the database can be downloaded freely, sent around to others and used in-house, but each photo might have a commercial fee-paying license if it was then extracted and published in a magazine. We used the second case as we wanted a one stop shop whereby end users only have to consider one license and not compare and contrast. The CTs, for example, give end users no extra rights and no extra freedoms. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi Igor, I'd like to address a couple of points. On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Igor Brejc igor.br...@gmail.com wrote: Not one company will dare to give out their proprietary source code to someone, even if they release it under a very strict license. The risks of someone inadvertently then pasting that code on pastebin (example) are just too great - and there's no way back. This is not a problem of ODbL. If the end user distributes the source code against the wishes of the publisher then the user did so illegally. It's no different than if someone were to distribute MS Office binaries via Bittorrent against the EULA. Also, as Frederik mentioned, you don't have to to share the source code. Even a proprietary binary program (with all the DRM you want to prevent illegal distribution) would suffice. What's the purpose of it all, anyway? :) If someone releases the source code to a single person which then cannot share it with others, how does the larger OSM community then benefit from it all? The point here is not to share and give away software or source code but to share and give away data. Eugene ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 30/10/2012 13:07, Jonathan Harley wrote: (After a hiatus - I've been discussing this off-list with Anthony and others.) On 22/10/12 23:13, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/22 Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net: Anyway, the ODbL is explicit that an image is an example of a produced work, so for anyone creating them, their responsibility is clear: include the notice required for produced works. It's also explicit that a produced work is not a derivative database (4.5b), so it follows that a map image does not have to be licensed using ODbL. So, the hypothetical person wishing to publish on a stock art website only has to decide whether they wish to impose ODbL or some other restriction on their work, or not. Not imposing any restrictions on an image is clearly allowed. (In which case a database derived from the image would not be bound by ODbL.) Then this is clearly a loophole. You could render (with a dedicated style) the whole world in a very high zoom level (even as raster, if you're in doubt whether vectors might fall under ODbL), apply image recognition on it (would be simple if you used one rendered layer per feature) and reassemble the whole database. I am simplifying this process, but it is clearly possible. This (both Jonathan's comment and your response) confuses copyright law. Yes, you don't have to release a Produced Work under ODbL. But if you don't have a license on the Produced Work, then all rights are reserved. Only *if* copyright is there at all. What is in question is whether a substantial amount of material that is OSM's copyright is present in a map I make using OSM's data. If it isn't, then it follows that OSM cannot reserve any rights in my work, explicitly or otherwise. No loop hole. Unless I am missing something earlier in the thread, this is covering very old ground. This is the LWG understanding: The buzz phrase is layered copyright. Using an open licensed photo of a MacDonald's restaurant does not give one the right to use MacDonald's logo. In our world, the classic case is the SVG file. The publisher can publish it as a Produced Work if the intent is to show a pretty picture but if someone then comes along and tries to extract and re-constitute OSM data from it, then OSM copyright applies to them. Mike http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
deliberately Offlist 2012/10/30 Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz: No loop hole. Unless I am missing something earlier in the thread, this is covering very old ground. This is the LWG understanding: The buzz phrase is layered copyright. Using an open licensed photo of a MacDonald's restaurant does not give one the right to use MacDonald's logo. In our world, the classic case is the SVG file. The publisher can publish it as a Produced Work if the intent is to show a pretty picture but if someone then comes along and tries to extract and re-constitute OSM data from it, then OSM copyright applies to them. deliberately Offlist Mike, thank you for this statement I am glad to read this and I really hope it is like this. The intentions should be associated to the use and not to the producer of the work (i.e. like you wrote above and not like I read it here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline ). Someone could produce a SVG with the intent to show a pretty picture (i.e. not intended for the extraction of data and thus clearly a produced work), but who then comes along and uses it with different intentions (data extraction) must not do it, because in this case the same work turned automagically into a database. (That's why it is important that every produced work has strings attached, (c) for the data OSM contributors, ODbL1.0, which fortunately is part of the current guidelines) Part of my worries rise from the fact, that it seems there once was an anti-reengineering clause in the ODbL which was then removed to obtain compatibility with cc-by-sa and other share-alike licenses. Isn't this an indication that re-engineering is allowed? I mean, why else would it have been removed? (argueing from an offenders point of view). cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 10/30/2012 07:19 AM, Igor Brejc wrote: Some then say that these in-memory data structures are also Derivative Databases. They also cannot request RAM dumps of the routers and switches that ODbL data is transmitted over as they download it. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi Igor, I wonder if this resource helps with your question? