Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[LM_1]

Verfication would be a process of comparing my own data (lets's call
them A) with osm, likely using some automated precess, that would
output a set of locations or areas where the maps differ more than a
given threshold (dataset B).
Legally you now have three datasets A, OSM and a derivative work of
both (B). Dataset B would be used as a to-do list to resurvey or
reimport data from other sources than OSM. OSM data is not copied, but
were used for verification.
This should actually be completely legal now - derivatives works are
allowed, if not published no specific licence character is required.
Actual data for updating is taken from somewhere else.

If the clause is added that data verification requires publication
under free/open licence, it would actually tighten the licence, since
I highly doubt that independently acquired data on places where maps
differ could be treated as derivative work.

LM_1
2012/3/10 Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org:
 On 09/03/12 22:36, LM_1 wrote:
 Why not make this rule general (outside Poland) any data published
 under free and open licence (whatever it is) can be verified by OSM
 data.
 This brings no risk, that anyony big and evil (whatever that is)
 will use it to overrun OSM...
 LM_1

 What is verification?

 If it is altering data to recreate OSM data, we are using verification
 to excuse copying.

 If it is looking at the map, we are using verification to damn reading
 a map.

 So I'm not sure verification is a useful term. Describing the boring
 mechanical actions that are being performed is probably more useful, as
 these are easier to consider against the actions permitted by the licence.

 - Rob.

 ___
 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] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Erik Johansson]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 05:43, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:

 jaakkoh wrote

 Umh. Of course other (as in any) maps can be used for _some_ level of
 verification (such as: oh, there seems to b a rd here! I should go out
 and survey that!) -- Or should I rather say navigation to help in one's
 own surveying.

 Furthermore, we are currently doing that on a large scale with our own data.
 We are using CC-BY-SA data to verify where we need to re-survey to create an
 ODbL database.

No the data that is entered and remove is still CC-BY-SA, and any
automatic product is still CC-BY-SA.

I still say you are all making it more complicated than it should be.
Just give UMP the data, since they are using CC-BY-SA they can't do
anything evil with it anyways.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Ian Sergeant]

If we need a change to the licence wording to allow Poland to keep their
data, lets put a few words a the end of the licence to allow Poland to do
just that, and put it to vote as required in the contributor terms.

Didn't we adopt the contributor terms just so we have just this flexibility?

I think a single line at the end of the licence, say For the avoidance of
any doubt, data within the boundaries of Poland can be used as a data
verification tool, provided the data being verified is being released under
a free and open licence.

I can't see who would have a problem with this.  And if we lose a vote,
then so be it.  Better to have tried and failed, then toss the data without
having tried.

Ian.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Ed Avis]

Kai Krueger kakrueger@... writes:

We are using CC-BY-SA data to verify where we need to re-survey to create an
ODbL database. There are even a whole bunch of great tools that make this as
easy and systematic as possible. So I presume that form of verification is
legal and is not covered by the share alike clause of the license.

That's a big presumption.  I would have expected that remapping would be done as
a strictly 'clean room' operation, without looking at the existing CC-BY-SA data
at all, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Nick Whitelegg]

Sorry, I think I may have misunderstood - I guess you meant copying tags from 
existing CC-by-SA data not using existing CC-By-SA to work out
where to remap. Apologies for the misunderstanding :-)

Yes, my own practice so far has been to use ground observations (or memory, 
most of my remapping sp far has been based on 6-month old mapping trips from 
last summer/autumn) rather than copying tags from  the old CC-SA.

Nick

-Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: -
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
From: Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk
Date: 09/03/2012 11:50AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data


That's a big presumption.  I would have expected that remapping would be done 
as
a strictly 'clean room' operation, without looking at the existing CC-BY-SA 
data
at all, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

Isn't not looking at existing CC-by-SA data a little OTT? We may as well 
forget the remapping ever getting done this side of 2020 if so ;-)

That would be even worse than saying that you can't look at a road atlas to 
work out which roads need to be surveyed!

AFAIK looking at existing maps to work out where to survey is perfectly OK, 
from numerous discussions on this topic in the past.
For example, using road atlases to navigate is ok as long as the actual status 
of the road is taken from ground observations.


Is anyone seriously going to sue us for looking at our own data to work out 
where to remap? 

Nick

 =___
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] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[LM_1]

Why not make this rule general (outside Poland) any data published
under free and open licence (whatever it is) can be verified by OSM
data.
This brings no risk, that anyony big and evil (whatever that is)
will use it to overrun OSM...
LM_1

2012/3/9 Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com:
 Indeed.

 My point is we can discuss it here on legal-talk, and get the opinions of a
 handful of people are hung up on the legals and the licence change already.
   Or we can put it to the vote, and I'm confident in the wider community
 that we'd get the support of the 75% required to permit Polish OSM data to
 be used for verification only, and as long as the resulting data is released
 under a free and open licence.

 It is hard for me to imagine an average active mapper who has mapped their
 local streets, and a POI here and there, would rather see Poland wiped from
 OSM rather than give another organisation which is also distributing under a
 free and open licence the use of our data just to verify their own.
 Especially when it is probably permitted under our licence anyway, we'd just
 be confirming that it is okay to avoid doubt.

 Ian.


 On 10 March 2012 07:36, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:

 On 09/03/12 10:59, Ian Sergeant wrote:
 
  I can't see who would have a problem with this.

 Hi. ;-)

 - Rob.

 ___
 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] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Ed Avis]

Richard Fairhurst richard@... writes:

If we were to say we don't think verifying data creates a derived work,
would the great mass of OSM mappers be content to see Google (for example)
use our effort to determine where new streets are; send the StreetView
cars/satellites out; and have the new streets on Google Maps within a couple
of days?

More to the point, would OSMF be happy for mappers to do the reverse operation,
using Google Maps as a guide to where to go out and resurvey?

If OSMF makes a statement that verifying data doesn't create a derived work, it
must do so only on the basis of justifiable legal opinions, which are publicly
reviewable.  Anything else would not be a statement of belief about the law, but
a special exemption or extra permission outside the normal licence, which cannot
be done without a 2/3 vote.

If OSMF does decide, after careful consideration of the legal evidence, that
verifying data does not create a derived work under copyright or related rights,
then a necessary consequence is that OSM mappers will be able to make use of
other maps to verify their work, just as UMP will be able to use OSM.

All this goes away if the OSM map continues to be published under CC-BY-SA in
parallel with ODbL.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Jaakko Helleranta.com]

Umh. Of course other (as in any) maps can be used for _some_ level of 
verification (such as: oh, there seems to b a rd here! I should go out and 
survey that!) -- Or should I rather say navigation to help in one's own 
surveying.

I'd be very very surprised if let's say any new company in the maps business 
doing their survey of roads would not be doing it based on other providers 
maps. They'd send out cars with GPSs to just randomly drive around the 
country?? Unlikely. 

Rather, they'd buy a Garmin/TomTom/WhatNot and drive all the roads on that, 
make their own notes of the road classifications, etc details, and build their 
map data based on that.

It's only(?) crowd-sourced community-created maps like OSM, Waze, etc that have 
(some) patience in building their map road by road (and even these do imports 
-- and keep eyes open when looking at other maps). 

