subject:"\[OSM\-legal\-talk\] use OSM data to select proprietary data"



sent from a phone

> On 17. Dec 2019, at 01:35, Kathleen Lu  wrote:
> 
>  
>> 
>> To create an accurate postcode polygon from point features you will need a 
>> lot of them, so probably already a handful of them would be considered 
>> substantial.
> 
>  This logic seems backwards. Since it would require a lot of point features 
> in order to recreate the polygon (and thus something that looks similar to 
> the original OSM database), it should require a *lot* of points to be 
> considered substantial.


it _took_ a lot of address points to create the aggregate postcode polygon. The 
Germans did not survey the polygon, they surveyed addresses

Cheers Martin ___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

sent from a phone

> On 17. Dec 2019, at 01:11, matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de wrote:
> 
> I think, that's a moralistic point of view. I'll neither collect a 
> substantial part
> of the whole OSM database, nor you could proof that there was big investment 
> made to
> collect the data. Since the users are working for free, the only investment 
> are the
> servers.

you believe the mappers are working for “free” because they do not get paid? 
One can see their contributions as donations, they are donating their time and 
knowledge, and the value is what it would cost if they were paid according to 
the work they are doing. It is out of question that an immense investment had 
to be made for OpenStreetMap to come to the point where it is now, in survey 
time, data input, software development, and infrastructure.

“substantial” does not mean it has to be a certain percentage of the whole db, 
you can see this from the substantial guideline, which has fixed limits that 
are not growing with the db. “substantial” means it’s more than one or two 
features (OpenStreetMap-Foundation has declared they see a total of 100 
features as substantial, although it is not completely clear what a feature is, 
for example you could go to an extreme point of view and see the whole border 
of Germany as a single feature (I am not) while a more credible interpretation 
would see every border point as a feature, so that the border of Germany would 
be thousands of features). 

Cheers Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

it will contain a lot of postcode information from the original
> OpenStreetMap database, in adapted/translated form.


This doesn't seem correct to me. In the final set, each point will only
tell you yes/no whether it was in a particular postcode. That's not very
much info at all.

>
> To create an accurate postcode polygon from point features you will need a
> lot of them, so probably already a handful of them would be considered
> substantial.
>

 This logic seems backwards. Since it would require a lot of point features
in order to recreate the polygon (and thus something that looks similar to
the original OSM database), it should require a *lot* of points to be
considered substantial.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

> Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Dezember 2019 um 01:00 Uhr
> Von: "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
>
> it will contain a lot of postcode information from the original OpenStreetMap 
> database,
> in adapted/translated form. Whether the amount is sufficient to be considered 
> substantial
> will have to be evaluated based on the actual db that is created/the actual 
> numbers.
> To create an accurate postcode polygon from point features you will need a 
> lot of them,
> so probably already a handful of them would be considered substantial.

There are 5,650,789,072 nodes in OSM database. But the EU database directive 
wants to
protect the investment (in money). If it was damn hard to collect the nodes 
belonging
to the postcodes, only a few thousand nodes might be more substantial.

I think, that's a moralistic point of view. I'll neither collect a substantial 
part
of the whole OSM database, nor you could proof that there was big investment 
made to
collect the data. Since the users are working for free, the only investment are 
the
servers.

Like I said, that's a moralistic point of view.

I've got an offer today to get the data for about 3,500 Euro. This allows me to 
select
the data and even publish the postal code and the merged postal geometries with 
attribution.
It's another non-free dataset, but it solves my problem.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

sent from a phone

> On 17. Dec 2019, at 00:04, Kathleen Lu  wrote:
> 
> But what that says is not just "create a new database" but one "that contains 
> the whole or a substantial part of the original OSM database." His new 
> database will contain very little if any of the original OSM database

it will contain a lot of postcode information from the original OpenStreetMap 
database, in adapted/translated form. Whether the amount is sufficient to be 
considered substantial will have to be evaluated based on the actual db that is 
created/the actual numbers.
To create an accurate postcode polygon from point features you will need a lot 
of them, so probably already a handful of them would be considered substantial.

Cheers Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

But what that says is not just "create a new database" but one "that
contains the whole or a substantial part of the original OSM database." His
new database will contain very little if any of the original OSM database.

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 2:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 16. Dec 2019, at 22:09, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> That's what the guidelines are for!
> We can't cover every possible example because there are too many, but as I
> already said, I think your usecase is covered by the Geocoding Guideline.
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline
>
>
>
> I also believe it is covered by this guideline, but it seems his use would
> trigger share alike according to this guideline:
>
> 2. the Geocoding Results are not used to create a new database that
> contains the whole or a substantial part of the original OSM database
>
>
>
> because he wants to create a new database.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data



sent from a phone

>> On 16. Dec 2019, at 22:09, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk 
>>  wrote:
> That's what the guidelines are for! 
> We can't cover every possible example because there are too many, but as I 
> already said, I think your usecase is covered by the Geocoding Guideline. 
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline


I also believe it is covered by this guideline, but it seems his use would 
trigger share alike according to this guideline:

> 2. the Geocoding Results are not used to create a new database that contains 
> the whole or a substantial part of the original OSM database


because he wants to create a new database.

Cheers Martin ___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

> It is kind of unfortunate, because OSM as far as I am informed, wouldn't
> be interested in the specific dataset (of real estate prices) anyway.
>
> If it's not the type of data that OSM would be interested in, then why
doesn't it fall under the Collective Database Guideline?
the non-OSM data adds a particular type of geometry or data for a primary
feature that was not already present within a regional cut, and the added
feature data includes no OSM data;
Wasn't a major reason for that guideline to permit nonsharealike usecases
where the data potentially subject to sharealike would not be useful to OSM
anyway?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

That's what the guidelines are for!
We can't cover every possible example because there are too many, but as I
already said, I think your usecase is covered by the Geocoding Guideline.
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline


> Why doesn't the OSMF write about fundamental stuff then? I think,
> ST_Intersects() is one of the main tools in GIS world. Why don't
> give a clear statement on this?
>
> Since the ODbL has never changed, it's fixed. So there could be
> something like an FAQ or matrix to look up what triggers share-alike
> and what not?
>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

> Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2019 um 17:03 Uhr
> Von: "Tom Lee via legal-talk" 
> 
> This is an admirable impulse, but it is worth emphasizing that those of
> us who participate on OSM listservs are a small and unrepresentative
> fraction of the project's 5.9 million registered users. Lists like this
> one are a great way to find the slice of users who are most interested
> and passionate about a particular issue, and who consequently can be
> expected to have well-informed (and often strongly held) opinions that
> reflect the gamut of possible answers.

I understand this, but the girls and guys here do already have some
knowledge about this topic. I know many OSM mappers, which would never
be able to discuss about this license questions. And many don't even
use a GIS to be able to intersect two different data sources :-)
  
> But if you are seeking consensus, the closest thing available is the
> text of the license itself and guidelines that have been approved by
> elected members of the OSMF board. Usually when there is broad agreement
> on an issue, the answer is memorialized in a wiki page that people find
> before they wind up here :-)_

Why doesn't the OSMF write about fundamental stuff then? I think,
ST_Intersects() is one of the main tools in GIS world. Why don't
give a clear statement on this?