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline (a work in progress) Mike On 22/10/2012 18:45, Igor Brejc wrote: Hi, Thanks for your clarifications, everybody. I was under the (looks like wrong) impression the produced work must also be available under the ODbL license. One issue still bugs me though: If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. What does pre-processed or augmented data really mean? OSM data has to be preprocessed to get to the form suitable for rendering. Some examples of preprocessing: 1. Importing it into PostGIS and flattening the geometries (like Mapnik does it). 2. Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a certain map scale. 3. Finding suitable label placements. 4. Extracting topology from the data (like multipolygon processing, merging of polygons, road segments etc.). 5. Running other complex algorithms on the OSM data. This preprocessing can be done on-the fly or (in case of Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step. Igor On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 10/22/12 12:07, Igor Brejc wrote: 2. I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished, closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM attribution text. 1. Is this possible? Yes (assuming that the PDF is not a database). 2. What are my obligations in terms of ODbL license? What (if anything) do I have to provide, publish etc.? Recipients of the PDF, i.e. anyone who views iStockPhoto, would have the right to ask you to hand over the database on which the map is based. You would then have the option of saying it's plain OSM, simply download it from X, or actually give them the data. If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. 3. Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? I don't think so. 4. Can the buyer of such a map then password-protect his own resulting work (which includes that map)? Yes. You will have sold him the work under the condition that he continues to attribute OSM, but other than that he has no obligations (unless you put some in). If you sell the work with an OSM attribution but without the condition to perpetuate that attribution, you may be in breach of ODbL or you may not; this depends on how you interpret the suitably calculated to make anyone ... aware clause. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi Igor, IANAL, so the following are just my opinions. On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Igor Brejc igor.br...@gmail.com wrote: They also don't really answer the question what is a Database. Let's take, for example, the statement Rendering databases, for example those produced by Osm2pgsql, are clearly databases. First of all, what are rendering databases? I don't share the same clearliness of that statement, frankly. A rendering database is a database that is used to render/draw a map. Raw OSM data is not often suitable for rendering maps and you need to preprocess OSM data into an intermediate database like the PostGIS DB produced by Osm2pgsql. As for what is a Database. This is a legal term and the most common definition used is from the European Database Directive since it is in the EU where we have database rights. Their definition of a database is a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means Another issue is machine-readable form of an algorithm. Who says I should interpret that as a source code? And if I do, under what license can/should/must I release the source code? I'm certainly not going to release my work under the Public Domain. Take note that releasing an algorithm is just an alternate for releasing the derivative ODbL database. And from the wording of the ODbL, yes, the algorithm doesn't have to be source code, just machine-readable which can mean any electronic text like: Use the program Osm2pgsql with the following settings on the following OSM extract... And if you want to release source code, it can be under any license with a reasonable cost or free if over the Internet. There is no obligation for the recipient to share with others. You can actually say, here's the source code, but you are not allowed to share it with others. I think the core issue that needs to be addressed and answered is: is there a place for proprietary/closed source software in OSM ecosystem? If we follow the strict reading logic of the mentioned guideliness and the one expressed in Frederik's answer, I would certainly have to say the answer is NO. There is actually place for closed software in the OSM ecosystem. You can use a proprietary map rendering software to draw maps made from OSM data or a derivative database (assuming the software doesn't itself create derivative databases.) And as I mentioned above, there is absolutely no requirement to release source code or even algorithms if you are able to provide the final derivative database used to create your produced work at a reasonable cost. Eugene On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Hi Igor, I wonder if this resource helps with your question? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline (a work in progress) Mike On 22/10/2012 18:45, Igor Brejc wrote: Hi, Thanks for your clarifications, everybody. I was under the (looks like wrong) impression the produced work must also be available under the ODbL license. One issue still bugs me though: If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. What does pre-processed or augmented data really mean? OSM data has to be preprocessed to get to the form suitable for rendering. Some examples of preprocessing: Importing it into PostGIS and flattening the geometries (like Mapnik does it). Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a certain map scale. Finding suitable label placements. Extracting topology from the data (like multipolygon processing, merging of polygons, road segments etc.). Running other complex algorithms on the OSM data. This preprocessing can be done on-the fly or (in case of Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step. Igor On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 10/22/12 12:07, Igor Brejc wrote: 2. I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished, closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM attribution text. 1. Is this possible? Yes (assuming that the PDF is not a database). 2. What are my obligations in terms of ODbL license? What (if anything) do I have to provide, publish etc.? Recipients of the PDF, i.e. anyone who views iStockPhoto, would have the right to ask you to hand over the database on which the map is based. You would then have the option of saying it's plain OSM, simply download it from X, or actually give them the data. If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. 3. Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? I don't
[OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
I have a question concerning the ability of someone creating produced works from an ODbL-licensed database to license that produced work for use by others. Strictly speaking it's a question about the ODbL, rather that OSM, but since it will have a significant effect on OSM users, I thought I would try asking here. For reference, the ODbL license text can be found at http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ I understand that if someone creates and then publicly uses a produced work from an ODbL-licensed database then they are required to add some text to the produced work saying that it came from such a database (ODbL 4.3), ensure that any derivative database created along the way are under a suitable license (ODbL 4.4) and also meet the requirements for providing the final database or algorithm used to produce it (ODbL 4.6). That's all fine. My question is: how can that produced work then be licensed to others? Are there any restrictions placed on what license someone could offer the produced work under? Do they have to ensure that other users and creators of derivative works maintain the attribution back to the original ODbL database? Or could they offer the work under something like the CC0 license? Do they have to share-alike the produced work? Or can they keep it all rights reserved? This would seem to be quite an important question for OSM data users who are producing map tiles, and I can't see anything to specifically address this in the ODbL itself. Except perhaps in clause 4.3, which could be taken as a viral attribution requirement on any re-uses of the produced work. However, 4.3 only refers to the produced work itself, and not any derivative works arising from it. My understanding is that you don't have to share-alike produced works and can keep them all rights reserved if you want (though the other requirements listed above may mean that others could replicate your work quite easily, so it may not be that effective to do so). I also don't think there's anything to stop people CC0-ing produced works, but I'm not as confident on this point. So I'd appreciate any clarification and/or reasoning that anyone can give. Many thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi, My understanding (emphases are mine): “*Contents*” – The contents of this Database, which includes the information, independent works, or other material collected into the Database. For example, the contents of the Database could be factual data or works such as *images*, audiovisual material, text, or sounds. ... “*Produced Work*” – a work (such as an *image*, audiovisual material, text, or sounds) resulting from using the *whole or a Substantial part of the Contents* (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database. ... 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that *Content *was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, *and that it is available under this License*. ... 4.8 Licensing of others. You may not sublicense the Database. Each time You communicate the Database, *the whole or Substantial part of the Contents*, or any Derivative Database to anyone else in any way, *the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Database on the same terms and conditions as this License*. *You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License*, but You may enforce any rights that You have over a Derivative Database. You are solely responsible for any modifications of a Derivative Database made by You or another Person at Your direction. *You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License*. If I read these articles correctly, then the Produced Work obtained from ODbL-licensed Database must be licensed under the ODbL license (once you publicly use the Produced Work). But it's not your responsibility to enforce the license on 3rd parties that use your Produced Work. Igor On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question concerning the ability of someone creating produced works from an ODbL-licensed database to license that produced work for use by others. Strictly speaking it's a question about the ODbL, rather that OSM, but since it will have a significant effect on OSM users, I thought I would try asking here. For reference, the ODbL license text can be found at http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ I understand that if someone creates and then publicly uses a produced work from an ODbL-licensed database then they are required to add some text to the produced work saying that it came from such a database (ODbL 4.3), ensure that any derivative database created along the way are under a suitable license (ODbL 4.4) and also meet the requirements for providing the final database or algorithm used to produce it (ODbL 4.6). That's all fine. My question is: how can that produced work then be licensed to others? Are there any restrictions placed on what license someone could offer the produced work under? Do they have to ensure that other users and creators of derivative works maintain the attribution back to the original ODbL database? Or could they offer the work under something like the CC0 license? Do they have to share-alike the produced work? Or can they keep it all rights reserved? This would seem to be quite an important question for OSM data users who are producing map tiles, and I can't see anything to specifically address this in the ODbL itself. Except perhaps in clause 4.3, which could be taken as a viral attribution requirement on any re-uses of the produced work. However, 4.3 only refers to the produced work itself, and not any derivative works arising from it. My understanding is that you don't have to share-alike produced works and can keep them all rights reserved if you want (though the other requirements listed above may mean that others could replicate your work quite easily, so it may not be that effective to do so). I also don't think there's anything to stop people CC0-ing produced works, but I'm not as confident on this point. So I'd appreciate any clarification and/or reasoning that anyone can give. Many thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ 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] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Igor Brejc wrote: 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that *Content* was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, *and that it is available under this License*. The it in this sentence refers to Content (i.e. the extract from the ODbL-licensed Database) rather than the Produced Work as a whole. Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence. Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this implies a downstream attribution requirement too (reasonably calculated to make any Person... exposed to the Produced Work) - besides, in practice, why wouldn't you want to? - but I think Robert disagrees with me on this. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Licenses-for-Produced-Works-under-ODbL-tp5732278p5732291.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] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence. Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this implies a downstream attribution requirement too (reasonably calculated to make any Person... exposed to the Produced Work) - besides, in practice, why wouldn't you want to? - but I think Robert disagrees with me on this. OK, how about this scenario: 1. I download the OSM extract from Geofabrik, Cloudmade or some XAPI server. 2. I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished, closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM attribution text.. 3. I publish the PDF map on sites like http://www.istockphoto.com claiming full copyright and sell it as royalty-free vector graphics. Questions: 1. Is this possible? 2. What are my obligations in terms of ODbL license? What (if anything) do I have to provide, publish etc.? 3. Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? 4. Can the buyer of such a map then password-protect his own resulting work (which includes that map)? Thanks, Igor ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
2012/10/22 Igor Brejc igor.br...@gmail.com: Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? there are 2 ways to put graphics into a PDF: those with vectors embedded and those with a raster inside. The first is to treat like a SVG and the second like a PNG (always asuming you didn't password protect the PDF). cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 22 October 2012 10:44, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence. Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this implies a downstream attribution requirement too (reasonably calculated to make any Person... exposed to the Produced Work) - besides, in practice, why wouldn't you want to? - but I think Robert disagrees with me on this. I can certainly think of cases where you might want to release produced works on a more liberal license -- for instance creating public domain map tiles. However, my interest in this is actually related to determining whether potential source data under certain licenses can be incorporated into an ODbL database. If the source license requires a strict viral attribution, then I think the answer has to be no, since the produced work attribution from ODbL need only point to the ODbL database, not to the source data (even if the data from the particular source dominates what's in the produced work). If the license requires only some sort of attribution chain back to the source, then it may or may not be ok, depending on whether attribution must be maintained in derivatives of produced works. As to whether ODbL requires attribution in derivatives of produced works, I'm not entirely sure. Richard's interpretation above is certainly not unreasonable. However, if the authors of the ODbL had intended there to be viral attribution on produced works, I'm surprised they didn't make it more explicit. I was also wanting to check if there were any other relevant clauses I'd missed. So if anyone else has any thoughts, please do jump in... Thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi, On 10/22/12 12:07, Igor Brejc wrote: 2. I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished, closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM attribution text. 1. Is this possible? Yes (assuming that the PDF is not a database). 2. What are my obligations in terms of ODbL license? What (if anything) do I have to provide, publish etc.? Recipients of the PDF, i.e. anyone who views iStockPhoto, would have the right to ask you to hand over the database on which the map is based. You would then have the option of saying it's plain OSM, simply download it from X, or actually give them the data. If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. 3. Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? I don't think so. 4. Can the buyer of such a map then password-protect his own resulting work (which includes that map)? Yes. You will have sold him the work under the condition that he continues to attribute OSM, but other than that he has no obligations (unless you put some in). If you sell the work with an OSM attribution but without the condition to perpetuate that attribution, you may be in breach of ODbL or you may not; this depends on how you interpret the suitably calculated to make anyone ... aware clause. 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] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi, Thanks for your clarifications, everybody. I was under the (looks like wrong) impression the produced work must also be available under the ODbL license. One issue still bugs me though: If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. What does pre-processed or augmented data really mean? OSM data has to be preprocessed to get to the form suitable for rendering. Some examples of preprocessing: 1. Importing it into PostGIS and flattening the geometries (like Mapnik does it). 2. Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a certain map scale. 