Perhaps we're going into nitty-gritty over the term verification, here?

Cheers from Haiti,
-Jaakko

Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel
--
Mobile: +509-37-26 91 54, Skype/GoogleTalk: jhelleranta

-Original Message-
From: Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:40:41 
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Richard Fairhurst richard@... writes:

If we were to say we don't think verifying data creates a derived work,
would the great mass of OSM mappers be content to see Google (for example)
use our effort to determine where new streets are; send the StreetView
cars/satellites out; and have the new streets on Google Maps within a couple
of days?

More to the point, would OSMF be happy for mappers to do the reverse operation,
using Google Maps as a guide to where to go out and resurvey?

If OSMF makes a statement that verifying data doesn't create a derived work, it
must do so only on the basis of justifiable legal opinions, which are publicly
reviewable.  Anything else would not be a statement of belief about the law, but
a special exemption or extra permission outside the normal licence, which cannot
be done without a 2/3 vote.

If OSMF does decide, after careful consideration of the legal evidence, that
verifying data does not create a derived work under copyright or related rights,
then a necessary consequence is that OSM mappers will be able to make use of
other maps to verify their work, just as UMP will be able to use OSM.

All this goes away if the OSM map continues to be published under CC-BY-SA in
parallel with ODbL.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.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] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Kai Krueger]

jaakkoh wrote
 
 Umh. Of course other (as in any) maps can be used for _some_ level of
 verification (such as: oh, there seems to b a rd here! I should go out
 and survey that!) -- Or should I rather say navigation to help in one's
 own surveying.
 
Furthermore, we are currently doing that on a large scale with our own data.
We are using CC-BY-SA data to verify where we need to re-survey to create an
ODbL database. There are even a whole bunch of great tools that make this as
easy and systematic as possible. So I presume that form of verification is
legal and is not covered by the share alike clause of the license.


jaakkoh wrote
 
 Perhaps we're going into nitty-gritty over the term verification, here?
 
Well, perhaps we do need to actually define the term much better to be able
to judge if that is a violation of copyright / the license. If their
definition of verification e.g does not go beyond the definition of
verification of CC-BY-SA / ODbL data, which has thus presumably been deemed
acceptable, then it wouldn't be an extra grant (which wouldn't really be
possible) but simply a clarification as various of the other community
guidelines that have been defined. If in turn this would lead to UMP
accepting to allow to keep their data, that would be a major win for all!

Kai

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Feedback-requested-OSM-Poland-data-tp5540425p5549631.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] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am 6. März 2012 17:52 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
 On 03/06/2012 02:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data
 (in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy
 our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not
 create a derived database. (The database that contains the results of
 the analysis might be derived and have to released.)


 Oops. Tripped over my own negative here. I wanted to say: As long as they
 just compare stuff and verify, I think it's ok and they won't be affected by
 viral ODbL-ness.


Really? So also this sentence was not intended and you mean the
opposite: (The database that contains the results of
the analysis might be derived and have to released.)? Isn't this a
kind of merge: just compare and verify (above there was also
flagging)?

cheers,
Martin

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Erik Johansson]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:55, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 - as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make such a
 statement?

I think OSMF should give UMP concession to use OSM data in their maps
of Poland with their current license, like this:

The OSMF acknowledges the kind help of UMP project and its members in
creating the OSM map of Poland. The OSMF acknowledges that the UMP
project is similar in spirit; providing geodata that is free and open.
Provided that UMP continues to publish its data under CC-BY-SA

I only see negative consequences with saying anything more than that.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Michael Collinson]

I am trying to find a solution that will allow the UMP project in Poland 
to continue using OSM data and therefore reciprocally allow OSM to keep 
a large amount of data that went into making the initial road map of 
Poland and which is still there.  The UMP project collects road routes 
within Poland and makes routable maps for Garmin devices publishes its 
data under CC-BY-SA.  I hope that they will consider ODbL in the future, 
but that is their choice and I am sure that they will want to see how we 
fare first.


From what I understand of how UMP uses OSM data, (which may not be 100% 
right yet), I have made the following draft statement. May I ask you:


- as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make such a 
statement?


- is it true?

- can you see any negative consequences?


The OSMF acknowledges the kind help of UMP project and its members in 
creating the OSM map of Poland. The OSMF acknowledges that the UMP 
project is similar in spirit; providing geodata that is free and open. 
Provided that UMP continues to publish its data under a free and open 
license, the OSMF is happy to allow UMP to use OSM data for verifying 
road routes within Poland.  UMP may also provide a layer of non-highway 
data made from OSM data or OSM map-tiles within its Garmin maps; the 
OSMF believes that this is allowed by the basic ODbL license and that no 
special permission is required. (DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY!)


The key line for me is the OSMF is happy to allow UMP to use OSM data 
for verifying road routes within Poland ... this is probably granting 
permission for something not completely within the ODbL.


Mike

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Ed Avis]

Legally there's no downside for granting extra permissions.  They are
additive on top of whatever licence is used and don't damage anyone
else's use of the data.  However, it is not in the spirit of the
community terms for OSMF to grant exemptions or extra permissions -
particularly not if they are specific to one user, which looks like
favouritism.

So I suggest, firstly, any extra permission granted should be to
everyone on equal terms or not at all; and secondly, if you believe
that the permission notice is necessary as an addition to the ODbL
(rather than just a clarification of what is already the legal
situation) then its text needs to be approved by the OSMF board and a
2/3 vote of active contributors.

--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 03/06/12 10:55, Michael Collinson wrote:

The OSMF acknowledges the kind help of UMP project and its members in
creating the OSM map of Poland. The OSMF acknowledges that the UMP
project is similar in spirit; providing geodata that is free and open.
Provided that UMP continues to publish its data under a free and open
license, the OSMF is happy to allow UMP to use OSM data for verifying
road routes within Poland.


I don't think there is a process for granting special permissions to 
anyone; this could only work through a license change (where the new 
license is basically ODbL for everyone but for UMP the following extras 
are established...).


The only way I can see this fly is for OSMF to publish their 
interpretation of ODbL that allows whatever UMP want to do.


Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data 
(in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy 
our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not 
create a derived database. (The database that contains the results of 
the analysis might be derived and have to released.)



UMP may also provide a layer of non-highway
data made from OSM data or OSM map-tiles within its Garmin maps; the
OSMF believes that this is allowed by the basic ODbL license and that no
special permission is required.


Are Garmin maps databases or produced works? If they are databases then 
UMP would have to make sure that the ODbL licensed OSM layer is 
accessible separately and would have to make users aware that it is 
ODbL. If they are produced works, then UMP would have to make the 
derived non-highway database available under ODbL. If UMP were not 
willing or able to do that, and OSMF were intent on removing this burden 
from UMP, then OSMF could offer to publish a derived non-highway 
database themselves, which would lead to UMP only having to point to 
that database and say there's our source and it's ODbL.


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] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Ed Avis]

Is there a way to provide what UMP want by making a Produced Work (which could 
be
public domain or CC) rather than a Derived Database?