Since the ODbL has never changed, it's fixed. So there could be
something like an FAQ or matrix to look up what triggers share-alike
and what not?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-16 Thread Tom Lee via legal-talk

> I was aware of this and just wanted to get a consensus by the data
creators: the users.

This is an admirable impulse, but it is worth emphasizing that those of us
who participate on OSM listservs are a small and unrepresentative fraction
of the project's 5.9 million registered users. Lists like this one are a
great way to find the slice of users who are most interested and passionate
about a particular issue, and who consequently can be expected to have
well-informed (and often strongly held) opinions that reflect the gamut of
possible answers.

But if you are seeking consensus, the closest thing available is the text
of the license itself and guidelines that have been approved by elected
members of the OSMF board. Usually when there is broad agreement on an
issue, the answer is memorialized in a wiki page that people find before
they wind up here :-)
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

Am Mo., 16. Dez. 2019 um 16:03 Uhr schrieb <
matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de>:

> Now, I neither can use your data, nor add my dataset to yours. A
> lose-lose-situation :-(
>


the problem is that "your dataset" is not yours, otherwise you could add
it, and you could also decide whether to use OSM in combination or not. But
you don't have the right to re-publish / re-license the dataset you have
acquired because they only sold you the right to use it.

It is kind of unfortunate, because OSM as far as I am informed, wouldn't be
interested in the specific dataset (of real estate prices) anyway.

Cheers
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-16 Thread Christoph Hormann

On Monday 16 December 2019, matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de wrote:
> >
> > The usual view is that share-alike provisions do not make something
> > non-free or non-open because they are meant to protect and extend
> > the freedom and only constrain users of truly non-free data.  But
> > anyone can have a different opinion on that of course.
>
> Sorry to say this, but I don't feel like you want to protect your
> data. It feels like you want to grab all the data, your data comes
> into contact with. "Viral" is the right term here - do you know the
> Borg? :-)

There is a long history of discussion about the benefits of
viral/share-alike licenses in the open data/free software movement.  In
OSM we have had this discussion extensively before the license change.
I tried to provide a bit of insight about why we have share-alike but
people here in general are fairly reluctant to reiterate that
discussion because it rarely brings any new insights.

Apart from the mentioned importance of share-alike for the social
contract between mappers and data users it is also doubtful that OSM
would still exist as a single homogeneous project as we know it today
if in 2012 we would have chosen a non-share-alike license.  It is very
likely that OSM would have split off several proprietary forks with
which corporate data users would have tried to distinguish themselves
from the competition by creating improved versions of the OSM database
adding proprietary data without feeding it back into the openly
licensed public database.

Please keep in mind that the image of a viral license is partly
misleading because everyone has the free choice to not use the data and
not 'be infected' while a biological virus does not typically give you
that freedom.

> > Both share-alike and attribution play an important role in OSM in
> > the social contract between mappers and data users.  In return for
> > being able to use the results of the work of the mappers for free,
> > data users are required to share improvements of the data or the
> > results of producing something of additional value in combination
> > with other data under open license terms.
>
> If attribution would pay a role, than "(c) Non-Free data, selected by
> using OSM data ..." would be possible. That might be an idea for
> future license drafts.

The viewpoint communicated by Kathleen would mean data sets partly
derived from OSM through spatial operations without containing
substantial amounts of the original data in original form (that is
essentially the case we are talking about here in abstract form) would
require neither share-alike nor attribution since they are neither a
Derivative Database, a Collective Database nor a Produced Work.

So while your willingness to attribute is admirable this kind of
attribution for mixed and processed data without share-alike is not
something that the ODbL considers a separate scenario.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

Christoph.

> Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2019 um 12:03 Uhr
> Von: "Christoph Hormann" 
>
> This is definitely a better approach than trying to find loopholes in
> the license with brute force and wishful thinking.  Even if that is
> possible and you can present an interpretation of the wording of the
> ODbL that supports your use case without share-alike this was clearly
> not the intention of the OSM community when adopting the ODbL to do so.

It never was my intention to brute force a hole. I just thought, OSM data can 
be used, as long I don't mix anything or fill my missing data. I thought, 
proper attribution like "selected by using OSM data ..." would be fine for your.

> > I didn't expected OpenStreetMap to be such non-free and permissive
> > :-(
>
> The usual view is that share-alike provisions do not make something
> non-free or non-open because they are meant to protect and extend the
> freedom and only constrain users of truly non-free data.  But anyone
> can have a different opinion on that of course.

Sorry to say this, but I don't feel like you want to protect your data. It 
feels like you want to grab all the data, your data comes into contact with. 
"Viral" is the right term here - do you know the Borg? :-)

> Both share-alike and attribution play an important role in OSM in the
> social contract between mappers and data users.  In return for being
> able to use the results of the work of the mappers for free, data users
> are required to share improvements of the data or the results of
> producing something of additional value in combination with other data
> under open license terms.

If attribution would pay a role, than "(c) Non-Free data, selected by using OSM 
data ..." would be possible.
That might be an idea for future license drafts.

Regards,
Matthias

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

Simon,

> Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2019 um 13:33 Uhr
> Von: "Simon Poole" 
>
> Just to be clear: you asked a question on an unmoderated, publicly
> accessible mailing list on which everybody can voice their opinions
> however unfounded they are or not, and now you are unhappy with that you
> got a cacophony of conflicting opinions, which is exactly what you
> should have expected.

I was aware of this and just wanted to get a consensus by the data creators: 
the users.
Looking at the opinion of the mass it shows me, that my approach of using OSM 
as a source of selecting the data doesn't seem to be fine. More of you are 
saying "share-alike", so I have to deal with this.

Like I sad before:
I would have been fine at attributing OpenStreetMap as selection. Now, I 
neither can use OSM data, nor add my dataset to yours.
A lose-lose-situation :-(

> The official guidance on geo-coding from the OSMF can be found here
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline

I think that is what Kathleen tried to explain, but got confused by others.
I'm sad that paying a lawyer is more expensive than paying for other datasets 
:-)

Regards,
Matthias

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

I don't care about the money it costs, I even would pay for OpenStreetMap. I just wanted to use OSM, since the data quality is pretty high in the area I need it.

 

In a future license it would be better to allow attributions like "Data: (c) Non-Free, selected using (c) OpenStreetMap under ODbL...".

Now, I neither can use your data, nor add my dataset to yours. A lose-lose-situation :-(

 

Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2019 um 10:34 Uhr
Von: "Nuno Caldeira" 
An: "Licensing and other legal discussions." 
Betreff: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data






that's unfair, it is free, you don't have to pay for it. it just has a license, or else map companies would use our data 
 






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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-16 Thread Simon Poole

Just to be clear: you asked a question on an unmoderated, publicly
accessible mailing list on which everybody can voice their opinions
however unfounded they are or not, and now you are unhappy with that you
got a cacophony of conflicting opinions, which is exactly what you
should have expected.