3. Finding suitable label placements. 4. Extracting topology from the data (like multipolygon processing, merging of polygons, road segments etc.). 5. Running other complex algorithms on the OSM data. This preprocessing can be done on-the fly or (in case of Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step. Igor On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 10/22/12 12:07, Igor Brejc wrote: 2. I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished, closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM attribution text. 1. Is this possible? Yes (assuming that the PDF is not a database). 2. What are my obligations in terms of ODbL license? What (if anything) do I have to provide, publish etc.? Recipients of the PDF, i.e. anyone who views iStockPhoto, would have the right to ask you to hand over the database on which the map is based. You would then have the option of saying it's plain OSM, simply download it from X, or actually give them the data. If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. 3. Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? I don't think so. 4. Can the buyer of such a map then password-protect his own resulting work (which includes that map)? Yes. You will have sold him the work under the condition that he continues to attribute OSM, but other than that he has no obligations (unless you put some in). If you sell the work with an OSM attribution but without the condition to perpetuate that attribution, you may be in breach of ODbL or you may not; this depends on how you interpret the suitably calculated to make anyone ... aware clause. 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-talkhttp://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] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 22/10/12 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2012/10/22 Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net: You have an obligation to make your derivative database available, if you made one. or describe the details and release the code, how you did it, in this case you don't have to release the data. Oops, yes, I over-simplified. But you don't have to describe the details AND release the code, you can do either/or. Unless, and I'm assuming you don't intend this, it was accurate enough to be used as data - for example, if you labelled the lat/long of the bounding box accurately and included high enough resolution vector data. I think you won't have to judge on how high the resolution would have to be, neither must the image be georeferenced: with any translation/modification/alteration a database would still remain a derivative database under the ODbL. Frederik wrote some time ago he believes it might depend on the intent with which you use the work. According to this you might probably use the same work as work and as database, and according to your use, different terms would apply. What is important here is that the recipient of the work gets notice of the obligations in case he would reuse the work as a database. So actually the license with which you release your produced work is not comparable to having the full copyright. I'm not quite sure what you mean by full copyright, copyright is a right which you get from creating something (at least in English law) and it definitely applies to maps. I suppose you mean the case where you're the sole original author and aren't bound by the license conditions of some database you used. Anyway, the ODbL is explicit that an image is an example of a produced work, so for anyone creating them, their responsibility is clear: include the notice required for produced works. It's also explicit that a produced work is not a derivative database (4.5b), so it follows that a map image does not have to be licensed using ODbL. So, the hypothetical person wishing to publish on a stock art website only has to decide whether they wish to impose ODbL or some other restriction on their work, or not. Not imposing any restrictions on an image is clearly allowed. (In which case a database derived from the image would not be bound by ODbL.) What's muddy is whether a vector image is, or might in some circumstances be, a database. In the absence of a clear definition, my guess is that it depends how much usable geodata is in there. That's surely more measurable than intent. So my answer to the question about can I publish an OSM-derived map as SVG is yes, but make sure no OSM XML tags get carried over into the SVG XML, then there will be no doubt that it's a produced work not a derivative database. At least this is what I hope ;-) . I am not sure if legally there is maybe the requirement for an explicit restriction to not re-engineer / re-construct the database from produced works in order to prohibit it, in this case this would be a loophole. I think it's clear that creating a new database from a produced work (that isn't a database) is not prohibited by ODbL. But I don't think it's really worth worrying about; reverse engineering an image, or an SVG file that doesn't include the original lat/lons would result in such an inaccurate database that I can't imagine anyone would want it. You only have to look at what trouble Apple have been getting into with their various not-quite-matching datasets. (Aside: I went to SotM Scotland this weekend, and Apple Maps advised me to abandon my car on Waverley Bridge and continue by foot into Princes St Gardens, as that is where Apple believes Edinburgh is located for the purposes of driving directions!) 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] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi, On 22.10.2012 18:45, Igor Brejc wrote: What does pre-processed or augmented data really mean? OSM data has to be preprocessed to get to the form suitable for rendering. Some examples of preprocessing: 1. Importing it into PostGIS and flattening the geometries (like Mapnik does it). osm2pgsql does that, not Mapnik, and ODbL gives you the option of specifying the algorithm that produces the data from the source instead of handing out the data itself. So in this case, while the osm2pgsql database is clearly a derived database that falls under ODbL, when someone asks you for the data you can say: Get it from OSM, run it through osm2pgsql with the following options, and you're done. 2. Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a certain map scale. Same process - either you share the generalized data or you share the algorithm that produces it. If, for example, you were to import with ImpOSM which does generalisations when importing, that's all you'd have to say. 3. Finding suitable label placements. 4. Extracting topology from the data (like multipolygon processing, merging of polygons, road segments etc.). 5. Running other complex algorithms on the OSM data. This preprocessing can be done on-the fly or (in case of Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step. The boundary between what is done as a separate step, leading to a derived database, and what is done on the fly as part of the rendering process may sometimes be muddy but I guess in these situations they are pretty clear. Another interesting question is how easy the algorithm you specify must be. It is clear that the algorithm cannot include buy some Navteq data and then do this, or buy ArcGIS and then do that - but what if the algorithm includes run this code, it will take 1000 days, or make sure your machine has at least 1 TB of RAM, then continue as follows 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] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 11:53 AM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL Another interesting question is how easy the algorithm you specify must be. It is clear that the algorithm cannot include buy some Navteq data and then do this, or buy ArcGIS and then do that - but what if the algorithm includes run this code, it will take 1000 days, or make sure your machine has at least 1 TB of RAM, then continue as follows I see nothing that requires the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm) to be easily run or rely on freely available or open-source software. So although Navteq is out (being additional contents), I see nothing wrong with relying on ArcGIS to process the data. For example, suppose someone wanted to import OSM into an oracle database and then ran some post-processing oracle-specific scripts on it. They could hand over their scripts and the code used to import it into the DB but neither would run as-is unless you also had an oracle license. A copy of the database could be even less useful, but that's clearly a copy of the entire derivative database in machine readable form. I see long-running or computationally resource intensive algorithms coming up in two ways. The first is when whatever you're doing just takes that long to run and there isn't a faster way. I spent 30 days importing to an apidb, but outside OSM some databases become truly massive. I could see the release for a scientific database being: here's the exact code we ran, but it took two months on our supercomputer cluster. In a case like that, it's meeting the license. Some data just takes a long time to process. The second is a more interesting case. You might have a case where you have two methods of making the alterations, one of which is quick and the other of which is computationally intensive. My reading of the ODbL is that you have to provide the one you used because it calls for _the_ method, not _a_ method. So, back to the examples you gave, provided they used a machine with at least 1 TB of RAM, they'd be fine releasing a method that relied on having that much RAM. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: 2. Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a certain map scale. Same process - either you share the generalized data or you share the algorithm that produces it. If, for example, you were to import with ImpOSM which does generalisations when importing, that's all you'd have to say. 3. Finding suitable label placements. 4. Extracting topology from the data (like multipolygon processing, merging of polygons, road segments etc.). 5. Running other complex algorithms on the OSM data. This preprocessing can be done on-the fly or (in case of Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step. The boundary between what is done as a separate step, leading to a derived database, and what is done on the fly as part of the rendering process may sometimes be muddy but I guess in these situations they are pretty clear. Another interesting question is how easy the algorithm you specify must be. It is clear that the algorithm cannot include buy some Navteq data and then do this, or buy ArcGIS and then do that - but what if the algorithm includes run this code, it will take 1000 days, or make sure your machine has at least 1 TB of RAM, then continue as follows The first question is what is the purpose of that method description? If the purpose is to enable _anyone_ repeating the same process, then I see a big problem with this interpretation: it effectively means you cannot use closed source software to generate publicly distributed maps. In one case you might not be the owner of the source code (ArcGIS as an example), so you cannot really describe the actual algorithm behind it. In another case, if you're the owner of the code, you'll either be forced to write length documents describing your algorithms, or release the source code. And BTW under what terms/license that document/source code is released? What prevents a company XYZ then using that source code to do processing of completely different Databases (not OSM's)? I don't see how this this clause can be enforced is the scenarios I've mentioned. Here are some possible outcomes: 1. The owner of the code has to open-source the code (which could mean tossing away a large investment in time money and giving it free to the competition). Who ensures that the source code is complete enough to enable the repetition of the process? 2. The owner writes a crappy document describing the algorithm that no one can follow (I've seen a lot of such scientific articles). Who will ensure that such documents are usable? 3. The owner releases a derivative DB which (since the processing is done in-memory) is just an binary (almost) random stream of data, difficult to read and process for anyone without the original source code. Does he need to release the documentation of the data format? Maybe I'm missing something, I don't know. Igor ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