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Richard Fairhurst]

Michael Collinson wrote:
 - as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make 
 such a statement?
 - is it true?
 - can you see any negative consequences?

I'm with Ed and Frederik on this one, I'm afraid - I don't see any way in
which we can afford additional permissions on a one-off basis under
ODbL+current CTs; nor do I think that we should do so except universally
(i.e. to everyone, worldwide, not just to one project in one country).

The question raised by Frederik is whether verifying their data against OSM
data creates a derived work. As ever, ask in a different jurisdiction, get
a different answer, but there is at least one case that suggests that it may
(Singapore maybe?).

If we were to say we don't think verifying data creates a derived work,
would the great mass of OSM mappers be content to see Google (for example)
use our effort to determine where new streets are; send the StreetView
cars/satellites out; and have the new streets on Google Maps within a couple
of days? I'm sure they wouldn't - indeed, I suspect many of those who've
signed the CTs would feel cheated if they were told that it would permit
this.

So... sorry, but no, I don't think it'll work. :(

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Feedback-requested-OSM-Poland-data-tp5540425p5541176.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] feedback requested

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 12/27/11 14:53, andrzej zaborowski wrote:

* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
  these tags are not present any more in the current version


Did you manage to address your example of a user fixing a typo in the
tag name (individually or for a large number of objects)?


No. It would be possible to say that a constribution is only harmless if 
neither the tag nor the value are present in the final version but then 
there will again be examples where this is wrong.


I think a good way to deal with such but what if... situations is not 
to make sure they never occur, but to produce some kind of quantitative 
assessment. If we have reason to believe that the new rules produce 
something like a hundred errors then who cares. If it's more like a 
million then it needs to be fixed ;)



A similar case is where a mapper adds many ways in a city, but another
mapper thinks all of the objects were misaligned and offsets them en
masse.  Is your assumption here also that this takes all IP away from
the first mapper?


Currently in OSMI, this mapper will continue to be viewed as the author 
of all the ways; it is just the node positions that he got wrong and 
where his contribution is overwritten by the change.


But this is something that Russ questioned this morning, see my other 
message on legal-talk.


Bye
Frederik

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Robert Whittaker (OSM)]

On 24 December 2011 19:32, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to
 * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
  these tags are not present any more in the current version

Are you sure that this is a good idea?

I can think of lots of times where I've improved the tagging of an
object by correcting / amending existing tagging using the information
contained in that previous tagging (and no other specific knowledge of
the object) to inform what the new tagging should be. This could
include correcting obvious typos, correcting common mis-taggings and
normalising multiple values to the recommended version contained in
the wiki. I'm sure others will have made similar edits. For example,
one might make the following 'obvious' changes whilst editing:

* name=Tesco's -- name=Tesco (correcting an obvious typo in a tag value)

* designated=public_footpath -- designation=public_footpath
(correcting an obvious typo in a tag key)

* note=signed as a public footpath -- designation=public_footpath
(converting a note tag into recommended tagging)

* shop=yes, type=coffee shop -- amenity=cafe, cuisine=coffee_shop
(improving tagging in line with the wiki recommendations)

In all these cases, the pertinent information in the new tagging can
be derived entirely from the old tagging, without the use of any other
source. So unless there's an explicit source tag for the new tagging,
I think we would have to play it safe and regard the new tagging as a
derived work of the old tagging. Therefore if the original tags were
added by a non-agreer, and an agreeing mapper made the type of change
above, I don't think it can be argued that the object is now
definitely clean. But if I've understood your proposed system, if
those changed / altered tags were the only tags added by a non-agreer,
the object would be automatically seen as clean.

(The first example I gave above may not get marked as clean as there's
still a name=* tag in the later version -- it's not clear from what
you've written if this tags are not present any more means the full
tag (key--value pair), or the key value only. But even if the first
example isn't included, I think the scheme will still give the wrong
result for the other three examples.)

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Frederik Ramm]

Robert,

   when I wrote that I


* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
  these tags are not present any more in the current version


I did indeed mean that the edit is harmless if the *key* is not present 
any more.


This will still result in some harmless edits not being detected as 
such, but it is not as bad as you probably assumed it to be.



In all these cases, the pertinent information in the new tagging can
be derived entirely from the old tagging, without the use of any other
source. So unless there's an explicit source tag for the new tagging,
I think we would have to play it safe and regard the new tagging as a
derived work of the old tagging.


This is indeed something we can discuss. My current scheme will sometims 
assume copyright where there isn't:


disagreer puts name=Fred's Bistro
agreer corrects to name=Robert's Bistro
- way still flagged as problematic since the name tag was placed by 
disagreer and is still present (even if different value)


and will sometimes assume a harmless edit when it's not:

disagreer puts nmae=Fred's Bistro
agreer corrects to name=Fred's Bistro
- way not flagged as problematic since tag placed by disagreer has 
been removed.



Therefore if the original tags were
added by a non-agreer, and an agreeing mapper made the type of change
above, I don't think it can be argued that the object is now
definitely clean. But if I've understood your proposed system, if
those changed / altered tags were the only tags added by a non-agreer,
the object would be automatically seen as clean.


Yes. I have no strong feelings either way; your argument is correct. 
However the question must be asked in how far you can claim copyright 
for facts that others have to extract from your prose. In my personal 
opinion, if someone wrote a note tag describing in colourful English 
what it is that he saw, and someone else then extracted proper tags from 
that text, then I'd be prepared to ascribe a copyright on the original 
prosaic note to the mapper but not copyright on the interpretation of 
that note made by someone else.


I'm sure it is an issue that we must watch, and maybe try and prepare a 
list with all cases affected, and make spot checks to get an idea of how 
many false positives/negatives we get.


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] feedback requested

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 Yes. I have no strong feelings either way; your argument is correct. However
 the question must be asked in how far you can claim copyright for facts that
 others have to extract from your prose. In my personal opinion, if someone
 wrote a note tag describing in colourful English what it is that he saw, and
 someone else then extracted proper tags from that text, then I'd be prepared
 to ascribe a copyright on the original prosaic note to the mapper but not
 copyright on the interpretation of that note made by someone else.

 I'm sure it is an issue that we must watch, and maybe try and prepare a list
 with all cases affected, and make spot checks to get an idea of how many
 false positives/negatives we get.

Concern has been expressed in this thread about wrongfully considering
clean what should still be considered tainted.  Frederik, are your
rules applied symmetrically?  That is, will they also wrongfully
consider objects tainted where they should be considered clean?

So if mapper adds nmae=Fred's Bistro, then decliner corrects to
name=Fred's Bistro, do your current rules consider that node tainted?
I presume that the same types of errors can occur in both directions.
Is that correct?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 12/27/2011 09:08 PM, Richard Weait wrote:

So if mapper adds nmae=Fred's Bistro, then decliner corrects to
name=Fred's Bistro, do your current rules consider that node tainted?


Yes, if a name tag is still present in the current version of the 
object then it is assumed to be dervied from whatever the decliner put 
there.


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] feedback requested

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 27 December 2011 15:31, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 On 12/27/11 14:53, andrzej zaborowski wrote:

 * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
  these tags are not present any more in the current version


 Did you manage to address your example of a user fixing a typo in the
 tag name (individually or for a large number of objects)?