The official guidance on geo-coding from the OSMF can be found here
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline


Simon

Am 16.12.2019 um 03:18 schrieb matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de:
>> Von: "Christoph Hormann" 
>>
>> The idea that your process of intersecting non-OSM data with OSM based
>> admin polygons results in a collective database is not realistic.  To
>> me this kind of operation would be a textbook example of something
>> generating a derivative database - you combine OSM data with non-OSM
>> data to generate something of additional value compared to either of
>> these data sets alone.  This is exactly the kind of scenario
>> share-alike is meant for and why it was chosen as license for OSM.  But
>> there are of course fairly strong economic interests for this not being
>> subject to share-alike so people think of ways to interpret the ODbL
>> accordingly.
> Okay, I'll canceld all plans to use OpenStreetMap for this task.
> I've contacted several commercial data providers and hope to get offers 
> tomorrow.
>
> I didn't expected OpenStreetMap to be such non-free and permissive :-(
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-16 Thread Christoph Hormann

On Monday 16 December 2019, matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de wrote:
>
> Okay, I'll canceld all plans to use OpenStreetMap for this task.
> I've contacted several commercial data providers and hope to get
> offers tomorrow.

In general (not necessarily specifically in your case - i don't know
enough about it to make that assessment) i think this is a good
approach if you have troubles with the share-alike provisions of the
ODbL.  If you want or need to keep a proprietary data set proprietary
it is natural that you have limitations in using it together with open
data with a viral license.

This is definitely a better approach than trying to find loopholes in
the license with brute force and wishful thinking.  Even if that is
possible and you can present an interpretation of the wording of the
ODbL that supports your use case without share-alike this was clearly
not the intention of the OSM community when adopting the ODbL to do so.

You need to be aware of course that the big corporate data users will
keep looking for loopholes - real or imagined - to achieve a
competitive advantage.  Like in the tale of the frog and the scorpion:
It is in their nature.  So if you respect the spirit of share-alike in
the ODbL you will always be potentially at a competitive disadvantages
to the corporate data users who simply don't give a damn.

The even better approach is of course to adopt the spirit of open data
and use OSM data together with other data sources embracing
share-alike.  Unfortunately so far the OSMF has not provided much
guidance on how to correctly do that, i.e. how to share share-alike
data sets practically.  The LWG unfortunately currently focuses on
guidance on how to avoid share-alike and attribution as much as
possible.

> I didn't expected OpenStreetMap to be such non-free and permissive
> :-(

The usual view is that share-alike provisions do not make something
non-free or non-open because they are meant to protect and extend the
freedom and only constrain users of truly non-free data.  But anyone
can have a different opinion on that of course.

Both share-alike and attribution play an important role in OSM in the
social contract between mappers and data users.  In return for being
able to use the results of the work of the mappers for free, data users
are required to share improvements of the data or the results of
producing something of additional value in combination with other data
under open license terms.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-16 Thread Nuno Caldeira

that's unfair, it is free, you don't have to pay for it. it just has a
license, or else map companies would use our data

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 02:19 ,  wrote:

>
> I didn't expected OpenStreetMap to be such non-free and permissive :-(
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

Am Mo., 16. Dez. 2019 um 03:19 Uhr schrieb <
matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de>:

> Okay, I'll canceld all plans to use OpenStreetMap for this task.
> I've contacted several commercial data providers and hope to get offers
> tomorrow.
>
> I didn't expected OpenStreetMap to be such non-free and permissive :-(



It depends on your definition of "free". It is free and open in a viral
way, i.e. it also frees the data with which you combine it, at least this
is the conceptual idea behind it (share alike).

Cheers
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-15 Thread matthias . straetling

> Von: "Christoph Hormann" 
>
> The idea that your process of intersecting non-OSM data with OSM based
> admin polygons results in a collective database is not realistic.  To
> me this kind of operation would be a textbook example of something
> generating a derivative database - you combine OSM data with non-OSM
> data to generate something of additional value compared to either of
> these data sets alone.  This is exactly the kind of scenario
> share-alike is meant for and why it was chosen as license for OSM.  But
> there are of course fairly strong economic interests for this not being
> subject to share-alike so people think of ways to interpret the ODbL
> accordingly.

Okay, I'll canceld all plans to use OpenStreetMap for this task.
I've contacted several commercial data providers and hope to get offers 
tomorrow.

I didn't expected OpenStreetMap to be such non-free and permissive :-(

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-14 Thread Christoph Hormann

On Saturday 14 December 2019, matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de wrote:
> > existing OSMF community guidelines suggest spatial operations like
> > ST_Difference() and ST_Intersection() yield Derivative Databases
> > that are subject to share-alike.
>
> Let's take the Collective Database Guideline, you've mentioned:
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Coll
>ective_Database_Guideline_Guideline
>
> "Technically a reference between non-OSM and OSM data can be by a
> database key or any other method of identifying a specific OSM or
> non-OSM element that may be used with a database join."
>
> So actually, I just need to create a collective database, put the
> non-free data in one table and OSM data in another. For table
> joining, I'm using ST_Intersects() and I'm fine?

No, the quoted guideline says that share-alike does not apply if OSM
data and non-OSM data *do not* reference each other and in specific
other cases.  None of these cases covers references through spatial
relationships.

The idea that your process of intersecting non-OSM data with OSM based
admin polygons results in a collective database is not realistic.  To
me this kind of operation would be a textbook example of something
generating a derivative database - you combine OSM data with non-OSM
data to generate something of additional value compared to either of
these data sets alone.  This is exactly the kind of scenario
share-alike is meant for and why it was chosen as license for OSM.  But
there are of course fairly strong economic interests for this not being
subject to share-alike so people think of ways to interpret the ODbL
accordingly.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-14 Thread matthias . straetling

>
> existing OSMF community guidelines suggest spatial operations like
> ST_Difference() and ST_Intersection() yield Derivative Databases that
> are subject to share-alike.

Let's take the Collective Database Guideline, you've mentioned:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Collective_Database_Guideline_Guideline

"Technically a reference between non-OSM and OSM data can be by a database key 
or any other method of identifying a specific OSM or non-OSM element that may 
be used with a database join."

So actually, I just need to create a collective database, put the non-free data 
in one table and OSM data in another.
For table joining, I'm using ST_Intersects() and I'm fine?

Confusing.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-14 Thread Frederik Ramm

Hi,

On 14.12.19 06:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Can you point me to legal definition
> of "substantial part"?

There is none, hence:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-14 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 22:41 Kathleen Lu via legal-talk, <
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data.
> There are two reasons.
>

I would argue that the dataset here does include some OSM data, as it includes
(albeit limited) information about the regions enclosed by certain features
in OSM. Regardless of that though, I would use the following reasoning,
involving a chain of derivative databases, to argue that final databases
could be subject to ODbL even if they don't directly contain any OSM data,
if OSM data has been used in their creation.