 No. It would be possible to say that a constribution is only harmless if
 neither the tag nor the value are present in the final version but then
 there will again be examples where this is wrong.

 I think a good way to deal with such but what if... situations is not to
 make sure they never occur, but to produce some kind of quantitative
 assessment. If we have reason to believe that the new rules produce
 something like a hundred errors then who cares. If it's more like a million
 then it needs to be fixed ;)

Right, I asked because I think this case is quite frequent.  Some
changes, like natural=wood - landuse=forest, shop=dentist -
amenity=dentist, and the other way are often done massively by people
(not that they're very useful..).  It's possible that in absolute
numbers they're more frequent than genuine changes to the map.



 A similar case is where a mapper adds many ways in a city, but another
 mapper thinks all of the objects were misaligned and offsets them en
 masse.  Is your assumption here also that this takes all IP away from
 the first mapper?


 Currently in OSMI, this mapper will continue to be viewed as the author of
 all the ways; it is just the node positions that he got wrong and where his
 contribution is overwritten by the change.

If we talk about individual node positions then he got them wrong, but
if we talk about geometries then the later change is a detail.

But actually this case is probably quite rare so your earlier argument applies.

Cheers

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:32:35 +0100
Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to 

...

Activated now  notified talk and talk-de lists, on both the WTFE view
and on the database accessed by plugins/license views in editors.

Bye
Frederik

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Dermot McNally]

On 24 December 2011 23:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:

 Another mapper walks by, notices that the place is a pizzeria and adds
 back an identical tag. Are we clean or dirty now?

 Dirty, because the very same situation could arise with a non-agreeing
 mapper adding cuisine=pizza, the agreeing mapper cleaning the
 object and a third mapper reverting that last action. I have no way of
 telling apart a revert to the non-agreeing mapper's version and a true
 remapping from original sources. I'm open to suggestions but I can't
 see an easy way out.

Yes, I see the problem - I pose the question because it's interesting
given that the desired end-game is a node that is both clean _and_ has
cuisine=pizza. But you go on to cover this case...

 These changes carry with them the slight complication that they make
 tainted-ness dependent on the current version of the way. This means
 that an object that was previously untainted could now become tainted
 again, by exactly the process that you outline above (re-adding of the
 cuisine tag). That would be a very good use case for odbl=clean, or
 maybe we could introduce something that users can place in their
 changeset comment saying all edits in this changeset are remapping
 from original sources, or we could even say: Whenever the changeset
 has a source tag we consider this to be original sources...

This was the issue I had in mind, and yes, odbl=clean will fix it. For
anybody who hasn't read the LWG minutes, LWG is in favour of
respecting odbl=clean come the switchover phase. We've asked for
community feedback on this (and on the principle that
moving-nodes-cleans-their-position, which we also favour) since we
want the decision to be an accountable one having regard to all valid
legal and ideological points that should be considered.

Now for a horrid twist to the thought experiment - odbl=clean is, as
you have described its use above, a nice solution to the problem of
wanting to cleanly reapply cuisine=pizza without wiping history. But
what if things happen like this?:

1. Agreeing mapper maps the restaurant and names it
2. Non-agreeing mapper adds the cuisine tag
3. Agreeing mapper removes the cuisine tag and sets odbl=clean. He or
she does not have enough information to assert the cuisine tag and
chooses, on balance, to lose the tag for now.
4. Well-meaning new (therefore agreeing) mapper sees the node, notices
the cuisine tag in the history and reapplies it without having
personal knowledge to back this up. odbl=clean is still set.

This is very similar to the case where the cuisine tag is reapplied
without us having odbl=clean set. Certainly, we can point out that we
expect good faith and due diligence from mappers. But if we are
prepared to consider the object clean in this case, why not also in
the case where the cuisine tag has just had a temporary holiday from
the object even if odbl=clean has not been set?

Dermot


-- 
--
Igaühel on siin oma laul
ja ma oma ei leiagi üles

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:48:24 +
Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
 1. Agreeing mapper maps the restaurant and names it
 2. Non-agreeing mapper adds the cuisine tag
 3. Agreeing mapper removes the cuisine tag and sets odbl=clean. He or
 she does not have enough information to assert the cuisine tag and
 chooses, on balance, to lose the tag for now.
 4. Well-meaning new (therefore agreeing) mapper sees the node, notices
 the cuisine tag in the history and reapplies it without having
 personal knowledge to back this up. odbl=clean is still set.

To me, this is on par with well-meaning new mapper copies data from
Google believing it is ok. It is something where we have to make a
good effort to explain to people that they shouldn't do it, and if it
turns out somebody has misunderstood, or made a mistake, then we have
to fix that.

I don't see *many* people using history to look for extra features to
re-animate.

Bye
Frederik

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Dermot McNally]

On 25 December 2011 21:05, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:48:24 +

 4. Well-meaning new (therefore agreeing) mapper sees the node, notices
 the cuisine tag in the history and reapplies it without having
 personal knowledge to back this up. odbl=clean is still set.

 To me, this is on par with well-meaning new mapper copies data from
 Google believing it is ok. It is something where we have to make a
 good effort to explain to people that they shouldn't do it, and if it
 turns out somebody has misunderstood, or made a mistake, then we have
 to fix that.

 I don't see *many* people using history to look for extra features to
 re-animate.

OK, that's fine by me - I like that answer, because it allows us to
respect odbl=clean in all cases. I also agree that anybody rummaging
in the history for lost tags can be expected to know better than to
re-animate tainted tags.

Dermot

-- 
--
Igaühel on siin oma laul
ja ma oma ei leiagi üles

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:27:19 -0500
Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
 - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?

I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to 

* treat untagged nodes as clean if moved by an agreeing mapper
* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
  these tags are not present any more in the current version
* treat any nodes added to a way by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless
  if these nodes are not present any more in the current version of
  the way

I can activate these on the OSMI map + WTFE + Shapefiles on short
notice; I expect that the number of red nodes will decrease about 10%
by that.

Bye
Frederik

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Dermot McNally]

On 24 December 2011 19:32, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to

 * treat untagged nodes as clean if moved by an agreeing mapper

Nice

 * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
  these tags are not present any more in the current version

Also nice - two clarifications would be useful, if you could briefly give them:

1. This would, I suppose, mean that a formerly tainted node which
has both been moved and stripped of any tainted tags would also be
considered clean. Is this so, or is the moved node rule implemented as
a special case that can only every apply to untagged nodes?

2. Consider the case of a node that is mapped by an agreeing mapper as
a restaurant. A non-agreeing mapper comes along and adds
cuisine=pizza. An agreeing mapper cleans the object by removing this
tag. Time passes...

Another mapper walks by, notices that the place is a pizzeria and adds
back an identical tag. Are we clean or dirty now?

 * treat any nodes added to a way by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless
  if these nodes are not present any more in the current version of
  the way

Excellent. So this will have the effect of ignoring the edit by the
non-agreeing mapper in the _way's_ history, right?


Thanks for the clarifications. Indeed, thanks for this awesome resource.
Dermot

-- 
--
Igaühel on siin oma laul
ja ma oma ei leiagi üles

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:32:21 +
Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote:
 1. This would, I suppose, mean that a formerly tainted node which
 has both been moved and stripped of any tainted tags would also be
 considered clean. Is this so

Yes.

 2. Consider the case of a node that is mapped by an agreeing mapper as
 a restaurant. A non-agreeing mapper comes along and adds
 cuisine=pizza. An agreeing mapper cleans the object by removing this
 tag. Time passes...
 
 Another mapper walks by, notices that the place is a pizzeria and adds
 back an identical tag. Are we clean or dirty now?

Dirty, because the very same situation could arise with a non-agreeing
mapper adding cuisine=pizza, the agreeing mapper cleaning the
object and a third mapper reverting that last action. I have no way of
telling apart a revert to the non-agreeing mapper's version and a true
remapping from original sources. I'm open to suggestions but I can't
see an easy way out.

  * treat any nodes added to a way by a non-agreeing mapper as
  harmless if these nodes are not present any more in the current
  version of the way
 
 Excellent. So this will have the effect of ignoring the edit by the
 non-agreeing mapper in the _way's_ history, right?

Yes.

These changes carry with them the slight complication that they make
tainted-ness dependent on the current version of the way. This means
that an object that was previously untainted could now become tainted
again, by exactly the process that you outline above (re-adding of the
cuisine tag). That would be a very good use case for odbl=clean, or
maybe we could introduce something that users can place in their
changeset comment saying all edits in this changeset are remapping
from original sources, or we could even say: Whenever the changeset
has a source tag we consider this to be original sources...

Bye
Frederik

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Ed Avis]

mike@... writes:

Any chance of you changing your decline now, that is the easiest way
of decreasing deletions?

I am still hopeful of finding a way forward that will mean the OSM
data can continue to be distributed under a licence that I would
consider free and open.  Although Creative Commons or public domain
would be ideal, they are not the only choices.  In the light of the
legal reports I have shared with the LWG, I hope to persuade the Open
Data Commons people that the EULA-like parts of the ODbL (whereby it
tries to limit users by contract to give up rights that they might
otherwise have) may not be necessary - at least for OSM.  I know that
even on the ODC mailing lists this is not a universally liked feature
of the ODbL.

(I had also asked the lawyers to investigate whether this contract-law
part of the ODbL might not in fact weaken the enforceability of
share-alike, since breach of copyright is much easier to show and has
much stronger remedies (for our purpose) than breach of contract - so
you really do not want the courts to start interpreting your licence
as a contract.  Unfortunately they decided that because the OSM map
data was within the scope of copyright, the question of the ODbL's
enforceability was not important, so they did not answer it.)

I still feel that starting to use the ODbL does not automatically
imply stopping the use of CC licensing, and that it would be better to
offer both the old and new licences, as Wikipedia did with their
licence change.  As you know I discussed this with the LWG at a
meeting a few months ago (although not all members were present).
Since we now have a commitment from Creative Commons to release a new
version of CC-BY-SA next year, it would make sense to defer the
decision of whether to abandon CC altogether until then.

--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

I think it's relevant that node changes as suggested
should involve stand alone nodes only (such as POI).

Once they are part of a structure of say a building or a road, water
or any area, the nodes should be considered a composition  rather
then 4 nodes.
While the underlying structure is a geographic fact, the choice
of place nodes and the number to represent the structure is
a creative work.

I think this seems an obvious conclusion, but should be made clear.



In addition the LWG should also pay some attention to relations.


Regards,

Gert 


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 2:44 AM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org
wrote:
 On 12/20/2011 10:11 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
 Of particular interest are:
 - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?

 While you are at it, I would love to hear about a specific subset of
the
 cases encompassed by this question : the cases where the edit is
 correlated with a change of source. I asked this question a week ago
in
 the Are objects still tainted when they are edited from a better
source
 ? thread here and it has not been answered yet.

And we're listening.  Tell us and be specific.  Some of us have been
remapping for a while.  Give examples.

___
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] feedback requested

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 20 December 2011 21:27, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
 Dear All,

 LWG would like feedback on a couple of items relating to cleaning
 tainted data as we all prepare for the data base transition.

 Draft minutes are here.

 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZIQSl0xXpUFbqTeknz61BYgfCINDTzlAWomOiGxhgG8

 Of particular interest are:
 - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?

These question should really be asked to a lawyer who also knows how
OSM works.  I understand the LWG may want to ask the community if this
is worth consulting.  But ultimately the cleanness criteria are not up
for voting or discussion in a circle of people who obviously want to
be done with this process without losing their contributions (or
anyone else who's not expert in IPR really)

(on the other hand there is a lot of things that could, and maybe
should, be decided by all of community but instead are decided in a
small group, like the date for the switch to a next phase of the
license change process)

 - is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in
 reconciling the data base?

Definitely, and I think odbl=no would also be useful to mark objects
that are known to come from ODbL-incompatible sources but whose
contributors accepted Contributor Terms 1.2.4, of which there is a
significant number.

Cheers

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Ed Avis]

I think the test must be the same as for any other data which OSMF does not have
permission to use.  If a mapper added a node by copying from Google Maps, but
then another mapper moved it to a different position using a permitted data
source, is it okay to keep that node in the database?

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/12/21 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl:
 I think it's relevant that node changes as suggested
 should involve stand alone nodes only (such as POI).
 Once they are part of a structure of say a building or a road, water
 or any area, the nodes should be considered a composition  rather
 then 4 nodes


IMHO rights on this composition can also faint, e.g. years ago a
(non-ct) mapper was drawing a rough street with nodes every 300
meters. Now those initial way has five times more nodes then it had in
its initial version (most probably the initial way would also be split
into different pieces now, due to details like speed limits,
turn-restrictions, bus routes, lane-count, ...).

I think there must also be a point where nothing from the initial way
is actually contained in the current data (often these initial ways
don't have much attributes, it is common in here to find ways which
only have/had a highway-tag (the value is now often changed, so not
even one tag is the same). If you assume that other tags (like the
name) would also have been inserted by the following mappers you could
extend this to ways which had a name (or some other frequent tag, for
which a following mapper guarantees that he would have added it if it
were missing).


 While the underlying structure is a geographic fact, the choice
 of place nodes and the number to represent the structure is
 a creative work.


+1, but where is the point that this structure is significantly
changed? How many nodes do you have to move and insert/delete to be
something different?

What if someone takes a river, moves it aside and lets it become a
track (deletes the river tags and sets highway-tag, changes name). Now
he copies this way as a new way (new nodes and way) to the old
position of the river and sets tags. Is the track-way now tainted
because it consists of old nodes, while the river is OK because it was
newly created? Admittedly a rare corner case, but IMHO one that shows
that there is a point where there is no more original information in
the following versions of a way.

cheers,
Martin

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Ed Avis]

A common way to adjust a node position is to move it halfway between
the old one and the new one.  For example, if there is already a way
on the map traced from GPS but you have a new GPS trace for it which
is a bit different, it would be unwise to adjust it to exactly fit
your new trace.  But you may expect to improve accuracy a bit if you
adjust it to about halfway between the old and new positions.
Similarly a node such as a bus stop may have its position tweaked to
somewhere in between where it was and the new observed position.