At some point in the process of deriving the new dataset here, an OSM extract
and some proprietary data were combined into a database. To start with,
these would be independent parts, and so the combined database would be a
Collective Database, and so not subject to ODbL.
However, I would argue that the moment you run a query that combines both
parts of the database in a non-trivial way, those parts can no longer be
said to be "independent", and hence they cannot be part of a
Collective Database. The combined OSM extract, proprietary data, and the
output from the query are now a derivative database, and hence subject to
ODbL, thanks to the presence of the OSM data. The data published is then a
substantial extract from this derivative database,
and is thus is a derivative of the derivative. This makes it also subject
to ODbL.

Robert.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-13 Thread Mateusz Konieczny




13 Dec 2019, 19:28 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org:

> Hi Frederik,
>
> Here's why I disagree. The meaning of "derived" in a colloquial sense and the 
> definition of "Derivative Database" are not the same.
> While colloquially, it may be fair to interpret "derived" as "made from" or 
> "could not have been made without", that is not the legal definition of 
> "Derivative Database".
>
> From ODbL:
> “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and
> includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any
> other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
> Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or
> Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new
> Database.
>
> So a Derivative Database must include a "translation, adaptation, 
> arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a 
> Substantial part of the
> Contents." In other words, it has to include in the new database at least a 
> substantial part of what was in the previous database.
>
Can you point me to legal definition
of "substantial part"?

I would expect that extracting boundary
data for locations is some other database
would count as "substantial part".

But maybe this loophole actually works
if "substantial" is defined to be unreasonably high.
> The inference of "with pubs" would not be, in my mind, a "translation, 
> adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the 
> Database or of a Substantial part of the
> Contents" because it is too minor of an inference.
>
It is certainly translation/adaptation,
but such use may pass as not
"substantial".

I hope that "not substantial" would
work for something like 

(1) not repeated 
extraction of location data for 100 points,
but I would be happy to be pointed to an
unbiased legal analysis of this term.

(2) not repeated extraction of boundaries
from OSM with no more than 100 nodes
in total

but it is hard to be to guess what can
be considered as substantial.
Probably depends on a lawyer and who
pays them to write a legal decision.
> With respect to Mateusz's more extreme example, this is also very 
> specifically covered in the Geocoding Guidelines: "> A collection of 
> Geocoding Results will be considered a systematic attempt to aggregate data 
> if it is used as a general purpose geodatabase, regardless of how the 
> original aggregation was accomplished."
>
> In other worse, if, as in Mateusz's hypothetical, you attempt to abuse the 
> system to reverse engineer a database that is equivalent to OSM, you make a 
> Derivative Database. But Mattias has been very clear that is not what he's 
> doing. He just wants to display the subparts of a list of points he already 
> has on a different layer than the other subparts. 
>
I thought that it was claimed that it
is not translation/adaptation - but
given that argument relies on 
"substantial" part then my example is
not applicable.___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

Nuno -
I do not see how Matthias's usecase qualifies as "AND you have *added to or
enhanced our data*" since the houses and flat and their prices are *not*
added to OSM houses or flats, but if this FAQ answer is misleading, we
should rewrite this FAQ answer to more accurate reflect ODbL.

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:45 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> well
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#The_OpenStreetMap_Geodata_Licence
>
> Secondly, you *"Share Alike"*. If you do not make any changes to
> OpenStreetMap data, then you are unlikely to have a "Share Alike"
> obligation. But, if you *publicly distribute something that you have made*
> from our data, such as a *map or another database*, AND you have *added
> to or enhanced our data*, then we want you to make those additions
> publicly available. We obviously prefer it if you added the data straight
> back to our database, but you do not have to, *as long as the public can
> easily get a copy of what you have done.* If you do not publicly
> distribute anything, then you do not have to share anything.
>
>
> Às 19:34 de 13/12/2019, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk escreveu:
>
> Nuno - I think you are operating under the mistaken assumption that a
> CC-BY-SA license would mean that uses such as Mattias's would require
> sharealike.
>
> Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Derivative Work:
> *"Derivative Work"* means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and
> other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
> dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording,
> art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the
> Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that
> constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for
> the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is
> a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work
> in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a
> Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.
>
> Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Collective Work:
> *"Collective Work"* means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology
> or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form,
> along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and
> independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A
> work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative
> Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
>
> As you can see from these examples (which focus on creative derivatives,
> since facts are not even copyrightable in the US and there is no US
> database protection law), a "derivative work" needs quite a bit of the
> original to qualify. The meaning of a "derivative work" was always much
> narrower than what a colloquial understanding of what "derived" might be,
> and the change in license did not change that.
>
> -Kathleen
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:11 AM Nuno Caldeira <
> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> these new Liberal interpretation of ODbL are funny. to bad it's not
>> documented what we wanted when we changed license. seems to be full of
>> lies
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License
>>
>> *"This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but the
>> “bad guys” may be able to use it anyway." *
>>
>> *" We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our current
>> progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see more below) but
>> have it written explicitly for data."*
>>
>> *"Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”." *
>>
>> *"But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
>> commercial interests?*
>>
>>- *You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
>>Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the Foundation to
>>publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a free and open 
>> license.*
>>
>>
>>- *The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and
>>release it under a commercial license.*
>>
>>
>>- *If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
>>license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the existing data
>>can be made and released by a different body.*
>>
>>
>>- *If a change is made to another free and open license, it is active
>>contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation."*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 18:56 Frederik Ramm,  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
>>> > “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and
>>> > includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any
>>> > other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
>>> > Contents.
>>>
>>> Interesting. I knew the ODbL text but I have always

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

Hi Christoph,
I think that there is a premise to your list that I do not quite agree
with. ODbL says:

3.1 Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, the Licensor
grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, terminable (but
only under Section 9) license to Use the Database for the duration of
any applicable copyright and Database Rights. These rights explicitly
include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. To
the extent possible in the relevant jurisdiction, these rights may be
exercised in all media and formats whether now known or created in the
future.

So the rights granted are *all* database and copyright rights, subject to
certain conditions that apply to Produced Works and Derivative Databases.
There are rights that are completely not covered by ODbL are trademark and
patent rights, which would be #6.
But that also means there is a category #7 you have not listed, where the
database and/or copyright rights *are* conveyed by ODbL and no limitations
on the exercise of those rights is placed on the user.
So as far as usecases like Matthias's which we are discussing, my opinion
is that it is #5, but if it is not, it could be #7. But it could not be #6.