So I don't think you can assume that when a node is moved its position
information is 'cleaned' somehow.  The new position as often as not is
derived from the old position.

--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Ed Avis]

Richard Weait richard@... writes:

We consider that the creation of an
object and its id to be a system action  rather than individual
creative contribution.

However, 'the creation of an object and its id' never occurs by itself.
At a minimum, you create an object with id and lat/lon, and that location data
is part of the OSM map.  The next version of the node, even if its position
has been adjusted, is likely to be derived from this data.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Simon Poole]

Please don't confuse the matter by treating tagged and untagged notes 
the same.


If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is 
interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of 
other ways) then he is doing exactly that, just because he is reusing an 
existing object (pre-numbered sheet remember) to mark a new interpolated 
position doesn't mean it is a derived work (because it is simply no 
different than taking a new sheet of paper with a different number).


Now if you wish to state that interpolation itself creates a derived 
work, please argue that.


Simon

Am 21.12.2011 13:10, schrieb Ed Avis:

A common way to adjust a node position is to move it halfway between
the old one and the new one.  For example, if there is already a way
on the map traced from GPS but you have a new GPS trace for it which
is a bit different, it would be unwise to adjust it to exactly fit
your new trace.  But you may expect to improve accuracy a bit if you
adjust it to about halfway between the old and new positions.
Similarly a node such as a bus stop may have its position tweaked to
somewhere in between where it was and the new observed position.

So I don't think you can assume that when a node is moved its position
information is 'cleaned' somehow.  The new position as often as not is
derived from the old position.

--
Ed Avise...@waniasset.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] feedback requested

[Ed Avis]

Simon Poole simon@... writes:

If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is 
interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of 
other ways) then he is doing exactly that,

That is exactly it: improving the geometry of a way.  Not replacing it.
If you take an existing street and adjust its position it is hard to argue
that you have taken a completely clean-room approach to doing so, not using
the existing geometry at all.  The existing geometry is there on your screen
while you are editing!

Yes, there are some cases where you might totally ignore the existing geometry
(perhaps because it has been messed up by a newcomer hitting the wrong buttons
in Potlatch) and recreate it wholesale.  But those are a small minority.

just because he is reusing an 
existing object (pre-numbered sheet remember) to mark a new interpolated 
position doesn't mean it is a derived work

Agreed - that in itself is not enough.  If a mapper grabbed some existing
node from the database and removed its location data entirely (perhaps taking
it from a global stock of 'spare nodes' kept in the Pacific ocean) then it
would clearly not be derived.  But why do that when you can just click to
create a new node?  If the mapper starts with a node that's already
in roughly the right place and just adjusts it a little bit, then the new
position is derived from the old one.

Now if you wish to state that interpolation itself creates a derived 
work, please argue that.

By interpolation I was referring to the practice of taking two paths (be they
two GPS traces, one GPS trace and one existing way on the map, a way on the map
and a path visible in an aerial photograph, etc) and combining them to make a
new path which is roughly halfway between the two.  For example if mapping from
GPS plus an existing out-of-copyright map you may trace a way which is about
halfway between your GPS trace and what you see on the old map - since neither
of them by itself is entirely accurate.  Doing this makes the new path derived
from both the old one and the new one.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 21 December 2011 12:43, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
 andrzej zaborowski balrogg@... writes:
- is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in
reconciling the data base?

Definitely, and I think odbl=no would also be useful to mark objects
that are known to come from ODbL-incompatible sources but whose
contributors accepted Contributor Terms 1.2.4, of which there is a
significant number.

 Hold on - is OSMF going to delete contributions even from some people who 
 *did*
 accept the new contributor terms?  (I'm not saying it should or it should not,
 but this needs to be made clear.)

This has been made clear many times: whether to delete an object or
not needs to be decided looking at some part of its edits history, so
even if your contribution is clean, the object may be tainted.

The case I'm thinking about though is where a mapper accepted CT but
had previously (or later) contributed data incompatible with ODbL.
Which is something that seems to be allowed by CT, as long as 1. you
grant OSMF the rights that you have in the data, 2. what you uploaded
was compatible with current licensing.

Cheers

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Simon Poole]

Am 21.12.2011 13:34, schrieb Ed Avis:

Simon Poolesimon@...  writes:


If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is
interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of
other ways) then he is doing exactly that,

That is exactly it: improving the geometry of a way.  Not replacing it.
If you take an existing street and adjust its position it is hard to argue
that you have taken a completely clean-room approach to doing so, not using
the existing geometry at all.  The existing geometry is there on your screen
while you are editing!


If you take an existing tainted way and move it they way is still going 
to go, so what is your point again?



Now if you wish to state that interpolation itself creates a derived
work, please argue that.

By interpolation I was referring to the practice of taking two paths (be they
two GPS traces, one GPS trace and one existing way on the map, a way on the map
and a path visible in an aerial photograph, etc) and combining them to make a
new path which is roughly halfway between the two.  For example if mapping from
GPS plus an existing out-of-copyright map you may trace a way which is about
halfway between your GPS trace and what you see on the old map - since neither
of them by itself is entirely accurate.  Doing this makes the new path derived
from both the old one and the new one.

You are using derived in a common language sense, please argue why this 
is a derived work in the IP/legal sense (choose any jurisdiction you 
would like).


Simon

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Ed Avis]

Simon Poole simon@... writes:

If you take an existing tainted way and move it they way is still going 
to go, so what is your point again?

Are we not talking about the following situation:

   - mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
   - mapper B (who has not agreed) adjusts the way's geometry, creating
 some new nodes
   - mapper C (who has agreed) adjusts the position of those nodes

In this case the third edit would have to be reverted because the new position
of the nodes is still based on work contributed by mapper B, even though they
have been moved since he created them.

You are using derived in a common language sense, please argue why this 
is a derived work in the IP/legal sense (choose any jurisdiction you 
would like).

That is a question for lawyers.  I do not know whether it is a derived work 
under
copyright law or sui generis database rights.  Normally the approach of the
project is to not import data from sources that do not have permission, and if 
it
gets into the database, to delete it (reverting the changeset) as soon as
possible.  We don't get into the business of judging whether we might get away
with including it anyway, because we are not lawyers.  So we have to use the
common-sense judgement of whether one piece of work builds on another.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Simon Poole]

Am 21.12.2011 14:15, schrieb Ed Avis:

Simon Poolesimon@...  writes:


If you take an existing tainted way and move it they way is still going
to go, so what is your point again?

Are we not talking about the following situation:

- mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
- mapper B (who has not agreed) adjusts the way's geometry, creating
  some new nodes
- mapper C (who has agreed) adjusts the position of those nodes

In this case the third edit would have to be reverted because the new position
of the nodes is still based on work contributed by mapper B, even though they
have been moved since he created them.


IMHO no, if we assume that C is editing in good faith and actually 
improving the geometry (we might want to have a minimum distance 
requirement for a move to be considered ok).



You are using derived in a common language sense, please argue why this
is a derived work in the IP/legal sense (choose any jurisdiction you
would like).

That is a question for lawyers.  I do not know whether it is a derived work 
under
copyright law or sui generis database rights.  Normally the approach of the
project is to not import data from sources that do not have permission, and if 
it
gets into the database, to delete it (reverting the changeset) as soon as
possible.  We don't get into the business of judging whether we might get away
with including it anyway, because we are not lawyers.  So we have to use the
common-sense judgement of whether one piece of work builds on another.

In general we have assumed that for example tracing from aerial imagery 
and similar sources does not create a derived work in which the creator 
of the imagery has rights (not that I necessarily agree with that). The 
requirement has always been that we have had permission to trace at the 
point in time that the tracing happened (forgetting about special cases 
like NearMap) .  The argument of the proponents that IP exists at all in 
ways and similar objects has been that the tracing (regardless of 
source) was an expression of creativity and that that expresses itself 
in, among other properties,  the placement of nodes where it is found 
aesthetically pleasing.


So why is one a derived work and the other not?

Simon



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Simon Poole]

Am 21.12.2011 14:50, schrieb Ed Avis:

Simon Poolesimon@...  writes:


In general we have assumed that for example tracing from aerial imagery
and similar sources does not create a derived work in which the creator
of the imagery has rights (not that I necessarily agree with that). The
requirement has always been that we have had permission to trace at the
point in time that the tracing happened

Right - we require permission.  So for example tracing from Google Maps is not
allowed, even if the legal theory about not creating a derived work turns out
to be correct.

I contend that mappers' contributions would need to be treated no different to
any other external data source.  If we have permission, we can use them, if not,
we can't.  If one mapper illegitimately adjusted the position of a way by
using Google Earth as a backdrop, but then a second mapper moved the position
of the nodes some more, normal OSM practice would still be to delete the tainted
data.

So you contend that there was no permission to use positional 
information entered in the DB by other mappers to interpolate prior to 
the current CTs (obviously this is not covered by CC-by-SA 2.0)?


Simon



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[mike]

Quoting Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:


Simon Poole simon@... writes:


   - mapper A (who has agreed to the CTs) creates a way
   - mapper B (who has not agreed) adjusts the way's geometry, creating
 some new nodes
   - mapper C (who has agreed) adjusts the position of those nodes

In this case the third edit would have to be reverted



IMHO no, if we assume that C is editing in good faith and actually
improving the geometry


I would say that C is mapping in good faith and improving the  
existing geometry
by building on the previous work done by B as well as his or her own  
surveying.
I've often walked around with a GPS, then come back and adjusted  
road positions.
I would not claim that the resulting position was all my own work,  
particuarly
as I did not wholesale replace the layout with my GPS track but  
rather tried to

find a middle path that lay between the existing geometry and the GPS.

Think about it another way - if mapper B had never existed, would the final
result be the same?  If mapper C is wholly replacing the geometry then the
answer is yes, and the new layout is entirely C's work.  If the answer is no,
then C is contributing useful information but relying on B's earlier work.

I contend that the second case is more common.  Certainly if you  
started mapping
and decided to totally ignore the existing layout of a way and  
replace it with

your GPS trace or aerial tracing, you would be criticized by most of your
fellow mappers.  It is more normal to make small adjustments, combining both
the new survey information and what went before.

(If you did decide to throw away the earlier work and start from scratch, you
might well just delete the existing object and make a new one.)


In general we have assumed that for example tracing from aerial imagery
and similar sources does not create a derived work in which the creator
of the imagery has rights (not that I necessarily agree with that). The
requirement has always been that we have had permission to trace at the
point in time that the tracing happened


Right - we require permission.  So for example tracing from Google  
Maps is not

allowed, even if the legal theory about not creating a derived work turns out
to be correct.

I contend that mappers' contributions would need to be treated no  
different to
any other external data source.  If we have permission, we can use  
them, if not,

we can't.  If one mapper illegitimately adjusted the position of a way by
using Google Earth as a backdrop, but then a second mapper moved the position
of the nodes some more, normal OSM practice would still be to delete  
the tainted

data.

If there is to be an exception (which does seem to me like one rule for
ordinary mappers, another rule for the OSMF) then I think the onus  
is on those
proposing it to do the legal research making sure it is safe.  Of  
course it is
far more tempting to wave hands and pick whatever policy helps to  
get the whole

business over with, but that is not a sound way to make legal decisions.


With respect to the legal fraternity, I think we are the experts here  
as this thread is showing from all parties ... collectively making a  
set of highly precise technical decisions based on general  
legally-enshrined principles.


What we should be considering in making our final decisions is

1) risk - If we do/don't do something, what is the future risk to the project?

and

2) good faith - are we making a reasonable effort to remove the IP of  
folks who have not given us permission to continue? I certainly agree  
with Ed that we should treat ex-contributors no differently to any IP  
owner ... but feel we are already doing that in this and other  
conversations.


I would also point out that Safe Harbour provisions also apply, if an  
ex-contributor later points out remaining instances of IP, then the  
OSMF will take steps to remove them. We naturally want that to be  
negligible or zero but it is an extra safe-guard.



Mike
LWG


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Ed Avis]

Sorry, I appreciate your taking the time to go through the arguments on this
but I think I have said all I have to say about node positions.  I'll let others
decide whether what I wrote makes sense.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Ed Avis]

 mike@... writes:

2) good faith - are we making a reasonable effort to remove the IP of  
folks who have not given us permission to continue? I certainly agree  
with Ed that we should treat ex-contributors no differently to any IP  
owner ... but feel we are already doing that in this and other  
conversations.

Mike, in that case I would ask you to apply the 'Google Maps test'.  If some
map data were entered by copying from a third party who did not give permission,
but then edited in good faith, how much of the data needs to be unpicked?
In the past OSMF has taken a very cautious approach to this, which I believe
is the right one.

If after careful consideration you do formulate a policy ('the LWG declares that
creating a node is not a creative operation, so it can be kept as long as it has
been moved by somebody else afterwards', or whatever you decide), then it should
also be applied to such third-party-copyright situations going forward.

Originally it was promised that no big deletion would go ahead if it would cause
too much damage to the OSM data.  Is that still the case and if so who is tasked
with deciding whether to pull the switch?

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[mike]

Quoting Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:

 mike@... writes:

2) good faith - are we making a reasonable effort to remove the IP of
folks who have not given us permission to continue? I certainly agree
with Ed that we should treat ex-contributors no differently to any IP
owner ... but feel we are already doing that in this and other
conversations.


Mike, in that case I would ask you to apply the 'Google Maps test'.  If some
map data were entered by copying from a third party who did not give  
permission,

but then edited in good faith, how much of the data needs to be unpicked?
In the past OSMF has taken a very cautious approach to this, which I believe
is the right one.


Ed,

Yes, that certainly seems reasonable to me though I would bow to the  
more technically clued up, such as the Data Working Group. I would  
speculate that it is an issue that has not come up, where there has  
not been any significant subsequent edit activity the simplest and  
most effective use of everyone's time is a simpler revert.