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:54 AM Christoph Hormann 
wrote:

> On Friday 13 December 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> >
> > I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under
> > the ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative
> > Database" definition.
>
> My reading of the ODbL has always been that something is either
>
> 1) the original Database (or substantial parts of it)
> 2) a Derivative Database
> 3) a Collective Database
> 4) a Produced Work
>
> or if something is neither of these it would be either
>
> 5) something that is not protected by law at all so free to use
> independent of the license terms (like insubstantial extracts of data).
> 6) something the ODbL does not grant any rights for and therefore cannot
> be legally used by the user based on the ODbL.
>
> So my question would always be if someone considers certain things not
> to be a Derivative Database which of the five other above cases applies
> instead.
>
> I would kind of assume that for case (5) there are probably already some
> court rulings available for to what extent EU database protection
> applies to set operations of different databases since this is nothing
> specific to spatial databases but also is relevant for many other types
> of data.
>
> As i already wrote in
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-November/083535.html
>
> existing OSMF community guidelines suggest spatial operations like
> ST_Difference() and ST_Intersection() yield Derivative Databases that
> are subject to share-alike.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-13 Thread Michael Patrick

There are other writings about ODBL, but this one captures the issues
fairly well:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons , a
more in depth treatment can be found in ' Safe to be Open: Study on the
protection of research data and recommendation for access and usage ':
https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/sites/default/files/pdf/835.pdf

Whether it is government, commercial interest or academic researchers, IMHO
it is almost inevitable that 'mixing' will occur as information flows
downstream and back upstream among federated sources. Until somebody
develops and deploys some sort of blockchain provenance that can be
attached to each DB element to keep track of things through pipelines of
analysis/extract transformations, despite the best intentions of data
consumers, it is impossible to be ODBL compliant except in the very
simplest cases, like displaying the end map (with attribution) or using
exclusively ODBL data.

To some extent, extremely permissive licenses ( or 'license free' like the
US Federal ) allow data to easily flow into ODBL, but ironically that
benefit can not be reciprocated. While the https://opendatacommons.org/
seems to be stagnant since 2010 ( last  'News' post, and the Advisory
Council page links mostly go to 404 ) , in contrast the Creative Commons
organization has been continually evolving and adapting.

For me, the point selection via ODBL polygons creates ODBL data.

Michael Patrick
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-13 Thread Christoph Hormann

On Friday 13 December 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under
> the ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative
> Database" definition.

My reading of the ODbL has always been that something is either

1) the original Database (or substantial parts of it)
2) a Derivative Database
3) a Collective Database
4) a Produced Work

or if something is neither of these it would be either

5) something that is not protected by law at all so free to use
independent of the license terms (like insubstantial extracts of data).
6) something the ODbL does not grant any rights for and therefore cannot
be legally used by the user based on the ODbL.

So my question would always be if someone considers certain things not
to be a Derivative Database which of the five other above cases applies
instead.

I would kind of assume that for case (5) there are probably already some
court rulings available for to what extent EU database protection
applies to set operations of different databases since this is nothing
specific to spatial databases but also is relevant for many other types
of data.

As i already wrote in

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-November/083535.html

existing OSMF community guidelines suggest spatial operations like
ST_Difference() and ST_Intersection() yield Derivative Databases that
are subject to share-alike.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-13 Thread Nuno Caldeira

well 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#The_OpenStreetMap_Geodata_Licence

Secondly, you *"Share Alike"*. If you do not make any changes to 
OpenStreetMap data, then you are unlikely to have a "Share Alike" 
obligation. But, if you _publicly distribute something that you have 
made_ from our data, such as a _map or another database_, AND you have 
_added to or enhanced our data_, then we want you to make those 
additions publicly available. We obviously prefer it if you added the 
data straight back to our database, but you do not have to, _as long 
as the public can easily get a copy of what you have done._ If you do 
not publicly distribute anything, then you do not have to share anything. 

Às 19:34 de 13/12/2019, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk escreveu:
Nuno - I think you are operating under the mistaken assumption that a 
CC-BY-SA license would mean that uses such as Mattias's would require 
sharealike.

Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Derivative Work:
*"Derivative Work"*means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work 
and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical 
arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, 
sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any 
other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, 
except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be 
considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the 
avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound 
recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a 
moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the 
purpose of this License.

Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Collective Work:
*"Collective Work"*means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology 
or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, 
along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and 
independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective 
whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be 
considered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of 
this License.

As you can see from these examples (which focus on creative 
derivatives, since facts are not even copyrightable in the US and 
there is no US database protection law), a "derivative work" needs 
quite a bit of the original to qualify. The meaning of a "derivative 
work" was always much narrower than what a colloquial understanding of 
what "derived" might be, and the change in license did not change that.

-Kathleen

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:11 AM Nuno Caldeira 
mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

these new Liberal interpretation of ODbL are funny. to bad it's
not documented what we wanted when we changed license. seems to be
full of lies

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License

/
/
/"This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but
the “bad guys” may be able to use it anyway." /
/
/
/" We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our
current progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see
more below) but have it written explicitly for data."/
/
/
/"Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”." /
/
/
/"But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
commercial interests?/

  * /You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the
Foundation to publish the data for others to use and ONLY
under a free and open license./

  * /The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and
release it under a commercial license./

  * /If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the
existing data can be made and released by a different body./

  * /If a change is made to another free and open license, it is
active contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation."/

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 18:56 Frederik Ramm, mailto:frede...@remote.org>> wrote:

Hi,

On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
> “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the
Database, and
> includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement,
modification, or any
> other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
> Contents.

Interesting. I knew the ODbL text but I have always glossed
over this
definition, assuming that "well you know what derived means".

I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some
assumptions I had
made. It would mean that, for example, a database that
contains a count
of all pubs in

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



sent from a phone

> On 13. Dec 2019, at 19:56, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some assumptions I had
> made. It would mean that, for example, a database that contains a count
> of all pubs in each municipality,



-> adaptation 


> or a database that contains the
> average travel time from a building in a city to the nearest hospital,


-> adaptation 


> or a heatmap of ice cream parlours,


-> adaptation 



> (and neither could they possibly be used to reassemble
> OSM).


is there a requirement in the ODbL that your adaptation or alteration has to be 
reversible?

Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

Nuno - I think you are operating under the mistaken assumption that a
CC-BY-SA license would mean that uses such as Mattias's would require
sharealike.

Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Derivative Work:
*"Derivative Work"* means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and
other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording,
art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the
Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that
constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for
the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is
a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work
in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a
Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.

Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Collective Work:
*"Collective Work"* means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or
encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along
with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent
works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A work that
constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as
defined below) for the purposes of this License.

As you can see from these examples (which focus on creative derivatives,
since facts are not even copyrightable in the US and there is no US
database protection law), a "derivative work" needs quite a bit of the
original to qualify. The meaning of a "derivative work" was always much
narrower than what a colloquial understanding of what "derived" might be,
and the change in license did not change that.

-Kathleen

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:11 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> these new Liberal interpretation of ODbL are funny. to bad it's not
> documented what we wanted when we changed license. seems to be full of lies
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License
>
> *"This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but the “bad
> guys” may be able to use it anyway." *
>
> *" We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our current
> progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see more below) but
> have it written explicitly for data."*
>
> *"Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”." *
>
> *"But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
> commercial interests?*
>
>- *You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
>Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the Foundation to
>publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a free and open license.*
>
>
>- *The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and release
>it under a commercial license.*
>
>
>- *If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
>license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the existing data
>can be made and released by a different body.*
>
>
>- *If a change is made to another free and open license, it is active
>contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation."*
>
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 18:56 Frederik Ramm,  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
>> > “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and
>> > includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any
>> > other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
>> > Contents.
>>
>> Interesting. I knew the ODbL text but I have always glossed over this
>> definition, assuming that "well you know what derived means".
>>
>> I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some assumptions I had
>> made. It would mean that, for example, a database that contains a count
>> of all pubs in each municipality, or a database that contains the
>> average travel time from a building in a city to the nearest hospital,
>> or a heatmap of ice cream parlours, would not fall under the ODbL
>> because these, while derived from OSM, do not actually contain a copy of
>> anything in OSM (and neither could they possibly be used to reassemble
>> OSM).
>>
>> I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under the
>> ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative Database"
>> definition.
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-13 Thread Nuno Caldeira

these new Liberal interpretation of ODbL are funny. to bad it's not
documented what we wanted when we changed license. seems to be full of lies

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License

*"This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but the “bad
guys” may be able to use it anyway." *

*" We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our current
progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see more below) but
have it written explicitly for data."*

*"Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”." *

*"But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
commercial interests?*

   - *You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
   Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the Foundation to
   publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a free and open license.*


   - *The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and release
   it under a commercial license.*


   - *If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
   license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the existing data
   can be made and released by a different body.*


   - *If a change is made to another free and open license, it is active
   contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation."*



On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 18:56 Frederik Ramm,  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
> > “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and
> > includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any
> > other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
> > Contents.
>
> Interesting. I knew the ODbL text but I have always glossed over this
> definition, assuming that "well you know what derived means".
>
> I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some assumptions I had
> made. It would mean that, for example, a database that contains a count
> of all pubs in each municipality, or a database that contains the
> average travel time from a building in a city to the nearest hospital,
> or a heatmap of ice cream parlours, would not fall under the ODbL
> because these, while derived from OSM, do not actually contain a copy of
> anything in OSM (and neither could they possibly be used to reassemble
> OSM).
>
> I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under the
> ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative Database"
> definition.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



sent from a phone

> On 13. Dec 2019, at 19:32, matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de wrote:
> 
> So as soon I'm selecting any data using OSM polygons, it gets transformed OSM 
> data?
> They're not even touching on the same layer, since it's a different feature 
> type.


if you modify your data based on OpenStreetMap data you are creating a 
derivative database.

Cheers Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-13 Thread Frederik Ramm

Hi,

On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
> “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and
> includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any
> other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
> Contents.

Interesting. I knew the ODbL text but I have always glossed over this
definition, assuming that "well you know what derived means".

I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some assumptions I had
made. It would mean that, for example, a database that contains a count
of all pubs in each municipality, or a database that contains the
average travel time from a building in a city to the nearest hospital,
or a heatmap of ice cream parlours, would not fall under the ODbL
because these, while derived from OSM, do not actually contain a copy of
anything in OSM (and neither could they possibly be used to reassemble
OSM).

I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under the
ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative Database"
definition.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-13 Thread matthias . straetling

Hi Mateusz,

>> No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data.
> It is true but misleading to mention here as this database contains 
> transformed OSM data.
 
So if I don't merge the postcodes, it's fine?

>> There is no OSM data in the secondary list so it is not a Derivative 
>> Database.
> This is blatantly untrue. There is OSM data there, only transformed.

So as soon I'm selecting any data using OSM polygons, it gets transformed OSM 
data?
They're not even touching on the same layer, since it's a different feature 
type.

Regards,
Matthias


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

Hi Frederik,

Here's why I disagree. The meaning of "derived" in a colloquial sense and
the definition of "Derivative Database" are not the same.
While colloquially, it may be fair to interpret "derived" as "made from" or
"could not have been made without", that is not the legal definition of
"Derivative Database".

>From ODbL:
“Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and
includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any
other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or
Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new
Database.

So a Derivative Database must include a "translation, adaptation,
arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a
Substantial part of the
Contents." In other words, it has to include in the new database at least a
substantial part of what was in the previous database.
The inference of "with pubs" would not be, in my mind, a "translation,
adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the
Database or of a Substantial part of the
Contents" because it is too minor of an inference.
I view Mattias's usecase as *using* OSM, not *making a Derivative Database
from OSM*.
I would also say that, looking back at the EU Database Directive, I do not
see a case for breach of the restricted rights, particularly the right of
"translation, adaptation, arrangement and any other alteration."

With respect to Mateusz's more extreme example, this is also very
specifically covered in the Geocoding Guidelines: "A collection of
Geocoding Results will be considered a systematic attempt to aggregate data
if it is used as a general purpose geodatabase, regardless of how the
original aggregation was accomplished."

In other worse, if, as in Mateusz's hypothetical, you attempt to abuse the
system to reverse engineer a database that is equivalent to OSM, you make a
Derivative Database. But Mattias has been very clear that is not what he's
doing. He just wants to display the subparts of a list of points he already
has on a different layer than the other subparts.

-Kathleen

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 12:49 AM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Kathleen,
>
> On 12.12.19 23:40, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
> > No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data.
>
> Are you sure about this? Let me give an example:
>
> > If I understand your usecase correctly, Matthais, you are essentially
> > checking your list against OSM boundaries. If something is both on your
> > list and within the OSM boundary, then you say 'yes, this goes on the
> > secondary list.' Then you want to publish your secondary list. There is
> > no OSM data in the secondary list so it is not a Derivative Database.
>
> Let us assume I have a list of all streets in Germany with their
> geometry, from a non-OSM source.
>
> I want to divide these into two groups: streets that have at least one
> pub, and streets that have no pub.
>
> Using OSM information about the location of pubs, I count the number of
> pubs along each street, allowing me to make the desired separation.
>
> I end up with a database of "streets that have at least one pub". This
> database does not include OSM data.
>
> In my eyes, though, it is still *derived* from OSM data. It is the
> result of an algorithmic process that has made use of OSM data; if you
> will, the OSM data residue is in the name/description of my new
> database: "roads with pubs". It is derived from OSM; it could not have
> been made without OSM.
>
> Do you disagree?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-13 Thread matthias . straetling

Hi Lars-Daniel, yeah, same here.

 

I've read you tried to do similar work in the past. I think, you've merged postcodes with OSM data in a seperate column and didn't need to attribute it as share-alike.



 

What did you end up with?

 


Gesendet: Freitag, 13. Dezember 2019 um 19:25 Uhr
Von: "Lars-Daniel Weber" 
An: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data



Please stop constructing such cases. This case clearly would have the intention of reproducing the OSM database.

My intention is the trivial use of OpenStreetMap. A normal process in the GIS world.






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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-13 Thread Lars-Daniel Weber

Please stop constructing such cases. This case clearly would have the intention of reproducing the OSM database.

My intention is the trivial use of OpenStreetMap. A normal process in the GIS world.

Gesendet: Freitag, 13. Dezember 2019 um 10:44 Uhr
Von: "Mateusz Konieczny"
An: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
Betreff: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

13 Dec 2019, 09:48 by frede...@remote.org:

I end up with a database of "streets that have at least one pub". This

database does not include OSM data.

In my eyes, though, it is still *derived* from OSM data. It is the

result of an algorithmic process that has made use of OSM data; if you

will, the OSM data residue is in the name/description of my new

database: "roads with pubs". It is derived from OSM; it could not have

been made without OSM.

Or more extreme.

(1) I create database of points on the grid of 0.1 cm.

(2) I create two list, first contains what according to OSM is on land,

second contains what according to OSM data is water

(3) I claim that both lists are not ODBL licenced.

Are you going to claim that also this one is legally sound, and not Mapbox-tier

"attribution hidden behind mystery meat "(i)" navigation

fulfills ODBL attribution requirement" swindle?
___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-13 Thread Mateusz Konieczny




13 Dec 2019, 09:48 by frede...@remote.org:

> I end up with a database of "streets that have at least one pub". This
> database does not include OSM data.
>
> In my eyes, though, it is still *derived* from OSM data. It is the
> result of an algorithmic process that has made use of OSM data; if you
> will, the OSM data residue is in the name/description of my new
> database: "roads with pubs". It is derived from OSM; it could not have
> been made without OSM.
>
Or more extreme. 

(1) I create database of points on the grid of 0.1 cm.
(2) I create two list, first contains what according to OSM is on land,
second contains what according to OSM data is water
(3) I claim that both lists are not ODBL licenced.

Are you going to claim that also this one is legally sound, and not Mapbox-tier 
"attribution hidden behind mystery meat "(i)" navigation 
fulfills ODBL attribution requirement" swindle?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-13 Thread Mateusz Konieczny

12 Dec 2019, 23:40 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org:
> No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data.

It is true but misleading to mention here as this database contains transformed 
OSM data.

> Can I use OSM data and OpenStreetMap-derived maps to verify my own data 
without triggering share-alike?

Mentioning this here is extremely misleading. 

> If something is both on your list and within the OSM boundary, then you say 
> 'yes, 
this goes on the secondary list.' Then you want to publish your secondary list. 

Note "you should be able to reasonably demonstrate that any such change was made
 either from your own physical observation or comes from a non-OpenStreetMap 
source
 accessed directly by you. I.e you can compare but not take!"

Note "you should visit the street and check the name, then you are free to put 
that 
name in your data as it is your own observation."

You are allowed to use this "secondary list" only and solely to pinpoint data 
that is 
likely to be wrong and requires verification. List itself is OSM derived and 
ODBL apply.
 
> There is no OSM data in the secondary list so it is not a Derivative Database.

This is blatantly untrue. There is OSM data there, only transformed. 

12 Dec 2019, 23:40 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org:

> No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data. There 
> are two reasons.
>
> First, this example is analogous to the FAQ here: > 
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Can_I_use_OSM_data_and_OpenStreetMap-derived_maps_to_verify_my_own_data_without_triggering_share-alike.3F
> Can I use OSM data and OpenStreetMap-derived maps to verify my own data 
> without triggering share-alike?
>
> Yes, provided that you are only comparing and do not copy any OpenStreetMap 
> data. If you make any changes to your data after making the comparison, you 
> should be able to reasonably demonstrate that any such change was made either 
> from your own physical observation or comes from a non-OpenStreetMap source 
> accessed directly by you. I.e you can compare but not take!
>
> Example 1: You notice that a street is called one name on your map and 
> another in OpenStreetMap. You should visit the street and check the name, 
> then you are free to put that name in your data as it is your own observation.
> Example 2: You notice that a boundary is different in your data and 
> OpenStreetMap. You should check back to original authoritative sources and 
> make any correction required.
>
> When someone does example #1 above, they compare OSM data and nonOSM data and 
> make a list of streets to check in the real world. Neither the nonOSM data 
> nor the list of streets needs to be licensed under ODbL. You may *compare* 
> freely. 
> If I understand your usecase correctly, Matthais, you are essentially 
> checking your list against OSM boundaries. If something is both on your list 
> and within the OSM boundary, then you say 'yes, this goes on the secondary 
> list.' Then you want to publish your secondary list. There is no OSM data in 
> the secondary list so it is not a Derivative Database.
>
> Second, see the Geocoding Guidelines, which Martin also pointed out - > 
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline>
>   
> Your example is akin to using OSM polygons for certain areas to geocode. You 
> already have the lat/long for your points (houses and flats), so what you are 
> getting from OSM is equivalent to the name of the area you are filtering 
> against (e.g., all these points are in neighborhood X). 
> The Geocoding Guidelines specifically state "if only names are provided in 
> Geocoding Results from OSM -- in particular, latitude/longitude information 
> from OSM is not included in the Geocoding Results -- > a collection of such 
> results is not a substantial extract> ." 
> Thus, no ODbL obligations attach.
>
> -Kathleen
>
>  
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 11:55 AM Nuno Caldeira <> 
> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>> does contain derivate however,which means license applies 
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 19:46 , <>> matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de>> > wrote:
>>
>>> > we are here to create more open data, not to feed proprietary data than 
>>> > is lock under their TOS.  
>>>  
>>>  I want to apologize for my misunderstanding: my final product does not 
>>> contain any OpenStreetMap data.
>>>  
>>>  ___
>>>  legal-talk mailing list
>>>  >>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>>>  >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>>
>> ___
>>  legal-talk mailing list
>>  >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-13 Thread Frederik Ramm

Kathleen,

On 12.12.19 23:40, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
> No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data.

Are you sure about this? Let me give an example:

> If I understand your usecase correctly, Matthais, you are essentially
> checking your list against OSM boundaries. If something is both on your
> list and within the OSM boundary, then you say 'yes, this goes on the
> secondary list.' Then you want to publish your secondary list. There is
> no OSM data in the secondary list so it is not a Derivative Database.

Let us assume I have a list of all streets in Germany with their
geometry, from a non-OSM source.

I want to divide these into two groups: streets that have at least one
pub, and streets that have no pub.

Using OSM information about the location of pubs, I count the number of
pubs along each street, allowing me to make the desired separation.

I end up with a database of "streets that have at least one pub". This
database does not include OSM data.

In my eyes, though, it is still *derived* from OSM data. It is the
result of an algorithmic process that has made use of OSM data; if you
will, the OSM data residue is in the name/description of my new
database: "roads with pubs". It is derived from OSM; it could not have
been made without OSM.

Do you disagree?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-12 Thread Kathleen Lu via legal-talk

No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data.
There are two reasons.

First, this example is analogous to the FAQ here:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Can_I_use_OSM_data_and_OpenStreetMap-derived_maps_to_verify_my_own_data_without_triggering_share-alike.3F
Can I use OSM data and OpenStreetMap-derived maps to verify my own data
without triggering share-alike?

Yes, provided that you are only comparing and do not copy any OpenStreetMap
data. If you make any changes to your data after making the comparison, you
should be able to reasonably demonstrate that any such change was made
either from your own physical observation or comes from a non-OpenStreetMap
source accessed directly by you. I.e you can compare but not take!

   - Example 1: You notice that a street is called one name on your map and
   another in OpenStreetMap. You should visit the street and check the name,
   then you are free to put that name in your data as it is your own
   observation.

   - Example 2: You notice that a boundary is different in your data and
   OpenStreetMap. You should check back to original authoritative sources and
   make any correction required.

When someone does example #1 above, they compare OSM data and nonOSM data
and make a list of streets to check in the real world. Neither the nonOSM
data nor the list of streets needs to be licensed under ODbL. You may
*compare* freely.
If I understand your usecase correctly, Matthais, you are essentially
checking your list against OSM boundaries. If something is both on your
list and within the OSM boundary, then you say 'yes, this goes on the
secondary list.' Then you want to publish your secondary list. There is no
OSM data in the secondary list so it is not a Derivative Database.

Second, see the Geocoding Guidelines, which Martin also pointed out -
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline
Your example is akin to using OSM polygons for certain areas to geocode.
You already have the lat/long for your points (houses and flats), so what
you are getting from OSM is equivalent to the name of the area you are
filtering against (e.g., all these points are in neighborhood X).
The Geocoding Guidelines specifically state "if only names are provided in
Geocoding Results from OSM -- in particular, latitude/longitude information
from OSM is not included in the Geocoding Results -- *a collection of such
results is not a substantial extract*."
Thus, no ODbL obligations attach.

-Kathleen

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 11:55 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> does contain derivate however,which means license applies
>
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 19:46 ,  wrote:
>
>> > we are here to create more open data, not to feed proprietary data than
>> is lock under their TOS.
>>
>> I want to apologize for my misunderstanding: my final product does not
>> contain any OpenStreetMap data.
>>
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-12 Thread Nuno Caldeira

does contain derivate however,which means license applies

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 19:46 ,  wrote:

> > we are here to create more open data, not to feed proprietary data than
> is lock under their TOS.
>
> I want to apologize for my misunderstanding: my final product does not
> contain any OpenStreetMap data.
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

Let me get into detail is this project to proof that this case isn't constructed.

We've purchased geodata with real estate prices (houses & flats) for Germany's federal state "Northrhine Westfalia". Each row has coordinates in WGS84. The TOS of the purchhased dataset state, that it's not allowed to relicense the pricing data or the coordinates under another license. So we can't go ODbL here.

We want to extract postcode areas (more than 100 nodes) from the OSM database and merge them into sensefull peaces, like market regions. Of course, we can release those new areas, since they're clearly ODbL.

Using this market regions, we would like to calculate the average housing and flat prices and display them on a map. We also would like to display the exact position on a new layer (not mixed with OSM data).

I've seen plenty of websites displaying such prices, especially newspapers. All were based on Mapbox or Carto.

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. Dezember 2019 um 20:31 Uhr
Von: "Simon Poole"
An: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Betreff: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

Yes, if a Derivative Database was created in the first place, and that is not clear at all, see:

“Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and
includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any
other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or
Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new
Database.

Essentially the question is if the envelopes of the extracted points are a substantial extract of our data (because they represent the residual information/data from OSM), while it is obviously possible to construct cases were this would be the case, in the typical relatively sparse POI scenario I don't quite see that.

I don't particularly like engaging in these discussion because they tend to end up being arguments about how many angels can stand on a pin and are not answerable outside of the detailed specifics of the actual use case (which are typically not available).

Simon

Am 12.12.2019 um 20:05 schrieb Nuno Caldeira:

https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html

the license is quite clear and 4.2 applies to the case you mention. any use of OSM data (over 100 nodes) combined with proprietary data results in more open data under ODbL.

we are here to create more open data, not to feed proprietary data than is lock under their TOS.

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 18:53 , <matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de> wrote:

> From a practical point of view, boundaries in OSM rarely originate from surveys,
> you might be lucky to be able to identify the original source (most likely open data)
> which may have a more liberal license than ODbL (check the history and changeset
> source tags / object source tags).

But I neither want to merge OSM data or add it to my data. I just want to use it to
select points of my dataset.

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

___legal-talk mailing listlegal-talk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

> we are here to create more open data, not to feed proprietary data than is 
> lock under their TOS.  

I want to apologize for my misunderstanding: my final product does not contain 
any OpenStreetMap data.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-12 Thread Simon Poole

Yes, if a Derivative Database was created in the first place, and that
is not clear at all, see:

/“Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and//
//includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any//
//other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the//
//Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or//
//Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new//
//Database./

Essentially the question is if the envelopes of the extracted points are
a substantial extract of our data (because they represent the residual
information/data from OSM), while it is obviously possible to construct
cases were this would be the case, in the typical relatively sparse POI
scenario I don't quite see that.

I don't particularly like engaging in these discussion because they tend
to end up being arguments about how many angels can stand on a pin and
are not answerable outside of the detailed specifics of the actual use
case (which are typically not available).

Simon

Am 12.12.2019 um 20:05 schrieb Nuno Caldeira:
> https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html
> the license is quite clear and 4.2 applies to the case you mention.
> any use of OSM data (over 100 nodes) combined with proprietary data
> results in more open data under ODbL. 
> we are here to create more open data, not to feed proprietary data
> than is lock under their TOS. 
>
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 18:53 ,  > wrote:
>
> > From a practical point of view, boundaries in OSM rarely
> originate from surveys,
> > you might be lucky to be able to identify the original source
> (most likely open data)
> > which may have a more liberal license than ODbL (check the
> history and changeset
> > source tags / object source tags).
>
> But I neither want to merge OSM data or add it to my data. I just
> want to use it to
> select points of my dataset.
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

Am Do., 12. Dez. 2019 um 19:53 Uhr schrieb <
matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de>:

> But I neither want to merge OSM data or add it to my data. I just want to
> use it to
> select points of my dataset.



then it may eventually fall under the geocoding guideline:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline

Cheers
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

2019-12-12 Thread Nuno Caldeira

https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html
the license is quite clear and 4.2 applies to the case you mention. any use
of OSM data (over 100 nodes) combined with proprietary data results in more
open data under ODbL.
we are here to create more open data, not to feed proprietary data than is
lock under their TOS.

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 18:53 ,  wrote:

> > From a practical point of view, boundaries in OSM rarely originate from
> surveys,
> > you might be lucky to be able to identify the original source (most
> likely open data)
> > which may have a more liberal license than ODbL (check the history and
> changeset
> > source tags / object source tags).
>
> But I neither want to merge OSM data or add it to my data. I just want to
> use it to
> select points of my dataset.
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

> From a practical point of view, boundaries in OSM rarely originate from 
> surveys,
> you might be lucky to be able to identify the original source (most likely 
> open data)
> which may have a more liberal license than ODbL (check the history and 
> changeset
> source tags / object source tags).

But I neither want to merge OSM data or add it to my data. I just want to use 
it to
select points of my dataset.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

Hi,

> when you write „number of boundaries“, you intend „boundary points“?

No, for example postcodes. I want to merge some of them to new polygons.

Regards,
Matthias

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data