If after careful consideration you do formulate a policy ('the LWG  
declares that
creating a node is not a creative operation, so it can be kept as  
long as it has
been moved by somebody else afterwards', or whatever you decide),  
then it should

also be applied to such third-party-copyright situations going forward.


Again, very reasonable to me going forward.

Originally it was promised that no big deletion would go ahead if it  
would cause
too much damage to the OSM data.  Is that still the case and if so  
who is tasked

with deciding whether to pull the switch?


Community assent ... sounds vague to some may be, but has worked well  
so far.  Someone gave a good assessment in this or the Editing of  
Content thread, sorry I cannot access it at the moment.  By a number  
of measures, we are in the range of 95% of data good to go, so I'd  
personally say we are already at the no big deletion stage. We can  
still increase that though, so we should. We've also said that we also  
want to take local hotspots into consideration ... the UK, Germany and  
Spain have a lot of red spots for example.  The LWG's main task at the  
moment is to get more undecided and non-responders on board and to  
facilitate a small number of contributors who can say yes to some but  
not all their contributions.  Any chance of you changing your decline  
now, that is the easiest way of decreasing deletions?


Mike



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[mike]

Quoting Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:

 mike@... writes:

2) good faith - are we making a reasonable effort to remove the IP of
folks who have not given us permission to continue? I certainly agree
with Ed that we should treat ex-contributors no differently to any IP
owner ... but feel we are already doing that in this and other
conversations.


Mike, in that case I would ask you to apply the 'Google Maps test'.  If some
map data were entered by copying from a third party who did not give  
permission,

but then edited in good faith, how much of the data needs to be unpicked?
In the past OSMF has taken a very cautious approach to this, which I believe
is the right one.


Ed,

Yes, that certainly seems reasonable to me though I would bow to the  
more technically clued up, such as the Data Working Group. I would  
speculate that it is an issue that has not come up, where there has  
not been any significant subsequent edit activity the simplest and  
most effective use of everyone's time is a simpler revert.


If after careful consideration you do formulate a policy ('the LWG  
declares that
creating a node is not a creative operation, so it can be kept as  
long as it has
been moved by somebody else afterwards', or whatever you decide),  
then it should

also be applied to such third-party-copyright situations going forward.


Again, very reasonable to me going forward.

Originally it was promised that no big deletion would go ahead if it  
would cause
too much damage to the OSM data.  Is that still the case and if so  
who is tasked

with deciding whether to pull the switch?


Community assent ... sounds vague to some may be, but has worked well  
so far.  Someone gave a good assessment in this or the Editing of  
Content thread, sorry I cannot access it at the moment.  By a number  
of measures, we are in the range of 95% of data good to go, so I'd  
personally say we are already at the no big deletion stage. We can  
still increase that though, so we should. We've also said that we also  
want to take local hotspots into consideration ... the UK, Germany and  
Spain have a lot of red spots for example.  The LWG's main task at the  
moment is to get more undecided and non-responders on board and to  
facilitate a small number of contributors who can say yes to some but  
not all their contributions.  Any chance of you changing your decline  
now, that is the easiest way of decreasing deletions?


Mike



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Richard Weait]

Dear All,

LWG would like feedback on a couple of items relating to cleaning
tainted data as we all prepare for the data base transition.

Draft minutes are here.

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZIQSl0xXpUFbqTeknz61BYgfCINDTzlAWomOiGxhgG8

Of particular interest are:
- can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?
- is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in
reconciling the data base?

As seen here:

We discussed the moving of nodes and whether they could be clean: We
have seen a concern expressed where an node is moved by an agreed
mapper and that is the last position, should it not be deemed clean
(even if created dirty)? Conclusion: Yes, we are OK with that, the
assumption being that the move is made in good faith with a reference
source, (survey, Bing imagery, …). We consider that the creation of an
object and its id to be a system action  rather than individual
creative contribution.  Tags on the same node must be considered
separately. The LWG would like to adopt this as policy and would be
grateful for community feedback.

Frederik has recently proposed a new tag, odbl=clean, to be set by
mappers who will vouch for the odbl compliance of any object. The LWG
would like to adopt this as policy and would be grateful for community
feedback.

We look forward to your thoughtful, insightful feedback.

Best regards and Happy Mapping,
Richard Weait on behalf of LWG

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Apollinaris Schoell]

+1 for both items

On Dec 20, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Richard Weait wrote:

 Dear All,
 
 LWG would like feedback on a couple of items relating to cleaning
 tainted data as we all prepare for the data base transition.
 
 Draft minutes are here.
 
 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZIQSl0xXpUFbqTeknz61BYgfCINDTzlAWomOiGxhgG8
 
 Of particular interest are:
 - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?
 - is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in
 reconciling the data base?
 
 As seen here:
 
 We discussed the moving of nodes and whether they could be clean: We
 have seen a concern expressed where an node is moved by an agreed
 mapper and that is the last position, should it not be deemed clean
 (even if created dirty)? Conclusion: Yes, we are OK with that, the
 assumption being that the move is made in good faith with a reference
 source, (survey, Bing imagery, …). We consider that the creation of an
 object and its id to be a system action  rather than individual
 creative contribution.  Tags on the same node must be considered
 separately. The LWG would like to adopt this as policy and would be
 grateful for community feedback.
 
 Frederik has recently proposed a new tag, odbl=clean, to be set by
 mappers who will vouch for the odbl compliance of any object. The LWG
 would like to adopt this as policy and would be grateful for community
 feedback.
 
 We look forward to your thoughtful, insightful feedback.
 
 Best regards and Happy Mapping,
 Richard Weait on behalf of LWG
 
 ___
 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] feedback requested

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 12/20/2011 10:11 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
 Of particular interest are:
 - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?

While you are at it, I would love to hear about a specific subset of the
cases encompassed by this question : the cases where the edit is
correlated with a change of source. I asked this question a week ago in
the Are objects still tainted when they are edited from a better source
? thread here and it has not been answered yet.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Hendrik Oesterlin]

Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote on 21/12/2011 at 07:27:19 +1100
subject [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested :

 Of particular interest are:
 - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?
 - is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in
 reconciling the data base?

+1 for both items

 Frederik has recently proposed a new tag, odbl=clean, to be set by
 mappers who will vouch for the odbl compliance of any object. The LWG
 would like to adopt this as policy and would be grateful for community
 feedback.

I think odbl=clean is based on the honesty of the OSM
contributor.

It is exactly the same need of honesty if the contributor does a copy
and paste of data in order to make it odbl+ct compliant. The only
difference is that history remains intact and that it takes only 0.1%
of the time to do it.

I support strongly the idea of the odbl=clean tag.

-- 
Sincerely 
Hendrik Oesterlin - email hendrikmail2...@yahoo.de


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote:
 On 12/20/2011 10:11 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
 Of particular interest are:
 - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position?

 While you are at it, I would love to hear about a specific subset of the
 cases encompassed by this question : the cases where the edit is
 correlated with a change of source. I asked this question a week ago in
 the Are objects still tainted when they are edited from a better source
 ? thread here and it has not been answered yet.

And we're listening.  Tell us and be specific.  Some of us have been
remapping for a while.  Give examples.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk