Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License clarification

[Andrew Pon]

Thanks to everybody for helping me with clarifying the license.

To answer some of the questions that came up, we would be masking water
bodies at the end of our processing chain, once we had already derived
rates for all of the pixels. There are also a few other masking steps that
would be run around the same time (typically based on some signal to noise
property), such that a customer wouldn't be able to tell if a pixel was
masked out because it was a water body or if it was masked for some other
reason. As such, from the previous discussion, I take it that this means
that we don't have to freely distribute our product?

If we use the OSM data for water masking, we would definitely make sure to
include a written notice in all of our reports clearly stating that we have
used the OSM data for water masking and that the OSM data is available
under the Open Database License.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License clarification

[Kathleen Lu]

Rory - I don't think you can, because the negative area is area with both
no ground elevation/displacement and no water body. There would be no way
to tell whether the negative area was water body data or simply no
displacement.



On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 4:41 AM Rory McCann  wrote:

> On 07/06/18 00:44, Kathleen Lu wrote:
> > The way I understand the use, the OSM data is used to identify areas
> > that are to be discarded. Data in those areas are discarded. Thus, the
> > OSM data is not kept either, and no OSM data in the final dataset. Thus,
> > there is no derivative database containing OSM data.
>
> You can look for areas in the dataset with no data, and construct OSM
> (water body) data from that.
>
>
> ___
> 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] License clarification

[Rory McCann]

On 07/06/18 00:44, Kathleen Lu wrote:
The way I understand the use, the OSM data is used to identify areas 
that are to be discarded. Data in those areas are discarded. Thus, the 
OSM data is not kept either, and no OSM data in the final dataset. Thus, 
there is no derivative database containing OSM data.


You can look for areas in the dataset with no data, and construct OSM 
(water body) data from that.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License clarification

[Paul Norman]

On 2018-06-07 12:19 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:

The idea that you can produce a data set using both OSM and non-OSM data
in a meaningful way without there being either a collective or a
derivative database seems fundamentally at odds with the basic concept
of the ODbL.  The only way this could fly from my point of view would
be if you could argue the use of OSM data is insubstantial - for which
i see no basis in either law or the Substantial Guideline:


There's another case - when it isn't part of a collection of independent 
databases or doesn't have an alteration of OSM data, but it's just OSM 
data unmodified. This is the "this database" part of 4.2, talking about 
"this Database, any Derivative
Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database." 4.2 doesn't 
talk about the fourth case, which is is insubstantial, where the law 
either provides no database (or similar) rights, or the ODbL waives them.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License clarification

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 07 June 2018, althio wrote:
>
> I would then interpret the requirements as:
> Use: Attribution is required.
> Horizontal layers / Collective Database: Share Alike is not required.

This is what i mentioned in my first reply with

"If what you do is just masking the water areas in visualizations of 
your data the answer to that is clearly no."

The Horizontal Map Layers Guideline however only applies if you render 
maps and combine different data sources in the rendering process.  It 
does not apply if you do analysis combining different data sources and 
render a map from a new data set created from this analysis or extract 
quantitative information from it.

How Andrew's use case falls into this depends on the specifics of the 
process.

And yes, we probably need a broader discussion on the topic of analytic 
use of OSM data, in particular in the context of 'big data', and how 
this relates to the ODbL.  It seems to me opinions on this are too much 
based on wishful thinking and too little aim to form a consistent 
framework that supports desirable and harmless use cases but does not 
create loopholes against the spirit of the license.

-- 
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] License clarification

[althio]

I feel the most relevant guideline in the case of Andrew would be:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline

What they do:
- using some OSM data of 1 Feature Type [large water bodies]
- and producing data of another Feature Type [ground elevation/displacement]
- moreover the final product and Feature Type is typically NOT
included in OSM data.

I would argue that this is different Feature Types / Horizontal layers.

I would then interpret the requirements as:
Use: Attribution is required.
Horizontal layers / Collective Database: Share Alike is not required.

-- althio


On 7 June 2018 at 09:19, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> On Thursday 07 June 2018, Kathleen Lu wrote:
>> The way I understand the use, the OSM data is used to identify areas
>> that are to be discarded. Data in those areas are discarded. Thus,
>> the OSM data is not kept either, and no OSM data in the final
>> dataset. Thus, there is no derivative database containing OSM data.
>
> If that was the case there would be no need for attribution either,
> right?
>
> The idea that you can produce a data set using both OSM and non-OSM data
> in a meaningful way without there being either a collective or a
> derivative database seems fundamentally at odds with the basic concept
> of the ODbL.  The only way this could fly from my point of view would
> be if you could argue the use of OSM data is insubstantial - for which
> i see no basis in either law or the Substantial Guideline:
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
>
> --
> 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] License clarification

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 07 June 2018, Kathleen Lu wrote:
> The way I understand the use, the OSM data is used to identify areas
> that are to be discarded. Data in those areas are discarded. Thus,
> the OSM data is not kept either, and no OSM data in the final
> dataset. Thus, there is no derivative database containing OSM data.

If that was the case there would be no need for attribution either, 
right?

The idea that you can produce a data set using both OSM and non-OSM data 
in a meaningful way without there being either a collective or a 
derivative database seems fundamentally at odds with the basic concept 
of the ODbL.  The only way this could fly from my point of view would 
be if you could argue the use of OSM data is insubstantial - for which 
i see no basis in either law or the Substantial Guideline:

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline

-- 
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] License clarification

[Kathleen Lu]

The way I understand the use, the OSM data is used to identify areas that
are to be discarded. Data in those areas are discarded. Thus, the OSM data
is not kept either, and no OSM data in the final dataset. Thus, there is no
derivative database containing OSM data.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:36 PM Christoph Hormann 
wrote:

> On Wednesday 06 June 2018, Andrew Pon wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > Given that we are using open street maps to just remove pixels at an
> > early stage of processing, would we be able to just put a statement
> > in our written reports saying that open street maps was used in this
> > masking process, or would we have to make our final displacement
> > database freely available?
>
> Two things are important here IMO:
>
> * in any case attribution will be required for any public use of the
> data in the form required by the ODbL unless you can argue that use of
> OSM data is insubstantial.
>
> * if you would need to make available your data set under an open
> license depends on if there is a derivative database containing both
> OSM and non-OSM data somewhere in your process.  If what you do is just
> masking the water areas in visualizations of your data the answer to
> that is clearly no.  But if you mask the data early in a more elaborate
> process and do further processing afterwards based on a data set that
> is an inseparable combination of both data sources the situation is not
> that clear.
>
> --
> 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] License clarification

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 06 June 2018, Andrew Pon wrote:
> [...]
>
> Given that we are using open street maps to just remove pixels at an
> early stage of processing, would we be able to just put a statement
> in our written reports saying that open street maps was used in this
> masking process, or would we have to make our final displacement
> database freely available?

Two things are important here IMO:

* in any case attribution will be required for any public use of the 
data in the form required by the ODbL unless you can argue that use of 
OSM data is insubstantial.

* if you would need to make available your data set under an open 
license depends on if there is a derivative database containing both 
OSM and non-OSM data somewhere in your process.  If what you do is just 
masking the water areas in visualizations of your data the answer to 
that is clearly no.  But if you mask the data early in a more elaborate 
process and do further processing afterwards based on a data set that 
is an inseparable combination of both data sources the situation is not 
that clear.

-- 
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] License clarification

[Kathleen Lu]

Hi Andy,
In my opinion, your suggested attribution is sufficient. (Others are free
to weigh in.)
Best,
Kathleen


On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:46 AM Andrew Pon  wrote:

> Hello,
> I am an employee with 3vGeomatics and we are interested in using open
> street maps to help process our data, but were unsure of how to interpret
> the license restrictions.
>
> What we do is take satellite radar data and process it through a rather
> length chain in order to figure out where the ground is sinking and how
> quickly areas are sinking. We know that data from water bodies tend to be
> just noise, and we wanted to use open street maps to determine where large
> water bodies are and automatically remove any pixels from our data that
> come from water. The final product that we sell includes maps of the
> displacement rate of the ground and a geodatabase of points, giving the
> displacement history of all of the points over time.
>
> Given that we are using open street maps to just remove pixels at an early
> stage of processing, would we be able to just put a statement in our
> written reports saying that open street maps was used in this masking
> process, or would we have to make our final displacement database freely
> available?
>
> Thanks for your assistance. If there is any further clarification I can
> provide, please let me know.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dr. Andy Pon
>
> ___
> 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

[OSM-legal-talk] License clarification

[Andrew Pon]

Hello,
I am an employee with 3vGeomatics and we are interested in using open
street maps to help process our data, but were unsure of how to interpret
the license restrictions.

What we do is take satellite radar data and process it through a rather
length chain in order to figure out where the ground is sinking and how
quickly areas are sinking. We know that data from water bodies tend to be
just noise, and we wanted to use open street maps to determine where large
water bodies are and automatically remove any pixels from our data that
come from water. The final product that we sell includes maps of the
displacement rate of the ground and a geodatabase of points, giving the
displacement history of all of the points over time.

Given that we are using open street maps to just remove pixels at an early
stage of processing, would we be able to just put a statement in our
written reports saying that open street maps was used in this masking
process, or would we have to make our final displacement database freely
available?

Thanks for your assistance. If there is any further clarification I can
provide, please let me know.

Sincerely,
Dr. Andy Pon
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] License Infringement

[Julio Costa Zambelli]

Dear Guys,

A local tracking company owner contacted us through the OSM Chile Facebook
page today asking some questions about the ODbL license. As the
conversation evolved at some point he mentioned a global tracking services
provider called GPS-server.net. I went and checked their demo (
http://s1.gps-server.net/demo.php), just to find out that they lack proper
attribution to OSM, Mapbox and Bing. At the same time that they do
attribute Google and Yandex.

Please let me know if this infringment was already known to the community
(I did not find it in
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution) and what
should we do next.

Best Regards,

Julio Costa Zambelli
Fundación OpenStreetMap Chile

julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl

http://www.openstreetmap.cl/
Cel: +56(9)89981083
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license test

[Tom Lee]

This strikes me as a fair and useful framework. I'll take a crack at it,
with geocodes-as-produced-works in mind:

SPIRIT: Surely it's possible to avoid creating a sharealike backdoor by
clarifying that geocodes become substantial only when combined to reverse
engineer the map.

HARM: The evidence that ODbL has produced useful data contributions from
geocoding users is thin.

EFFORT: I'm suggesting a guidance clarifying OSMF's opinion on which
part(s) of the current license apply to a class of data use, not a license
change. This is real work, but clearly achievable, since it's been done
before.

MANY: Obviously, geocoding services like Mapbox have an interest in gaining
this flexibility. But everyone will benefit as we & others improve the map
it for the geocoding use case. Nick and I have loaded more than a hundred
million of openly-licensed addresses into OpenAddresses.io in the course of
our work at Mapbox. (I'm not suggesting that large address imports to OSM
are the path forward here; hopefully you can see my point, though.) I love
the OpenAddresses project, but OSM is much more broadly useful, and I would
be glad to direct that energy where it will do more good.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Steve Coast  wrote:

> A constructive way forward may be to set out some tests that should be met
> for any license change for any issue. Maybe this exists already and I
> missed it. I’d suggest three tests below, but maybe someone here has better
> ones. I’m not sure *who* should judge this. Maybe a vote of some kind.
>
> SPIRIT - Does the suggested change maintain the spirit of the license?
>
> (Doesn’t require much elaboration I think, maybe I’m wrong)
>
> HARM - Does the suggested change not harm the community or data?
>
> (This is the most squirrely, maybe it can be nailed down. I took it from
> Lawrence Lessig’s supreme court copyright case where the judges asked him
> to show the actual harm the DMCA (would have) caused.)
>
> EFFORT - Does the suggested change merit the effort required?
>
> (The last license change was a monumental effort)
>
> Perhaps we could replace the HARM test with the MANY test:
>
> MANY - Does the suggested change help the many or the few?
>
> Best
>
> Steve Coast http://stevecoast.com/ +14087310937
>
> ___
> 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

[OSM-legal-talk] license test

[Steve Coast]

A constructive way forward may be to set out some tests that should be met for 
any license change for any issue. Maybe this exists already and I missed it. 
I’d suggest three tests below, but maybe someone here has better ones. I’m not 
sure *who* should judge this. Maybe a vote of some kind.

SPIRIT - Does the suggested change maintain the spirit of the license?

(Doesn’t require much elaboration I think, maybe I’m wrong)

HARM - Does the suggested change not harm the community or data?

(This is the most squirrely, maybe it can be nailed down. I took it 
from Lawrence Lessig’s supreme court copyright case where the judges asked him 
to show the actual harm the DMCA (would have) caused.)

EFFORT - Does the suggested change merit the effort required?

(The last license change was a monumental effort)

Perhaps we could replace the HARM test with the MANY test:

MANY - Does the suggested change help the many or the few?

Best

Steve Coast http://stevecoast.com/  +14087310937___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group news

[Michael Collinson]

Hi thanks to all for responding and in particular to the offers of help 
from Luis, Thomas and Diane.


I use Luis' email below to give more detail about our activities. See 
in-line.


It is also now my strong personal opinion that we should now engage a 
paid part-time General Counsel but that needs discussion and OSMF 
consensus. We are currently completely volunteer, so it is a big step


On 19/11/2014 00:57, Luis Villa wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com 
mailto:penor...@mac.com wrote:


On 11/18/2014 10:11 AM, Luis Villa wrote:

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Michael Collinson
m...@ayeltd.biz mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:

I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome
associate members who can help us occassionally or want to
work on a specific topic that fires you up. This involves no
specific formalities nor duties. 



Hi, Mike, others-
Is there a formal description somewhere of the
roles/responsibilities of the WG? That would help me evaluate to
what extent (if at all) I can participate in WG activities.

The scope of the LWG is listed at
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group

Also, here is our 2013+ Action Plan which was formally submitted to the 
board and so represents our formal scope document:


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3KwSM_BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pub

and for, completeness, draft 2014 Action Plan:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qRH5-LtzXiLhFFoo4iDu8mKfIUv1dhLYTwRZxBgNhJ8/pub



Thanks, Paul. I hope you and the rest of the group don't mind me 
asking some more questions.



https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWn372ow_1tnTdQja76mthS8V-ZQ5PCL_RWLR1CBzkw/pub
has some of the work we'd like to take on in the near future.


Interesting. How often does the group meet, in practice? Is there also 
a fair bit of email between meetings, or...?


We've progressively wound down from 2 meetings a week(!) to one per 
month, which is about right.  The current gap in frequency is, I hope, 
transient. We have a low volume of emails in between on strategic 
discussion and have also been experimenting with circular resolutions.  
We are also getting an increasing amounts of license enqurires along the 
lines of I intend to XYZ, is it OK to use your data.


It mentions referrals to outside counsel - is that still WSGR or is it 
someone else?
Yes, WSGR.  We occassionally ask for, and get pro bono advice, on 
specific issues.


I note quite a few non-licensing topics—DMCA, Facebook, etc. Are those 
common or is this unusually timed?
Not very common.  I wanted to keep our name as License Working Group to 
emphasize our strategic direction and nature. Our primary task is  the 
promotion of open geospatial data through practical, coherent and clear 
licensing. But we are a catch-all for anything considered legal. I am 
also keen on the area of risk mitigation, so conducting a DMCA review in 
conjunction with our Data Working Group was an important but finite 
activity. One other thing we've been involved in is policy documents, 
for example outlining our general position to diplomats on issues such 
as geographic name clashes and disputed borders ... we create a final 
draft that goes to the board for endorsement.


We haven't worked out a precise framework for the scope of
individual associate members - it's not expected that all
associate members would participate in all parts of the LWG's work.

If associate members not having a vote would allow people to help
who would otherwise be in a conflict of interest, that could be
done too.


How often are votes actually held? Or is it mostly consensus-based anyway?
Except for our circular resolutions experiments where it is practical, I 
believe we have never actually had or needed a vote! My general policy 
has been that we are deliberately a group of people with disparate 
personal views, on for example what type of license we should have, and 
that if we do not have unamimous agreement, or at least assent, then we 
have not reached the right solution.


Does the WG have formal legal obligations as a committee of the board 
(or otherwise) or is it informal/advisory? (To explain that another 
way: in some organizations, groups like the LWG are board committees, 
and so certain formal requirements apply to their members — duties of 
good faith, attendance, voting rules, etc. In some orgs, they are 
essentially purely advisory so have no formal legal obligations.)
Informal/advisory. It would be good to go beyond our scope document 
above to formally define that ... something we could use help on!


Thanks-
Luis

--
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

/This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have 
received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the 
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group news

[Alex Barth]

Mike -

Thank you for all your work for OpenStreetMap as member and lead of the
Licensing Working Group. I know it's not always fun and work that's often
in the focus of heated debate. I've always admired your cool headedness and
appreciated your practical advice.

Thank you!

Alex


On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:

  The License Working Group is undermanned and has only met twice this
 year, most recently on 28th October. [1]

 This is due in great part to my lack of time, enthusiasm and attention in
 calling meetings.  I am therefore stepping down as below and welcome
 volunteers to join as full members and indeed, subject to the agreement of
 other LWG members and board endorsement, take over the chair role.

 I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome associate members
 who can help us occassionally or want to work on a specific topic that
 fires you up. This involves no specific formalities nor duties.   It has
 been brought to my attention that this might therefore suit legal
 practioners who would otherwise have a conflict of interest.  We would
 certainly welcome involvement from real lawyers!

 Lastly, Satoshi Iida, an extremely active member of the OSM Japan
 community has asked to participate in LWG and I welcome him
 enthusiastically. It is important to broaden our scope beyond Western
 Europe/US thinking.

 Mike


 [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes

 === Slightly edited copy of email sent to LWG ==

 Dear LWG,  and CC Board for their information,

 I feel that I do not, and will be unable to give, LWG the time and
 attention it needs.  I have also been in the position for at least 6 years
 and it is time for a new and more enthusiastic face.   I am therefore
 formally resigning as Chair and invite the LWG to consider a replacement.
 I would prefer that this was not a member of the current board, and therein
 lies a problem.  I am asking Simon now his current status, but apart from
 him, all other current members are also board members.  I have also one
 piece of good news in that Satoshi Iida, an extremely active member of the
 OSM Japan community has asked to participate and I welcome him
 enthusiastically.

 I regret adding even more to the current board's starting load, but think
 it best to just face facts. I am therefore happy to stay in a caretaker
 role until that person is in place, but emphasise that this will be less
 than ideal.

 The issues that LWG should ideally be dealing with are:

- Assisting end-users by developing clarificatory community guidelines
for providing OSM-based data services (rather than maps) in a mixed data
environment.
- License compatibility with CC 4 and the general issue of license
harmonisation.
- Diligently answering now frequent license enquiries.


 Mike

 ___
 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] License Working Group news

[Luis Villa]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:

 I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome associate members
 who can help us occassionally or want to work on a specific topic that
 fires you up. This involves no specific formalities nor duties.


Hi, Mike, others-
Is there a formal description somewhere of the roles/responsibilities of
the WG? That would help me evaluate to what extent (if at all) I can
participate in WG activities.

Thanks-
Luis


-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group news

[Paul Norman]

On 11/18/2014 10:11 AM, Luis Villa wrote:


On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz 
mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:


I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome associate
members who can help us occassionally or want to work on a
specific topic that fires you up. This involves no specific
formalities nor duties. 



Hi, Mike, others-
Is there a formal description somewhere of the roles/responsibilities 
of the WG? That would help me evaluate to what extent (if at all) I 
can participate in WG activities.
The scope of the LWG is listed at 
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group


The day to day work is answering routine license enquiries, generally by 
pointing to osm.org/copyright, the guidelines, or the FAQ. That's not 
particularly where help is needed - not that more help would be minded - 
it's the larger items we'd like to take on.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWn372ow_1tnTdQja76mthS8V-ZQ5PCL_RWLR1CBzkw/pub 
has some of the work we'd like to take on in the near future.


We haven't worked out a precise framework for the scope of individual 
associate members - it's not expected that all associate members would 
participate in all parts of the LWG's work.


If associate members not having a vote would allow people to help who 
would otherwise be in a conflict of interest, that could be done too.


If you have any suggestions, none of this is set in stone.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group news

[Luis Villa]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:

  On 11/18/2014 10:11 AM, Luis Villa wrote:


 On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
 wrote:

 I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome associate members
 who can help us occassionally or want to work on a specific topic that
 fires you up. This involves no specific formalities nor duties.


 Hi, Mike, others-
 Is there a formal description somewhere of the roles/responsibilities of
 the WG? That would help me evaluate to what extent (if at all) I can
 participate in WG activities.

 The scope of the LWG is listed at
 http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group


Thanks, Paul. I hope you and the rest of the group don't mind me asking
some more questions.



 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWn372ow_1tnTdQja76mthS8V-ZQ5PCL_RWLR1CBzkw/pub
 has some of the work we'd like to take on in the near future.


Interesting. How often does the group meet, in practice? Is there also a
fair bit of email between meetings, or...?

It mentions referrals to outside counsel - is that still WSGR or is it
someone else?

I note quite a few non-licensing topics—DMCA, Facebook, etc. Are those
common or is this unusually timed?


 We haven't worked out a precise framework for the scope of individual
 associate members - it's not expected that all associate members would
 participate in all parts of the LWG's work.

 If associate members not having a vote would allow people to help who
 would otherwise be in a conflict of interest, that could be done too.


How often are votes actually held? Or is it mostly consensus-based anyway?

Does the WG have formal legal obligations as a committee of the board (or
otherwise) or is it informal/advisory? (To explain that another way: in
some organizations, groups like the LWG are board committees, and so
certain formal requirements apply to their members — duties of good faith,
attendance, voting rules, etc. In some orgs, they are essentially purely
advisory so have no formal legal obligations.)

Thanks-
Luis

-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have
received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group news

[Michael Collinson]

The License Working Group is undermanned and has only met twice this 
year, most recently on 28th October. [1]


This is due in great part to my lack of time, enthusiasm and attention 
in calling meetings.  I am therefore stepping down as below and welcome 
volunteers to join as full members and indeed, subject to the agreement 
of other LWG members and board endorsement, take over the chair role.


I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome associate 
members who can help us occassionally or want to work on a specific 
topic that fires you up. This involves no specific formalities nor 
duties.   It has been brought to my attention that this might therefore 
suit legal practioners who would otherwise have a conflict of interest.  
We would certainly welcome involvement from real lawyers!


Lastly, Satoshi Iida, an extremely active member of the OSM Japan 
community has asked to participate in LWG and I welcome him 
enthusiastically. It is important to broaden our scope beyond Western 
Europe/US thinking.


Mike


[1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes

=== Slightly edited copy of email sent to LWG ==

Dear LWG,  and CC Board for their information,

I feel that I do not, and will be unable to give, LWG the time and 
attention it needs.  I have also been in the position for at least 6 
years and it is time for a new and more enthusiastic face.   I am 
therefore formally resigning as Chair and invite the LWG to consider a 
replacement.  I would prefer that this was not a member of the current 
board, and therein lies a problem.  I am asking Simon now his current 
status, but apart from him, all other current members are also board 
members.  I have also one piece of good news in that Satoshi Iida, an 
extremely active member of the OSM Japan community has asked to 
participate and I welcome him enthusiastically.


I regret adding even more to the current board's starting load, but 
think it best to just face facts. I am therefore happy to stay in a 
caretaker role until that person is in place, but emphasise that this 
will be less than ideal.


The issues that LWG should ideally be dealing with are:

 * Assisting end-users by developing clarificatory community guidelines
   for providing OSM-based data services (rather than maps) in a mixed
   data environment.
 * License compatibility with CC 4 and the general issue of license
   harmonisation.
 * Diligently answering now frequent license enquiries.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License review request: Sardinia ad-hoc authorization

[Jonathan Harley]

On 26/11/13 21:25, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:

Jonathan Harley jon@... writes:


On 23/11/13 10:45, Simone Cortesi wrote:

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Paul Norman penorman@... wrote:


The mentions of the OpenStreetMap Foundation in the document are
confusing, as to my knowledge no one from the OSMF is involved in or a
party to this agreement, but I don't think that alone would prevent the
use of data.

I asked them to licence the data to OSMF, which is the copyright
holder of the eponymous project.


It doesn't make a difference to this, but actually, the OSMF is the
publisher of the database, not the copyright holder. Copyright of each
contributor's contributions remains with that contributor. This is why
the requested attribution is © OpenStreetMap contributors and not © OSMF.

You probably knew this, and this is just nit-picking, but this is the
legal-talk list so we ought to be accurate.

I feel that OSMF is more than just a publisher of the database because we
all have granted OSMF
 a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence
to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related
right over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or
any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not
exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation,
the right to sub-license the work through multiple tiers of sub-licensees
and to sue for any copyright violation directly connected with OSMF's rights
under these terms. To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and
copyright conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against
OSMF or its licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms




Well, you're right, OSMF is much more than just the publisher of the 
database. It's the promoter, curator, guardian, maintainer and champion too.


But the CTs only give the OSMF the right to sue for copyright violation 
where it is directly connected with OSMF's other rights under the terms. 
That's because the CTs don't assign the copyright itself. If we just 
assigned copyright in our contributions to the OSMF, then we wouldn't 
need to agree to anything else; OSMF would automatically have all the 
rights. (At least in some jurisdictions.)


J.

--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License review request: Sardinia ad-hoc authorization

[Jonathan Harley]

On 23/11/13 10:45, Simone Cortesi wrote:

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:


The mentions of the OpenStreetMap Foundation in the document are
confusing, as to my knowledge no one from the OSMF is involved in or a
party to this agreement, but I don't think that alone would prevent the
use of data.

I asked them to licence the data to OSMF, which is the copyright
holder of the eponymous project.



It doesn't make a difference to this, but actually, the OSMF is the 
publisher of the database, not the copyright holder. Copyright of each 
contributor's contributions remains with that contributor. This is why 
the requested attribution is © OpenStreetMap contributors and not © OSMF.


You probably knew this, and this is just nit-picking, but this is the 
legal-talk list so we ought to be accurate.



Jonathan.

--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License review request: Sardinia ad-hoc authorization

[Jukka Rahkonen]

Jonathan Harley jon@... writes:

 
 On 23/11/13 10:45, Simone Cortesi wrote:
  On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Paul Norman penorman@... wrote:
 
  The mentions of the OpenStreetMap Foundation in the document are
  confusing, as to my knowledge no one from the OSMF is involved in or a
  party to this agreement, but I don't think that alone would prevent the
  use of data.
  I asked them to licence the data to OSMF, which is the copyright
  holder of the eponymous project.
 
 
 It doesn't make a difference to this, but actually, the OSMF is the 
 publisher of the database, not the copyright holder. Copyright of each 
 contributor's contributions remains with that contributor. This is why 
 the requested attribution is © OpenStreetMap contributors and not © OSMF.
 
 You probably knew this, and this is just nit-picking, but this is the 
 legal-talk list so we ought to be accurate.

I feel that OSMF is more than just a publisher of the database because we
all have granted OSMF 
 a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence
to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related
right over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or
any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not
exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation,
the right to sub-license the work through multiple tiers of sub-licensees
and to sue for any copyright violation directly connected with OSMF's rights
under these terms. To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and
copyright conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against
OSMF or its licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents.
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms


-Jukka Rahkonen-

 
 Jonathan.
 





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

[OSM-legal-talk] License review request: Sardinia ad-hoc authorization

[Paul Norman]

sabas88 is proposing an import of some data in Sardinia 
(http://lists.osm.org/pipermail/imports/2013-November/002370.html)

The first three paragraphs appear to be preamble, with the permissions 
granted in the final paragraph. A user-supplied translation of this 
paragraph is 

 So, knowing that a license change of our data wouldn't be possible in a 
 small amount of time compatibile to the emergency, in the meantime of 
 the adjustment of our license to the directive of CAD (Digital 
 Administration Code which introduced a year ago the open by default 
 concept), we authorize the OpenStreetMap Foundation to use and import on 
 their software all the vector data that are on the Regione Sardegna 
 portal and, specifically, those at the url 
 http://www.sardegnageoportale.it/catalogodati/download/. 

In people's opinions, does this provide the necessary permissions for

- contributors to upload some or all of these datasets to the OSM API
- the portions or complete datasets uploaded to then be redistributed 
  under the ODbL

The mentions of the OpenStreetMap Foundation in the document are 
confusing, as to my knowledge no one from the OSMF is involved in or a 
party to this agreement, but I don't think that alone would prevent the 
use of data. 

Thoughts?


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License review request: Sardinia ad-hoc authorization

[Simone Cortesi]

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:

 - contributors to upload some or all of these datasets to the OSM API
 - the portions or complete datasets uploaded to then be redistributed
   under the ODbL

any copyright holder has the right to re-license on an ad-hoc basis if
they wish to. So, Regione Autonoma Sardegna, can give data to OSMF
under a different scheme. It has done several times in the past
already.

 The mentions of the OpenStreetMap Foundation in the document are
 confusing, as to my knowledge no one from the OSMF is involved in or a
 party to this agreement, but I don't think that alone would prevent the
 use of data.

I asked them to licence the data to OSMF, which is the copyright
holder of the eponymous project.

-- 
-S

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License / Copyright - OSM data for commercial use artistic map

[Paul Norman]

OpenLayers is very distinct from any map layers. OpenLayers is a piece of 
software, a map layer is generally a set of images.

 

I don’t see OpenLayers in use on the site you linked at all. Assuming the 
Papercraft map linked there is using recent ODbL data, there needs to be an 
attribution statement on the paper, and if they’re adding data to their local 
copy of the OSM dataset before rendering, they’d need to license that under the 
ODbL. As a practical matter, I highly doubt anyone would add data to their 
local copy for a low-zoom map of Stockholm. This doesn’t mean that they have to 
release the software they’re using to render the map, to display it in such a 
weird way, or to release their cartography.

 

From: Beri Dániel [mailto:daniel.b...@evk.hu] 
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 3:25 AM
To: Jonathan Harley
Cc: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License / Copyright - OSM data for commercial use 
artistic map

 

Hi Jonathan!

Thank you very much for clearing things up, and explaining the difference 
between the treatment of data sets and other things I would put on the map.

The treatment of OSM data, and the alteration of it is fine, understood, and 
obviuosly I can live with it.

Although, the licensing/copyright of the layer which I would ask my programmer 
to define in OpenLayers and which then would be filled with images is still a 
bit fuzzy. Aren't these two statements opposite to each other:

1.  OpenLayers uses the FreeBSD license which places no limitations on use 
other than that you must distribute it with its license intact.
2.  you can retain all rights on your other data, images and published 
maps

What would Point1 include in itself? Maybe I misunderstood the whole concept of 
the word layer. I thought that the visual outlook of the map what makes it 
a map, what people see (and in may case consists of the collection of images 
put together) is on a layer and hence should be distributed accordingly?

This would imply that I could I ask the author of this projec 
http://nordpil.com/go/products/stockholm-papercraft/ t to distribute the 
layer he defined? (Obviously I don't want to, as I cheer for Point2 to be true 
in case of my project as well :)

Thanks in advance again!

Daniel

 

 

On 21 October 2013 11:25, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:

On 19/10/13 11:11, Beri Dániel wrote:


Dear All,

I would like you to have a look at my question I posted in the OSM forum 
yesterday. It is not an urgent matter, I'm duplicating it here as well because 
I would like to avoid any mistreatment of the OSM licenses.

Below you can read my post from the forum, or just simply have a look at it in 
the forum itself: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=22948


Thanks in advance!

Daniel

 

Hi Dániel, overall your project does sound like what's presented to users would 
be a produced work and there is no problem with commercial use. AFAIK 
OpenLayers uses the FreeBSD license which places no limitations on use other 
than that you must distribute it with its license intact.

The only part which would constitute a derivative database is your altered OSM 
data (point 2). This altered data will clearly be derived from OSM's data and 
you would need to publish this under ODbL. If you store the data about where 
your users live (point 5) in a database, and if this data is derived from the 
OSM map (users drop a pin on your map based on what they see on it, or where 
the OSM-based search server said they are), then this is also a derivative 
database and must also be made available under ODbL.

Note that a database here just means a data set - the set of data that was 
derived from OSM. The ODbL license does not extend virally to any other data 
sets you may happen to store in the same database management system. The 
derived data is the only thing you must distribute freely (if asked to), and 
you can retain all rights on your other data, images and published maps.

HTH - Jonathan





Dear All,

This might have been discussed several times, hence sorry for raising this 
question again, but I really would like to make sure that I'm in compliance 
with the rules of the OSM license. (Also, I'm not a programmer, so, sorry for 
formulating the details of my envisaged project with lack/inproper use of the 
programming jargon.)

So, here is the list of things I am planning to do:

I would like to create an artistic map

1) *based on OSM data* - I would need a world map, with territories of 
countries and potentially subdivisions as well
2) *I would alter the OSM data* by defining new, custom subdivisions in certain 
areas, like cutting half a country (or continent, like Antarctica) not along 
any currently available line, but according to my wish
3) I would like to *put copyrighted images* onto these subdivisions (with 
OpenLayers)
4) I would *remove uneccessary detail by not rendering some types of features*, 
ie. I don't want any other data

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License / Copyright - OSM data for commercial use artistic map

[Jonathan Harley]

On 19/10/13 11:11, Beri Dániel wrote:


Dear All,

I would like you to have a look at my question I posted in the OSM 
forum yesterday. It is not an urgent matter, I'm duplicating it here 
as well because I would like to avoid any mistreatment of the OSM 
licenses.


Below you can read my post from the forum, or just simply have a look 
at it in the forum itself: 
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=22948



Thanks in advance!

Daniel



Hi Dániel, overall your project does sound like what's presented to 
users would be a produced work and there is no problem with commercial 
use. AFAIK OpenLayers uses the FreeBSD license which places no 
limitations on use other than that you must distribute it with its 
license intact.


The only part which would constitute a derivative database is your 
altered OSM data (point 2). This altered data will clearly be derived 
from OSM's data and you would need to publish this under ODbL. If you 
store the data about where your users live (point 5) in a database, and 
if this data is derived from the OSM map (users drop a pin on your map 
based on what they see on it, or where the OSM-based search server said 
they are), then this is also a derivative database and must also be made 
available under ODbL.


Note that a database here just means a data set - the set of data that 
was derived from OSM. The ODbL license does not extend virally to any 
other data sets you may happen to store in the same database management 
system. The derived data is the only thing you must distribute freely 
(if asked to), and you can retain all rights on your other data, images 
and published maps.


HTH - Jonathan





Dear All,

This might have been discussed several times, hence sorry for raising 
this question again, but I really would like to make sure that I'm in 
compliance with the rules of the OSM license. (Also, I'm not a 
programmer, so, sorry for formulating the details of my envisaged 
project with lack/inproper use of the programming jargon.)


So, here is the list of things I am planning to do:

I would like to create an artistic map
1) *based on OSM data* - I would need a world map, with territories of 
countries and potentially subdivisions as well
2) *I would alter the OSM data* by defining new, custom subdivisions 
in certain areas, like cutting half a country (or continent, like 
Antarctica) not along any currently available line, but according to 
my wish
3) I would like to *put copyrighted images* onto these subdivisions 
(with OpenLayers)
4) I would *remove uneccessary detail by not rendering some types of 
features*, ie. I don't want any other data to be displayed on the map, 
but the original and custom-made subdivision borders and the images
5) however, *in the background I would like to still use the OSM 
data*, so that users could search, eg. the address of their home, then 
the map would display the place where they live, but covered with the 
image I defined to cover that particular place with (ie. not 
displaying any roads etc.)
6) I would expect volume of use too high to be supportable by OSM's 
tile servers, therefore I *would have my own tile server*
7) Also, because of point 6, I *would create separate, own search 
server* as well, not to overwhelm Nominatim's servers (btw, I would 
really appreciate if you could help me with auto-complete search, is 
there any advanced solution already?)


So the end-result would look like this world map of flags, with the 
exception that I would make it available online as a dynamic map and 
in print as well:


500px-Flag-map_of_the_world.svg.png

So, my questions are:
1) does this project qualify to be a *produced work* as defined in use 
case 2 of the license? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lice … 
thing_else 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases#Case_2:_I_want_to_publish_something_based_on_OSM_and_nothing_else

2) if not, then *which use case is the applicable here*?
3) in either case, what are the *consequences of the license to my 
rights over parts of the project* (database, separate copyrighted 
images and the overall look of the map)? what should be shared freely? 
Can I reserve the right to the overall image of the map to be sold eg. 
as a printed poster?
4) Also, does *OpenLayers' license* (in which I would define the new 
layer of images) interfere with this idea to be used for commercial 
use and reserve the rights for the end product?


Sorry if the questions should be super-obvious based on the 
wikis/forum etc., they aren't really self-explanatory for me! smile


Thank you very much in advance!
Best regards,
underclover



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



--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License / Copyright - OSM data for commercial use artistic map

[Beri Dániel]

Hi Jonathan!

Thank you very much for clearing things up, and explaining the difference
between the treatment of data sets and other things I would put on the map.

The treatment of OSM *data*, and the alteration of it is fine, understood,
and obviuosly I can live with it.

Although, the licensing/copyright of the *layer* which I would ask my
programmer to define in OpenLayers and which then would be filled with
images is still a bit fuzzy. Aren't these two statements opposite to each
other:

   1. OpenLayers uses the FreeBSD license which places no limitations on
   use other than that you must distribute it with its license intact.
   2. you can retain all rights on your other data, images and *published
   maps*

What would Point1 include in itself? Maybe I misunderstood the whole
concept of the word layer. I thought that the visual outlook of the map
what makes it a map, what people see (and in may case consists of the
collection of images put together) is on a layer and hence should be
distributed accordingly?

This would imply that I could I ask the author of this
projechttp://nordpil.com/go/products/stockholm-papercraft/t
to distribute the layer he defined? (Obviously I don't want to, as I cheer
for Point2 to be true in case of my project as well :)

Thanks in advance again!

Daniel




On 21 October 2013 11:25, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:

 On 19/10/13 11:11, Beri Dániel wrote:


 Dear All,

 I would like you to have a look at my question I posted in the OSM forum
 yesterday. It is not an urgent matter, I'm duplicating it here as well
 because I would like to avoid any mistreatment of the OSM licenses.

 Below you can read my post from the forum, or just simply have a look at
 it in the forum itself: http://forum.openstreetmap.**
 org/viewtopic.php?id=22948http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=22948


 Thanks in advance!

 Daniel


 Hi Dániel, overall your project does sound like what's presented to users
 would be a produced work and there is no problem with commercial use. AFAIK
 OpenLayers uses the FreeBSD license which places no limitations on use
 other than that you must distribute it with its license intact.

 The only part which would constitute a derivative database is your altered
 OSM data (point 2). This altered data will clearly be derived from OSM's
 data and you would need to publish this under ODbL. If you store the data
 about where your users live (point 5) in a database, and if this data is
 derived from the OSM map (users drop a pin on your map based on what they
 see on it, or where the OSM-based search server said they are), then this
 is also a derivative database and must also be made available under ODbL.

 Note that a database here just means a data set - the set of data that
 was derived from OSM. The ODbL license does not extend virally to any other
 data sets you may happen to store in the same database management system.
 The derived data is the only thing you must distribute freely (if asked
 to), and you can retain all rights on your other data, images and published
 maps.

 HTH - Jonathan


  

 Dear All,

 This might have been discussed several times, hence sorry for raising
 this question again, but I really would like to make sure that I'm in
 compliance with the rules of the OSM license. (Also, I'm not a programmer,
 so, sorry for formulating the details of my envisaged project with
 lack/inproper use of the programming jargon.)

 So, here is the list of things I am planning to do:

 I would like to create an artistic map
 1) *based on OSM data* - I would need a world map, with territories of
 countries and potentially subdivisions as well
 2) *I would alter the OSM data* by defining new, custom subdivisions in
 certain areas, like cutting half a country (or continent, like Antarctica)
 not along any currently available line, but according to my wish
 3) I would like to *put copyrighted images* onto these subdivisions (with
 OpenLayers)
 4) I would *remove uneccessary detail by not rendering some types of
 features*, ie. I don't want any other data to be displayed on the map, but
 the original and custom-made subdivision borders and the images
 5) however, *in the background I would like to still use the OSM data*,
 so that users could search, eg. the address of their home, then the map
 would display the place where they live, but covered with the image I
 defined to cover that particular place with (ie. not displaying any roads
 etc.)
 6) I would expect volume of use too high to be supportable by OSM's tile
 servers, therefore I *would have my own tile server*
 7) Also, because of point 6, I *would create separate, own search server*
 as well, not to overwhelm Nominatim's servers (btw, I would really
 appreciate if you could help me with auto-complete search, is there any
 advanced solution already?)


 So the end-result would look like this world map of flags, with the
 exception that I would make it available online as a dynamic 

[OSM-legal-talk] License / Copyright - OSM data for commercial use artistic map

[Beri Dániel]

Dear All,

I would like you to have a look at my question I posted in the OSM forum
yesterday. It is not an urgent matter, I'm duplicating it here as well
because I would like to avoid any mistreatment of the OSM licenses.

Below you can read my post from the forum, or just simply have a look at it
in the forum itself: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=22948

Thanks in advance!

Daniel



Dear All,

This might have been discussed several times, hence sorry for raising this
question again, but I really would like to make sure that I'm in compliance
with the rules of the OSM license. (Also, I'm not a programmer, so, sorry
for formulating the details of my envisaged project with lack/inproper use
of the programming jargon.)

So, here is the list of things I am planning to do:

I would like to create an artistic map
1) *based on OSM data* - I would need a world map, with territories of
countries and potentially subdivisions as well
2) *I would alter the OSM data* by defining new, custom subdivisions in
certain areas, like cutting half a country (or continent, like Antarctica)
not along any currently available line, but according to my wish
3) I would like to *put copyrighted images* onto these subdivisions (with
OpenLayers)
4) I would *remove uneccessary detail by not rendering some types of
features*, ie. I don't want any other data to be displayed on the map, but
the original and custom-made subdivision borders and the images
5) however, *in the background I would like to still use the OSM data*, so
that users could search, eg. the address of their home, then the map would
display the place where they live, but covered with the image I defined to
cover that particular place with (ie. not displaying any roads etc.)
6) I would expect volume of use too high to be supportable by OSM's tile
servers, therefore I *would have my own tile server*
7) Also, because of point 6, I *would create separate, own search server* as
well, not to overwhelm Nominatim's servers (btw, I would really appreciate
if you could help me with auto-complete search, is there any advanced
solution already?)

So the end-result would look like this world map of flags, with the
exception that I would make it available online as a dynamic map and in
print as well:

[image: 500px-Flag-map_of_the_world.svg.png]

So, my questions are:
1) does this project qualify to be a *produced work* as defined in use case
2 of the license? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lice …
thing_elsehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases#Case_2:_I_want_to_publish_something_based_on_OSM_and_nothing_else
2) if not, then *which use case is the applicable here*?
3) in either case, what are the *consequences of the license to my rights
over parts of the project* (database, separate copyrighted images and the
overall look of the map)? what should be shared freely? Can I reserve the
right to the overall image of the map to be sold eg. as a printed poster?
4) Also, does *OpenLayers' license* (in which I would define the new layer
of images) interfere with this idea to be used for commercial use and
reserve the rights for the end product?

Sorry if the questions should be super-obvious based on the wikis/forum
etc., they aren't really self-explanatory for me! [image: smile]

Thank you very much in advance!
Best regards,
underclover
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Erik Johansson]

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:
 On 02/03/13 16:17, Erik Johansson wrote:

 On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net
 wrote:

 So - *must* you make your database of user-sourced geodata available to
 the
 OSM community? I answer no, so long as it resulted from a produced work
 and

 This feel very iffy, I thought this had been disproven already, I
 might be wrong, but that would mean that the ODBL is really totally
 useless. You have obviously given this much thought so I'm interested

 Map data copyright does not magically disappear just because you print
 it with a free map design. When doing methodical extraction of geo
 data, you are not copying the produced work, but the map data so it is
 still a copy of a copyrigthed database.

[..]
 The ODbL definition of a produced work specifically includes images, and its
 definition of conveying the database specifically excludes produced works.
 In the discussion on legal-talk back in October, everyone seemed to agree
 that this means that produced works do not have to be licensed under ODbL.
 If they are not (and they usually aren't), then of course nothing derived
 from the produced work is either.

I will reiterate, as long as you treat our data as a DB it will have
to be licensed as ODbL, all produced works from ODbL data should
include an attribution stating that it has information licensed under
ODbL (see section 4.3a).  I don't think that thread will make me
change my mind but I will read it and try to spot any mistake on my
part.


/Erik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Tadeusz Knapik]

Hello,

 Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse
 engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not worried
 about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any case,
 Technically, it is possible to export in a format where accuracy is
 100% preserved, e.g. any vectorized format like PDF or SVG. If you
 export all tags in a concatenated text string, your map is maybe not
 readable for humans but you could in this way rebuild the full
 database under a new license...
Yes it is, but is it defendable? I mean could then anyone prove in
court that it is a work resulting from and not the Database itself?
It would take a few more steps (eg. arrange some inbetween maps to
lose the trace) to do it on purpose, I think.
For me this is more a question of using 'normal' tiles to make just
another map, and I don't see there's a way to prohibit it in ODbL.
Sincerely,

Tadeusz Knapik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Simon Poole]

Am 04.03.2013 11:29, schrieb Tadeusz Knapik:
 How come? ODbL doesn't enforce PW's license - if Produced Work is
 licenced Public Domain, how do you reach somebody who used this PD
 Produced Work to credit OSM?
 Sincerely,

This is patently wrong, see ODbL 1.0 paragraph 4.3
(http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/).

It is true that the OBbL does not prescribe a specific licence for
produced works, however it -does- require the conditions in 4.3 to be
adhered to.

Simon


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Jonathan Harley]

On 04/03/13 11:53, Pieren wrote:

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:


Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse
engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not worried
about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any case,

Technically, it is possible to export in a format where accuracy is
100% preserved, e.g. any vectorized format like PDF or SVG. If you
export all tags in a concatenated text string, your map is maybe not
readable for humans but you could in this way rebuild the full
database under a new license...


That was touched on last time round, yes. Giving someone a vector-format 
image might count as conveying a database. I think it's ambiguous.


The ODbL essentially treats images and databases as though one thing can 
never be both. It's another thing that could usefully be clarified in a 
future version, IMO.


J.


--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Simon Poole]

Am 04.03.2013 13:39, schrieb Jonathan Harley:
 On 04/03/13 11:53, Pieren wrote:
 On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net
 wrote:

 Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse
 engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not
 worried
 about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any case,
 Technically, it is possible to export in a format where accuracy is
 100% preserved, e.g. any vectorized format like PDF or SVG. If you
 export all tags in a concatenated text string, your map is maybe not
 readable for humans but you could in this way rebuild the full
 database under a new license...

 That was touched on last time round, yes. Giving someone a
 vector-format image might count as conveying a database. I think it's
 ambiguous.

 The ODbL essentially treats images and databases as though one thing
 can never be both. It's another thing that could usefully be clarified
 in a future version, IMO.

There is legal precedent that a map can be both an image (on paper) and
a database (don't forget that we are not discussing databases in a
technical sense). In the end if something like this went to court it is
likely that it would be judged on the intent, not on technicalities.

Simon



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

[OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Olov McKie]

Hello All!

Again thank you for all your feedback. Unfortunately after the feedback that I 
have gotten so far on my initial 4 use-cases, and the 4 extra sub-use-cases I 
added later, I still do not know for sure if the use-cases I presented would 
trigger the ODbL share alike clause or not. My confusion about this has though 
forced me, over the last weeks, to dig a lot deeper into the licenses and rules 
surrounding our map than I have ever done before as a contributor and a casual 
user. It is obvious that there still is a lot of discussion going on on how to 
interpret the license and what cases of copying and use, should trigger the 
share alike and attribute clauses, and what should not.

I would like to argue that a lot of these questions are no longer open for 
debate. The set of rules that the redaction bot followed, to enable the license 
change, is by the bots work now coded into the history of our database in such 
a way that changing them would force us to revert the entire license change. I 
would suspect (I am no lawyer) that if a license dispute about OSM ever end up 
in court, we will not be able to argue for more copyright protection than what 
we gave to those contributors who did not want the license to change. I would 
also like to argue that, when a question comes in if a user can or can not do 
something without breaching our copyright, we should always start the 
discussion by looking for similar examples in our own change to the ODbL.   

I have searched for these rules, but I have not found them, at least not in the 
form of a list that clearly states, This is the final list of rules that the 
reduction bot is based upon, preferably with references to relevant sections 
of the bots source code. 
Where can I find the final version of the source code for the redaction bot 
that was run to do the license change? 
Help in finding these would be appreciated.
I know about these:
What is clean 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F), are 
these the rules the bot is based on? 
Some code, but it states that it is only an example ( 
https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change )


As I said in an earlier posting: As far as I understand our license change, it 
can be described as this: (Please correct me if I am wrong) 
All objects that had an edit history where someone not willing to change the 
license (decliner) had edited anything was reverted back in history until no 
edits by any decliner where left, thereby creating a clean database. All 
cleaning operations where based on data history in the database. 


This could also be described as:
A user has the full copyright to any point they add to the map that they add 
regardless of surrounding data.




Left out examples of multiple users, 


The page What is clean talks about The Safe Approach, 


This is what I think I know so far, based on what I have read over the last 
weeks so I can not give links for reference, and if I am wrong, please correct 
me: 

The only copyright taken into account by the redaction bot is what is stored in 
the history of the database for a point. 


Redaction bot


All cleaning operations where based on data history in the database. 

I am currently spending a lot of time thinking about the license and what can 
be considered copying, derived works etc. I just realized that there is one 
recent event that sets an unprecedented precedence in how to look upon these 
questions, it is of course our own recent license change to ODbL.

sourcecode, get rules


direct linear history of the database edits

As I understand our license change, it can be described as this: (Please 
correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit history where someone 
not willing to change the license (decliner) had edited anything was reverted 
back in history until no edits by any decliner where left, thereby creating a 
clean database. All cleaning operations where based on data history in the 
database. 

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Olov McKie]

Hello All!

Forgive me for the previous unfinished version of this mail, here is the 
complete version.


Again thank you for all your feedback. Unfortunately after the feedback that I 
have gotten so far on my initial 4 use-cases, and the 4 extra sub-use-cases I 
added later, I still do not know for sure if the use-cases I presented would 
trigger the ODbL share alike clause or not. My confusion about this has though 
forced me, over the last weeks, to dig a lot deeper into the licenses and rules 
surrounding our map than I have ever done before as a contributor and a casual 
user. It is obvious that there still is a lot of discussion going on on how to 
interpret the license and what cases of copying and use, should trigger the 
share alike and attribute clauses, and what should not.

I would like to argue that a lot of these questions are no longer open for 
debate. The set of rules that the redaction bot followed, to enable the license 
change, is by the bots work now coded into the history of our database in such 
a way that changing them would force us to revert the entire license change. I 
would suspect (I am no lawyer) that if a license dispute about OSM ever end up 
in court, we will not be able to argue for more copyright protection than what 
we gave to those contributors who did not want the license to change. I would 
also like to argue that, when a question comes in if a user can or can not do 
something without breaching our copyright, we should always start the 
discussion by looking for similar examples in our own change to the ODbL.   

I have searched for these rules, but I have not found them, at least not in the 
form of a list that clearly states, This is the final list of rules that the 
reduction bot is based upon, preferably with references to relevant sections 
of the bots source code. 
Where can I find the final version of the source code for the redaction bot 
that was run to do the license change? 
Help in finding these would be appreciated.
I know about these:
What is clean 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F), are 
these the rules the bot is based on? 
Some code, but it states that it is only an example ( 
https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change )


As I said in an earlier posting: As far as I understand our license change, it 
can be described as this: (Please correct me if I am wrong) 
All objects that had an edit history where someone not willing to change the 
license (decliner) had edited anything was reverted back in history until no 
edits by any decliner where left, thereby creating a clean database. All 
cleaning operations where based on data history in the database. 


This could also be described as:
A user has the full copyright to any point they add to the map that they add 
regardless of surrounding data.


If I now look upon my initial use-case questions again and but this time start 
by looking for similarities in our license change and the set of rules it was 
based upon, what conclusions do I reach? (As always correct me if I assume 
anything about the license change that is incorrect.)

1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use the 
coordinates they clicked on as part of the meta-data for a place in our 
application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database?  To 
clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the 
coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the map 
to for example London and then click somewhere in London.
If a user adds a point to OSM they have full copyright over that point and are 
free to also add the same point to another database, or as in this case, only 
add the point to another db. We as a community can not claim any copyright over 
this point even though our map is used as a base for the placement of the 
point. We get to claim no copyright here as we gave no copyright to decliners 
where their data made up the base map on which we added our points before the 
license change.

2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered 
by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and let the user 
click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on, will the resulting 
database be considered a derived database?  Again, we would not extract any 
information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on. 
Presenting the markers would of course help the user find a place, such as 
London.
As long as the presenting of alternatives does not directly expose the 
underlying point from the OSM db, for example by clicking on a marker and 
thereby copying the exact coordinates from the db, than this is basically same 
as 1. If the coordinates are copied, it would be a case where the share alike 
clause should kick in.

I do not see that case 3 and 4 change in the light of our own license change.

Comments?

/Olov

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Jonathan Harley]

On 28/02/13 14:58, Olov McKie wrote:

Hello All!


Hi Olov, I'll give this a go. My answers are a long way down because I 
think cases 1-3 are all essentially the same:



First off, thank you for the feedback I have gotten so far! I had an idea about 
what answers I would get on my questions, but some of your answers were not 
what I expected, so let me reason a bit about each case and I would love your 
feedback on my reasoning. Please also look on case 3 and 4 as no one has said 
anything about them yet.


1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use the 
coordinates they clicked on as part of the meta-data for a place in our 
application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database?  To 
clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the 
coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the map 
to for example London and then click somewhere in London.

I was expecting this to be OK. If I were to use my old paperback world atlas to 
find the latitude and longitude of different places around the world, and then 
store those coordinates along with an awful lot of other information in a 
database, in no way would I expect whoever wrote that atlas to have copyright 
claims on my database. I see this as fair use of the atlas and I see the use of 
an application showing a map where the user clicks on the map as equivalent to 
an atlas and was therefor not expecting this to be an issue. As some of you see 
this as copying would I like to ask sub questions:

1a. What license would a coordinate extracted this way be under? As the 
application displaying the map keeps track of the coordinates and normally can 
display any map layer (OSM and others) and we are not extracting raw data from 
the database, but just using the rendered view (CC-BY-SA) to help us orient the 
applications coordinate position to a place we can find on the globe. Will the 
coordinates extracted from the application be CC-BY-SA or ODbL?

1b. If I move the map to a place that is not yet mapped, for instance a small 
village not at all represented on the map, but I know its location relative to 
surrounding places, roads etc., then I ask the application for its position, do 
you also see this as copying of map data?

1c. If I use another map layer (NOT OSM) to position my application to a 
specific place on the globe, then ask the application to change the mapping 
layer to an OSM representation, then ask the application for the coordinates by 
clicking on the map, would you consider this copying of OSM data?

1d. If I have a printed OSM map of the world and use that to find coordinates 
for places that I then put in our database, would you consider that copying of 
OSM data, if so, would the coordinates be CC-BY-SA or ODbL?


2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered 
by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and let the user 
click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on, will the resulting 
database be considered a derived database?  Again, we would not extract any 
information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on. 
Presenting the markers would of course help the user find a place, such as 
London.

I saw this as very similar to case 1, and using the same atlas reference as in 
case 1 (using the map registry to find the correct page), I would consider this 
OK. But I am in this case using raw map data to display positions on the map, 
so it is definitely getting closer to copying data, and I was expecting some 
people to find this as ok and some as not ok.

  


3. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered 
by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and if we have 
more then one result ask the user to fill in more details about the place such 
as, country, region, close to major city, local name, etc until overpass only 
returns on result, would the user entered data be considered a derived 
database? To clarify, in this case would we not extract the coordinates or any 
other data from the map.

I can not see this as anything but OK, we are not storing any information from 
the map, just user entered data. But if someone has an idea how this could be 
considered copying in such a way that the ODbLs share alike clause would kick 
in, would I definitely like to hear it.


All these cases are of course OK in the sense that yes, you can do 
them. The only question here is whether you would you be required to 
release the resulting data for free.


It seems to me that all these points involve presenting your user with a 
map (a Produced Work in ODbL terms), and getting them to give you 
geodata relative to that.


Produced Works don't have to be licensed under ODbL - they don't have to 
have any specific license - so if you use map tiles whose license 
doesn't require any derived data to be shared back to 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Alex Barth]

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:

 The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then distribute it
 as some kind of “OSM but better” without releasing the proprietary data is
 a feature of share-alike licenses, not a bug.


Not every feature is a good feature, just like in software. There are
features that are just a bad idea. In this case, the share alike feature
protects us from something that just won't hurt OSM anyway, in fact it
would help OSM.

Someone goes mixes OSM with proprietary data, sells the result? Awesome!
This is exactly what's going on today with tiles, no? If the individual,
company or organization who sells improved OSM data does not give back into
the OSM ecosystem by creating better tools or contributing unencumbered
data, they're just plain dumb.

Open source or open data is not something you're forced to do, you're doing
it because you're smart.

There is further a false premise that most potential data users who have to
weigh opening non-OSM data they're mixing in somehow have a choice. They
more likely don't and hence we lose them as contributors entirely.

Specifically:

- they more likely just don't own the data they'd like to mix with OSM
- they more likely work in a bureaucratic organization where opening data
is just a multi year endeavour

What we wind up with is a well intentioned share alike clause that keeps
people away rather than help grow the open geo data space.

It comes down to this:

incentive to contribute by opening OSM data to any uses  incentive to
contribute through retaining share-alike

The public domain argument is a bit of a red herring. If OSM used a PD-like
 license like PDDL or CC0 then we would be unable to make use of most of the
 external sources that we use, having to drop at a bare minimum 40% of the
 ways in the DB, and likely much more.


Interesting, can you expand on this a little more? Like for instance what's
a good example of a current external source or two effectively requiring us
to have a share-alike license?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:36:48 -0500, Alex Barth wrote:

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:


The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then
distribute it as some kind of “OSM but better” without

releasing

the proprietary data is a feature of share-alike licenses, not a
bug.


Not every feature is a good feature, just like in software. There are
features that are just a bad idea. In this case, the share alike
feature protects us from something that just won't hurt OSM anyway, 
in

fact it would help OSM.


But OSM doesn't exist to gobble up data.

It exists to ensure that everyone is free to use its data.

Please note that by use I mean interact with, not prevent other 
people from using. If you want to lock people out of access to OSM data 
in your application, you are preventing use of that data.



Someone goes mixes OSM with proprietary data, sells the result?
Awesome! This is exactly what's going on today with tiles, no? If the
individual, company or organization who sells improved OSM data does
not give back into the OSM ecosystem by creating better tools or
contributing unencumbered data, they're just plain dumb.


No, they are smart because they are giving their shareholders value 
rather than leaking it to third parties.



Open source or open data is not something you're forced to do, you're
doing it because you're smart.


But where you do it, you should actually do it.

And where the condition of being free to use that data is that others 
should be free to use it, that is not unreasonable.



There is further a false premise that most potential data users who
have to weigh opening non-OSM data they're mixing in somehow have a
choice. They more likely don't and hence we lose them as contributors
entirely.


You are arguing that users of OSM data should not be free to use OSM 
data just in case someone decides to gift back some data to OSM (despite 
the economic irrationality of this) so that people can benefit 
fromnot being free to use it.


That...doesn't work.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:53:44 +0100 (CET), Olov McKie wrote:


As I understand our license change, it can be described as this:
(Please correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit 
history

where someone not willing to change the license (decliner) had edited
anything was reverted back in history until no edits by any decliner
where left, thereby creating a clean database. All cleaning 
operations

where based on data history in the database.


Yes. This was to ensure there was no possible legal conflict, and no 
possible emotional upset.



Now imagine this:
A decliner adds street names on two streets Street A and Street B,
they have an intersection. Then I by Local knowledge know that 
there

is a shop in the intersection of Street A and Street B add that shop
(Shop A) to the map. Someone else adds another shop (Shop B) to the
right of the shop I added (Shop A) based on the fact that Shop B is
right of Shop A. Now the license change happened and the street names
where removed, but as far as I know the shops where left as they had
no direct history in the database related to the decliners edits. The
positions of Shop A is directly deducted from the decliners
copyrighted information about what the streets are called. The
position of Shop B is then based on the position of Shop A, therefor
indirectly deducted from the copyrighted information of the decliner.


Which part of the data from the decliner's edit sets is incorporated in 
your additions?


- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 02/28/2013 05:54 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote:
 I'm a little confused.  The way I interpret your comment, merely
 storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share
 alike.  But on the use cases wiki page
 (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says:
 'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or
 together in the same database software, whether that is a RDBMS,
 NOSQL, filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't
 derived from OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a
 Derivative Database.'  In other words, storing ODbL and non-ODbL data
 together does not trigger share alike.

What I understand is that the difference between Derivative Database and
Collective Database is whether or not the data is published under a
common namespace. What storage is used does not matter.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Jonathan Harley]

On 28/02/13 08:04, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:

On 02/28/2013 05:54 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote:

I'm a little confused.  The way I interpret your comment, merely
storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share
alike.  But on the use cases wiki page
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says:
'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or
together in the same database software, whether that is a RDBMS,
NOSQL, filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't
derived from OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a
Derivative Database.'  In other words, storing ODbL and non-ODbL data
together does not trigger share alike.

What I understand is that the difference between Derivative Database and
Collective Database is whether or not the data is published under a
common namespace. What storage is used does not matter.



What publication techniques you use are as irrelevant to database 
share-alike as what storage techniques you use. A set of data forms a 
Derivative Database if it's derived from OSM (modified, arranged, 
adapted etc); and if not - if it's just stored next to it or retrieved 
together with it - it's a Collective Database.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3d._If_I_use_your_data_together_with_someone_else.27s_data.2C_do_I_have_to_apply_your_license_to_their_data_too.3F
 says this in slightly different words:

If the two datasets are independent ... this is a *Collective 
Database*. If you adapt them to work together (for example, by taking 
footpaths from the OSM data, roads from the third-party data, and 
connecting them for routing), this is a Derivative Database.



J.

--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Simon Poole]

The use of the term Database in an intellectual property context has
essentially nothing to do with the CS/IT concept of a database. The
statement on the wiki is correct, and Alexs statement was a bit misleading.

I don't think this discussion has made any progress since the last time
it came up.  I'm still waiting for a concrete (geocoding) use case which
we would reasonably want to allow without triggering share-a-like.

Simon

 
Am 28.02.2013 05:54, schrieb Jake Wasserman:
 Alex,
 I'm a little confused.  The way I interpret your comment, merely
 storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share
 alike.  But on the use cases wiki page
 (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says:
 'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or
 together in the same database software, whether that is a RDBMS,
 NOSQL, filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't
 derived from OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a
 Derivative Database.'  In other words, storing ODbL and non-ODbL data
 together does not trigger share alike.

 Just trying to get some clarification.

 Thanks,
 Jake



 On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com
 mailto:a...@mapbox.com wrote:

 Rob - as long as you don't mix ODbL data and other data in the
 same database, ODbL's share alike cause doesn't kick in. So using
 the OSM tiles on your web site doesn't mean that data in your web
 site is affected. I recommend reading the ODbL, it's pretty clear
 that way http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/

 (And yes, I know, an open license shouldn't be that long and that
 complicated, but that's another story).


 On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Rob smartt...@gmail.com
 mailto:smartt...@gmail.com wrote:

  It would appear that any and all data associated with a
  website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used.

  What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but
 that is
  trivially disprovable.

 Where is the line in the sand?

 For example I have a website which is driven by several
 databases whichinclude everything from website members info t

 I then integrate OSM into the website by including interactive
 map tiles, address searches (geocoding), POI placement /
 inclusion, routing, etc...

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Feb 27, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Richard Fairhurst
 rich...@systemed.net mailto:rich...@systemed.net wrote:

  WhereAmI wrote:
  It would appear that any and all data associated with a
  website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM
  data is used.
 
  What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but
 that is
  trivially disprovable.
 
  Richard
 
 
 
 
 
  --
  View this message in context:
 
 http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html
  Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
 
  ___
  legal-talk mailing list
  legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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



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




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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Olov McKie]

Hello All!

First off, thank you for the feedback I have gotten so far! I had an idea about 
what answers I would get on my questions, but some of your answers were not 
what I expected, so let me reason a bit about each case and I would love your 
feedback on my reasoning. Please also look on case 3 and 4 as no one has said 
anything about them yet.


1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use the 
coordinates they clicked on as part of the meta-data for a place in our 
application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database?  To 
clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the 
coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the map 
to for example London and then click somewhere in London.

I was expecting this to be OK. If I were to use my old paperback world atlas to 
find the latitude and longitude of different places around the world, and then 
store those coordinates along with an awful lot of other information in a 
database, in no way would I expect whoever wrote that atlas to have copyright 
claims on my database. I see this as fair use of the atlas and I see the use of 
an application showing a map where the user clicks on the map as equivalent to 
an atlas and was therefor not expecting this to be an issue. As some of you see 
this as copying would I like to ask sub questions:

1a. What license would a coordinate extracted this way be under? As the 
application displaying the map keeps track of the coordinates and normally can 
display any map layer (OSM and others) and we are not extracting raw data from 
the database, but just using the rendered view (CC-BY-SA) to help us orient the 
applications coordinate position to a place we can find on the globe. Will the 
coordinates extracted from the application be CC-BY-SA or ODbL? 

1b. If I move the map to a place that is not yet mapped, for instance a small 
village not at all represented on the map, but I know its location relative to 
surrounding places, roads etc., then I ask the application for its position, do 
you also see this as copying of map data?

1c. If I use another map layer (NOT OSM) to position my application to a 
specific place on the globe, then ask the application to change the mapping 
layer to an OSM representation, then ask the application for the coordinates by 
clicking on the map, would you consider this copying of OSM data?

1d. If I have a printed OSM map of the world and use that to find coordinates 
for places that I then put in our database, would you consider that copying of 
OSM data, if so, would the coordinates be CC-BY-SA or ODbL? 


2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered 
by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and let the user 
click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on, will the resulting 
database be considered a derived database?  Again, we would not extract any 
information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on. 
Presenting the markers would of course help the user find a place, such as 
London.

I saw this as very similar to case 1, and using the same atlas reference as in 
case 1 (using the map registry to find the correct page), I would consider this 
OK. But I am in this case using raw map data to display positions on the map, 
so it is definitely getting closer to copying data, and I was expecting some 
people to find this as ok and some as not ok.

 

3. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered 
by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and if we have 
more then one result ask the user to fill in more details about the place such 
as, country, region, close to major city, local name, etc until overpass only 
returns on result, would the user entered data be considered a derived 
database? To clarify, in this case would we not extract the coordinates or any 
other data from the map.

I can not see this as anything but OK, we are not storing any information from 
the map, just user entered data. But if someone has an idea how this could be 
considered copying in such a way that the ODbLs share alike clause would kick 
in, would I definitely like to hear it.


 

4. If we present several places (all data about the place including coordinates 
originates from other sources than OSM) on an OSM map to help find duplicates, 
and then lets the user click on two places marked on the map, to merge them 
into one, would the resulting database be considered a derived database?

I can not see this as anything but OK. A mapping application would solve this 
use-case with or without a map as a background layer, just visualizing the 
places on the coordinate grid with a scale present would immediately show 
duplicates so the OSM layer is only a nice visual touch and I can not see how 
it would be considered copying of OSM data. But if anyone has a different view 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote:

 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use
 the coordinates they clicked on as part of the meta-data for a place in our
 application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database?
  To clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the
 coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the
 map to for example London and then click somewhere in London.

 I was expecting this to be OK. If I were to use my old paperback world
 atlas to find the latitude and longitude of different places around the
 world, and then store those coordinates along with an awful lot of other
 information in a database, in no way would I expect whoever wrote that
 atlas to have copyright claims on my database. I see this as fair use of
 the atlas and I see the use of an application showing a map where the user
 clicks on the map as equivalent to an atlas and was therefor not expecting
 this to be an issue. As some of you see this as copying would I like to ask
 sub questions:



You're letting users pinpoint locations on a map created using OSM data.

How is this different from tracing roads and buildings from a map created
using OSM data?

I think most people agree that such tracing indeed creates derivative data
based on the OSM database. And I think it makes no difference if the
tracing is on a point by point basis or via lines or polygons.

So my opinion is that those coordinates should be licensed under the ODbL.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Alex Barth]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Jake Wasserman jwasser...@gmail.comwrote:

 'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or
 together in the same database software, whether that is a RDBMS, NOSQL,
 filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't derived from
 OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a Derivative Database.'


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 28/02/13 00:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:


As I said in my opening paragraph, the share-alike license never
prohibits you from doing something with the data; it just prohibits you
from prohibiting stuff!


3

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Tobias Knerr]

On 28.02.2013 01:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 Just to make this one point clear:
 
 What you *can* do with the data is pretty clear and pretty easy.

This is not really true. At the core of the ODbL is the idea that
produced works and derivative databases should be treated
differently, and that distinction is difficult to make and unclear for
everything that is not explicitly listed as one of the examples of a
produced work. Just as one example, Matthias Meißer recently forwarded a
question about the legal nature of 3D city models in the light of ODbL
to this list and apparently no one was able to clarify.

I believe that such ambiguous and complex distinctions go against the
purpose of a free license to make it easy and safe to reuse data.

You are right that there are also cases where it is clear that something
is not permitted, and the problem is merely that some of us would want
it to be legal instead. The original question probably falls into this
category. But I still wanted to point ot that this clarity does not
exist for all possible use cases.

 As I said in my op*ening paragraph, the share-alike license never
 prohibits you from doing something with the data; it just prohibits you
 from prohibiting stuff!

It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative
databases. For example, merging some OSM data now forces you to prohibit
the use of your improved database as a source for Wikidata - or for OSM
if we ever change our license again.

Tobias

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 27/02/13 20:24, Marc Regan wrote:

I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid
term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at
hand.

+1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the
cloud of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data is
pretty terrifying.


-1 This is obvious nonsense.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 27/02/13 21:19, Rob wrote:


Rather than share-alike I would like to share-what-I-like but that is
not an option.


And I'd like you to make me a sandwich.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 28/02/13 23:45, Tobias Knerr wrote:


It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative
databases.


That doesn't prohibit anything. You can make derivative databases. You 
just can't prohibit people from using them freely.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Svavar Kjarrval]

It would prohibit me from using the CC0 license if I use any data with a
ODbL license to create a derived database.

- Svavar Kjarrval

On 28/02/13 23:49, Rob Myers wrote:
 On 28/02/13 23:45, Tobias Knerr wrote:

 It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative
 databases.

 That doesn't prohibit anything. You can make derivative databases. You
 just can't prohibit people from using them freely.

 - Rob.

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




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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Alex Barth]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 I think that the OSM community is already very open towards commercial use;


This is bigger than just commercial use. The ODbL is an obstacle to
contribute to OSM for anyone - business or not - who is bound by the
constraints of using third party data whose license they can't control or
for anyone who's bound by law to keep their data in the public domain.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Paul Norman]

The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then distribute it as 
some kind of “OSM but better” without releasing the proprietary data is a 
feature of share-alike licenses, not a bug. 

 

The public domain argument is a bit of a red herring. If OSM used a PD-like 
license like PDDL or CC0 then we would be unable to make use of most of the 
external sources that we use, having to drop at a bare minimum 40% of the ways 
in the DB, and likely much more. Even if OSM went with PDDL or CC0 we wouldn’t 
truly be PD, and that could still pose issues.

 

In many ways this is similar to GPL vs BSD license debates from the software 
world, although ODbL is closer to LGPL with its weaker share-alike and produced 
works. Both licenses have their benefits and drawbacks.

 

From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:21 PM
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

 

 

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

I think that the OSM community is already very open towards commercial use;

 

This is bigger than just commercial use. The ODbL is an obstacle to contribute 
to OSM for anyone - business or not - who is bound by the constraints of using 
third party data whose license they can't control or for anyone who's bound by 
law to keep their data in the public domain.

 

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Alex Barth]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:

 My
 understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but
 at the moment it is not. Correct?


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Alex Barth]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:

 My
 understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but
 at the moment it is not. Correct?


Actually to be more specific: I'm saying I would like geocoding-like use
cases to be clarified, at the moment it is not clear. Here is what we
should do: specifically allow narrow extractions of OSM for geocoding-like
use cases to happen without the share-alike clause to kick in.. I'm also
going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term. It's just
complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Marc Regan]

 I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term. 
 It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand.


+1.  If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the cloud 
of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data is pretty 
terrifying.  Instead of rallying around the community and getting excited about 
improving OSM, you instead spend time looking at alternatives and trying to 
find lawyers who are experts in software licensing who you can afford to talk 
to.

The share-alike clause makes the barrier to using OSM data very high.  


-- 
Marc Regan


On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Alex Barth wrote:

 
 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com 
 (mailto:k...@maploser.com) wrote:
  My
  understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but
  at the moment it is not. Correct?
 Actually to be more specific: I'm saying I would like geocoding-like use 
 cases to be clarified, at the moment it is not clear. Here is what we should 
 do: specifically allow narrow extractions of OSM for geocoding-like use cases 
 to happen without the share-alike clause to kick in.. I'm also going to add 
 we should do away with share alike in the mid term. It's just complicated and 
 hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand. 
 
 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org (mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org)
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
 
 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Mikel Maron]

 It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app 
 becomes fair game once OSM data is used. 

That may be an appearance, but it is not true.

Actually, you should be fine, this is a very common use case. 
There are some details, but when making tiles, as long as they are only 
rendered together, not put together in a single database, there's no 
share-alike.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases#Case_3:_I_want_to_publish_something_based_on_OSM_and_my_own_data

 
I agree this isn't clear. Confusion is certainly an issue with ODbL.

Alex's issue with geocoding is different. I agree, we need to take a serious 
look at this, and have it clarified.

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron



 From: Rob smartt...@gmail.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
 

+1 +1 +1


Would love to use OSM data to create a tile server for a project I have in the 
works but the share-alike clause has stopped me from moving forward with OSM. 


Rather than share-alike I would like to share-what-I-like but that is not an 
option.


Currently there seems to be no limit to what OSM could claim rights to under 
the share-alike clause. 


It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app 
becomes fair game once OSM data is used. 


Rob


Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 27, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Marc Regan marcre...@gmail.com wrote:


I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term. It's 
just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand.
+1.  If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the 
cloud of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data is pretty 
terrifying.  Instead of rallying around the community and getting excited 
about improving OSM, you instead spend time looking at alternatives and 
trying to find lawyers who are experts in software licensing who you can 
afford to talk to.


The share-alike clause makes the barrier to using OSM data very high.  



-- 
Marc Regan



On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Alex Barth wrote:


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:

My
understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but
at the moment it is not. Correct?
Actually to be more specific: I'm saying I would like geocoding-like use 
cases to be clarified, at the moment it is not clear. Here is what we should 
do: specifically allow narrow extractions of OSM for geocoding-like use 
cases to happen without the share-alike clause to kick in.. I'm also going 
to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term. It's just 
complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand.


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


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

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


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Richard Fairhurst]

WhereAmI wrote:
 It would appear that any and all data associated with a 
 website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM 
 data is used. 

What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is
trivially disprovable.

Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob]

 It would appear that any and all data associated with a 
 website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used.

 What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is
 trivially disprovable.

Where is the line in the sand?

For example I have a website which is driven by several databases whichinclude 
everything from website members info t

I then integrate OSM into the website by including interactive map tiles, 
address searches (geocoding), POI placement / inclusion, routing, etc...

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 27, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 WhereAmI wrote:
 It would appear that any and all data associated with a 
 website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM 
 data is used.
 
 What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is
 trivially disprovable.
 
 Richard
 
 
 
 
 
 --
 View this message in context: 
 http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html
 Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
 
 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Alex Barth]

Rob - as long as you don't mix ODbL data and other data in the same
database, ODbL's share alike cause doesn't kick in. So using the OSM tiles
on your web site doesn't mean that data in your web site is affected. I
recommend reading the ODbL, it's pretty clear that way
http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/

(And yes, I know, an open license shouldn't be that long and that
complicated, but that's another story).


On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Rob smartt...@gmail.com wrote:

  It would appear that any and all data associated with a
  website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used.

  What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is
  trivially disprovable.

 Where is the line in the sand?

 For example I have a website which is driven by several databases
 whichinclude everything from website members info t

 I then integrate OSM into the website by including interactive map tiles,
 address searches (geocoding), POI placement / inclusion, routing, etc...

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Feb 27, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
 wrote:

  WhereAmI wrote:
  It would appear that any and all data associated with a
  website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM
  data is used.
 
  What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is
  trivially disprovable.
 
  Richard
 
 
 
 
 
  --
  View this message in context:
 http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html
  Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
 
  ___
  legal-talk mailing list
  legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 27.02.2013 21:24, Marc Regan wrote:

+1.  If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles,
the cloud of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data
is pretty terrifying.


Just to make this one point clear:

What you *can* do with the data is pretty clear and pretty easy.

Some use cases run into trouble specifically because an essential part 
of the use case is that third parties *cannot* do something.


OSM are not the ones that prohibit certain uses; it is those who want to 
prohibit certain uses that (sometimes) have a problem with OSM.



The share-alike clause makes the barrier to using OSM data very high.


It is essentially a question of business models. It is true that it is 
sometimes difficult to marry share-alike data with all our data belong 
to us business models.


We've had these discussions a lot in the run-up to the license change; 
we had people to whom even the lighter rules on produced works that the 
ODbL brought were an unacceptable weakening of share-alike.


I think that the OSM community is already very open towards commercial 
use; even in CC-BY-SA times, a large majority explicitly approved of 
commercial use of our data which is not something you can take for 
granted in a volunteer project, and ODbL has made things easier at least 
for those use cases where non-database works are considered.


Before we complain and ask for more and more concessions from the OSM 
community in order to build more and more commercial products with OSM 
instead of proprietary geodata, we should think about what we already 
have - it is a lot, and represents a huge value.


Personally while I'd be happy with a PD license, I don't think that the 
concept if you want to build proprietary solutions and make $$$ from 
the fact that they're proprietary then you have to pay someone $$$ to 
buy proprietary geodata is too outrageous.


As I said in my opening paragraph, the share-alike license never 
prohibits you from doing something with the data; it just prohibits you 
from prohibiting stuff!


Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Jake Wasserman]

Alex,
I'm a little confused.  The way I interpret your comment, merely storing
ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share alike.  But on
the use cases wiki page (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says:
'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or
together in the same database software, whether that is a RDBMS, NOSQL,
filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't derived from
OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a Derivative Database.'  In
other words, storing ODbL and non-ODbL data together does not trigger share
alike.

Just trying to get some clarification.

Thanks,
Jake



On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:

 Rob - as long as you don't mix ODbL data and other data in the same
 database, ODbL's share alike cause doesn't kick in. So using the OSM tiles
 on your web site doesn't mean that data in your web site is affected. I
 recommend reading the ODbL, it's pretty clear that way
 http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/

 (And yes, I know, an open license shouldn't be that long and that
 complicated, but that's another story).


 On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Rob smartt...@gmail.com wrote:

  It would appear that any and all data associated with a
  website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used.

  What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is
  trivially disprovable.

 Where is the line in the sand?

 For example I have a website which is driven by several databases
 whichinclude everything from website members info t

 I then integrate OSM into the website by including interactive map tiles,
 address searches (geocoding), POI placement / inclusion, routing, etc...

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Feb 27, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
 wrote:

  WhereAmI wrote:
  It would appear that any and all data associated with a
  website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM
  data is used.
 
  What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is
  trivially disprovable.
 
  Richard
 
 
 
 
 
  --
  View this message in context:
 http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html
  Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
 
  ___
  legal-talk mailing list
  legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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



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


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob]

+1 +1 +1

Would love to use OSM data to create a tile server for a project I have in the 
works but the share-alike clause has stopped me from moving forward with OSM. 

Rather than share-alike I would like to share-what-I-like but that is not an 
option.

Currently there seems to be no limit to what OSM could claim rights to under 
the share-alike clause. 

It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app 
becomes fair game once OSM data is used. 

Rob


Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 27, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Marc Regan marcre...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term. 
 It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand.
 
 +1.  If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the 
 cloud of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data is pretty 
 terrifying.  Instead of rallying around the community and getting excited 
 about improving OSM, you instead spend time looking at alternatives and 
 trying to find lawyers who are experts in software licensing who you can 
 afford to talk to.
 
 The share-alike clause makes the barrier to using OSM data very high.  
 
 
 -- 
 Marc Regan
 
 On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
 
 
 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
 My
 understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but
 at the moment it is not. Correct?
 
 Actually to be more specific: I'm saying I would like geocoding-like use 
 cases to be clarified, at the moment it is not clear. Here is what we should 
 do: specifically allow narrow extractions of OSM for geocoding-like use 
 cases to happen without the share-alike clause to kick in.. I'm also going 
 to add we should do away with share alike in the mid term. It's just 
 complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at hand.
 
 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
 
 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Erik Johansson]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote:
 Hej Erik!

 Would you please consider reading my mail one more time, and clarify your 
 answers, because I do not understand what you are trying to say.

 No where in my mail did I say anything about using Google maps or their API, 
 yet for the two usecases you have answered about are you talking about using 
 Google Maps.

 You are also writing about adding data to OSM, that is not the scenario I 
 have described in our usecases.

Hej Olov

It wasn't a mistake to involve GMaps.

Basically if you can do it in GMaps then you can most probably do it
in OSM, if you can't do it with GMaps then OSM will allow it if you
publish under ODBL. I just think it's much clear if I use GMaps as an
example because there is a lot more material on what you can and can't
do with GMaps.

MvH Erik Johansson
(Now back to skiing, with out a GPS :-( )

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Erik Johansson]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote:
 I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application to 
 handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music 
 sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digitalized versions of 
 the works. To know where an item was created, a letter sent from / to, etc we 
 need to store places and information about them. The information we normally 
 store about a place is name, alternative names, names translated to different 
 languages, etc. A place might be a historic one that no longer exists.

[..]
  We will not be able to share the complete db under the ODbL as the works 
 have all
  kinds of licenses that are incompatible with the ODbL.

Hej Olov, this is an interesting project.

You are going to produce some pretty awesome data, spend countless
hours of work, money and publish it for free, and then when the
project is over it will bitrot because of license issues.. This is a
perfect example of where a hardline stance on license will serve you.
Sure there are projects in OSM that can benefit of those historical
names, but I'm saying this for you, don't waste effort unless you know
what will happen to the data.

Go and talk with the nice folks at:
http://www.creativecommons.se/ (in Gothenburg I think)
http://se.wikimedia.org/ (offices in Stockholm so you can probably pop by)


 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and

OSM doesn't allow to inclusion of data from Google maps that was
entered this way. But lots and lots of people do it e.g. Wikipedia, so
it's up to you, but it's not unproblematic.


 2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename 
 entered by a user,

The question you have to ask is it ok under ToS of Google Maps
address searching (geocoding). Well except that part where you are
not allowed to use Google products behind a firewall.


So I do not agree at all with Alex Barth on this, but I've been wrong before.


Lycka till, och ge inte upp!
Erik Johansson

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Olov McKie]

Hej Erik!

Would you please consider reading my mail one more time, and clarify your 
answers, because I do not understand what you are trying to say. 

No where in my mail did I say anything about using Google maps or their API, 
yet for the two usecases you have answered about are you talking about using 
Google Maps. 

You are also writing about adding data to OSM, that is not the scenario I have 
described in our usecases.

/Olov 


 On Fri, Feb 22, 2013, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:
 I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application 
 to handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music 
 sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digitalized versions of 
 the works. To know where an item was created, a letter sent from / to, etc 
 we need to store places and information about them. The information we 
 normally store about a place is name, alternative names, names translated to 
 different languages, etc. A place might be a historic one that no longer 
 exists.
 [..]
   We will not be able to share the complete db under the ODbL as the works 
 have all
   kinds of licenses that are incompatible with the ODbL.
 Hej Olov, this is an interesting project.

 You are going to produce some pretty awesome data, spend countless
 hours of work, money and publish it for free, and then when the
 project is over it will bitrot because of license issues.. This is a
 perfect example of where a hardline stance on license will serve you.
 Sure there are projects in OSM that can benefit of those historical
 names, but I'm saying this for you, don't waste effort unless you know
 what will happen to the data.

 Go and talk with the nice folks at:
 http://www.creativecommons.se/ (in Gothenburg I think)
 http://se.wikimedia.org/ (offices in Stockholm so you can probably pop by)


 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and
 OSM doesn't allow to inclusion of data from Google maps that was
 entered this way. But lots and lots of people do it e.g. Wikipedia, so
 it's up to you, but it's not unproblematic.


 2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename 
 entered by a user,
 The question you have to ask is it ok under ToS of Google Maps
 address searching (geocoding). Well except that part where you are
 not allowed to use Google products behind a firewall.


 So I do not agree at all with Alex Barth on this, but I've been wrong before.


 Lycka till, och ge inte upp!
 Erik Johansson

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Kate Chapman]

Hi Alex,

You might want to clarify because your email is a bit confusing. My
understanding is you are saying I would like it to be this way, but
at the moment it is not. Correct?

Yes it is important to clarify the share alike clause, but I think
also important not to confuse people asking how the licensing
currently works.

-Kate

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
 I think all of these use cases should be ok and we should adjust the
 community guide lines to clarify that ODbL's share alike clause shouldn't
 kick in here.


 On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote:

 Hello all!

 I have a few usecases for OSM where I do not know if I can use it or not.

 I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application
 to handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music
 sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digitalized versions of
 the works. To know where an item was created, a letter sent from / to, etc
 we need to store places and information about them. The information we
 normally store about a place is name, alternative names, names translated to
 different languages, etc. A place might be a historic one that no longer
 exists.

 In the current system, metadata about a place is constructed by giving it
 a name, known variations of the name, which country it is in (problematic as
 it might change over the time) and translation of the name.
 As an OSM user and contributor my first reaction was, we can make the
 places more precise and avoid the changing countries problem by using
 coordinates for places, and also present them in a better way.

 As the applications data should be readable for a long time (forever),
 will we be storing all metadata together with the digitalized objects. We
 will over the lifetime of the application construct several thousand places.
 We will not be able to share the complete db under the ODbL as the works
 have all kinds of licenses that are incompatible with the ODbL. The
 resulting system will be accessible for anyone from the Internet,
 subsections might have restricted access.

 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use
 the coordinates they clicked on as part of the metadata for a place in our
 application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database?
 To clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the
 coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the
 map to for example London and then click somewhere in London.

 2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename
 entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and
 let the user click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on,
 will the resulting database be considered a derived database?  Again, we
 would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that
 the user clicked on. Presenting the markers would of course help the user
 find a place, such as London.

 3. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename
 entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and if
 we have more then one result ask the user to fill in more details about the
 place such as, country, region, close to major city, local name, etc until
 overpass only returns on result, would the user entered data be considered a
 derived database? To clarify, in this case would we not extract the
 coordinates or any other data from the map.

 4. If we present several places (all data about the place including
 coordinates originates from other sources than OSM) on an OSM map to help
 find duplicates, and then lets the user click on two places marked on the
 map, to merge them into one, would the resulting database be considered a
 derived database?


 I would love for us to use OSM in our application, but I have been unable
 to find out if we can use it for the four usecases presented above.

 with hope of a speedy answer

 /Olov

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



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


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

[OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Olov McKie]

Hello all!

I have a few usecases for OSM where I do not know if I can use it or not.

I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application to 
handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music 
sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digitalized versions of 
the works. To know where an item was created, a letter sent from / to, etc we 
need to store places and information about them. The information we normally 
store about a place is name, alternative names, names translated to different 
languages, etc. A place might be a historic one that no longer exists.

In the current system, metadata about a place is constructed by giving it a 
name, known variations of the name, which country it is in (problematic as it 
might change over the time) and translation of the name. 
As an OSM user and contributor my first reaction was, we can make the places 
more precise and avoid the changing countries problem by using coordinates for 
places, and also present them in a better way.

As the applications data should be readable for a long time (forever), will we 
be storing all metadata together with the digitalized objects. We will over the 
lifetime of the application construct several thousand places. We will not be 
able to share the complete db under the ODbL as the works have all kinds of 
licenses that are incompatible with the ODbL. The resulting system will be 
accessible for anyone from the Internet, subsections might have restricted 
access. 

1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use the 
coordinates they clicked on as part of the metadata for a place in our 
application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database?  To 
clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the 
coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the map 
to for example London and then click somewhere in London.

2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered 
by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and let the user 
click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on, will the resulting 
database be considered a derived database?  Again, we would not extract any 
information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on. 
Presenting the markers would of course help the user find a place, such as 
London.

3. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered 
by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and if we have 
more then one result ask the user to fill in more details about the place such 
as, country, region, close to major city, local name, etc until overpass only 
returns on result, would the user entered data be considered a derived 
database? To clarify, in this case would we not extract the coordinates or any 
other data from the map.

4. If we present several places (all data about the place including coordinates 
originates from other sources than OSM) on an OSM map to help find duplicates, 
and then lets the user click on two places marked on the map, to merge them 
into one, would the resulting database be considered a derived database?


I would love for us to use OSM in our application, but I have been unable to 
find out if we can use it for the four usecases presented above.

with hope of a speedy answer

/Olov 

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Alex Barth]

I think all of these use cases should be ok and we should adjust the
community guide lines to clarify that ODbL's share alike clause shouldn't
kick in here.


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote:

 Hello all!

 I have a few usecases for OSM where I do not know if I can use it or not.

 I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application
 to handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images,
 music sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digitalized
 versions of the works. To know where an item was created, a letter sent
 from / to, etc we need to store places and information about them. The
 information we normally store about a place is name, alternative names,
 names translated to different languages, etc. A place might be a historic
 one that no longer exists.

 In the current system, metadata about a place is constructed by giving it
 a name, known variations of the name, which country it is in (problematic
 as it might change over the time) and translation of the name.
 As an OSM user and contributor my first reaction was, we can make the
 places more precise and avoid the changing countries problem by using
 coordinates for places, and also present them in a better way.

 As the applications data should be readable for a long time (forever),
 will we be storing all metadata together with the digitalized objects. We
 will over the lifetime of the application construct several thousand
 places. We will not be able to share the complete db under the ODbL as the
 works have all kinds of licenses that are incompatible with the ODbL. The
 resulting system will be accessible for anyone from the Internet,
 subsections might have restricted access.

 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use
 the coordinates they clicked on as part of the metadata for a place in our
 application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database?
  To clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the
 coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the
 map to for example London and then click somewhere in London.

 2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename
 entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and
 let the user click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on,
 will the resulting database be considered a derived database?  Again, we
 would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that
 the user clicked on. Presenting the markers would of course help the user
 find a place, such as London.

 3. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename
 entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and
 if we have more then one result ask the user to fill in more details about
 the place such as, country, region, close to major city, local name, etc
 until overpass only returns on result, would the user entered data be
 considered a derived database? To clarify, in this case would we not
 extract the coordinates or any other data from the map.

 4. If we present several places (all data about the place including
 coordinates originates from other sources than OSM) on an OSM map to help
 find duplicates, and then lets the user click on two places marked on the
 map, to merge them into one, would the resulting database be considered a
 derived database?


 I would love for us to use OSM in our application, but I have been unable
 to find out if we can use it for the four usecases presented above.

 with hope of a speedy answer

 /Olov

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

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group 2013

[Jeff Meyer]

Would this be an appropriate forum to discuss whether or own slippy map
requires our own copyright mark?

The response to this question in a separate thread on this list has been
vague and non-definitive.

Thanks, Jeff

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:

 The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally
 Tuesday 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC.

 I would like to draw your attention to the following:

 We'll be discussing our future role and any input on that, preferably to
 this list, is most welcome.  We've started putting together a remit
 document here:
 https://docs.google.com/**document/d/1D3KwSM_**BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-**
 RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pubhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3KwSM_BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pub

 We welcome new members and diverse views. If you are interested in opening
 up geospatial data and imagery for anyone to use, please join us.  You can
 contact me at my email address if you want more details or you can join us
 for one meeting to see if you like it.

 If you cannot or do not want to join us long term but have a particular
 issue that is important to you and it is in the best interests of OSM, we
 can make it a project and you can join us for one meeting or a few weeks.
 In the UK, example projects might be freeing up postcodes or public right
 of way route definitions.  Do you have important issues in your country?
 Are you an organisation that is finding OSM data difficult to use for legal
 reasons?

 Mike

 Michael Collinson
 Chair, License Working Group

 __**_
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/legal-talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk




-- 
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
j...@gwhat.org
206-676-2347
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer osm: Historical
OSMhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historical_OSM
 / my OSM user page http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer
 t: @GWHAThistory https://twitter.com/GWHAThistory
 f: GWHAThistory https://www.facebook.com/GWHAThistory
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group 2013

[Michael Collinson]

Hi Kate,

Good point, (I am back in Stockholm).  The current time of the meeting 
is purely for the convenience of existing LWG members ... after work for 
Europeans (majority) and morning for the Americas. I would like to feel 
our way to including folks who want to work on specific issues and will 
timing on the agenda.


Mike

On 19/01/2013 02:19, Kate Chapman wrote:

Hi Michael,

The meeting time is 1am in Jakarta and even later in other parts of
Asia (though I think you are in the Philippines at the moment and are
well aware).

Anyway, are there plans to rotate the meeting at some point?

I often perform advocacy within governments and the United Nations and
there are definitely issues I would like to discuss and have more
clarity.

Best,

-Kate

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:

The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally
Tuesday 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC.

I would like to draw your attention to the following:

We'll be discussing our future role and any input on that, preferably to
this list, is most welcome.  We've started putting together a remit document
here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3KwSM_BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pub

We welcome new members and diverse views. If you are interested in opening
up geospatial data and imagery for anyone to use, please join us.  You can
contact me at my email address if you want more details or you can join us
for one meeting to see if you like it.

If you cannot or do not want to join us long term but have a particular
issue that is important to you and it is in the best interests of OSM, we
can make it a project and you can join us for one meeting or a few weeks. In
the UK, example projects might be freeing up postcodes or public right of
way route definitions.  Do you have important issues in your country? Are
you an organisation that is finding OSM data difficult to use for legal
reasons?

Mike

Michael Collinson
Chair, License Working Group

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

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



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

[OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group 2013

[Michael Collinson]

The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally 
Tuesday 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC.


I would like to draw your attention to the following:

We'll be discussing our future role and any input on that, preferably to 
this list, is most welcome.  We've started putting together a remit 
document here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3KwSM_BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pub

We welcome new members and diverse views. If you are interested in 
opening up geospatial data and imagery for anyone to use, please join 
us.  You can contact me at my email address if you want more details or 
you can join us for one meeting to see if you like it.


If you cannot or do not want to join us long term but have a particular 
issue that is important to you and it is in the best interests of OSM, 
we can make it a project and you can join us for one meeting or a few 
weeks. In the UK, example projects might be freeing up postcodes or 
public right of way route definitions.  Do you have important issues in 
your country? Are you an organisation that is finding OSM data difficult 
to use for legal reasons?


Mike

Michael Collinson
Chair, License Working Group

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group 2013

[MJ Ray]

Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz
 We'll be discussing our future role and any input on that, preferably to 
 this list, is most welcome.  We've started putting together a remit 
 document here:
 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3KwSM_BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pub

I'm not quite sure whether it's confered by another heading, but I
feel that ICA.coop and its members (and members members and so on)
should be a priority target in point 6.

There we've got a large family of organisations (over 5000 in the UK
alone) with a very large membership (12 million in the largest) that
believes in self-help, solidarity and openness, but far too many of
them are not sharing with OSM yet.  Instead, they're still using
locked-down maps and many don't realise that they could easily give
back to OSM by recording new tracks on GPS phones, bugfixing and so on.

This should be pushing on an open door.  How about it?

Regards,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group 2013

[Simon Poole]

Phone currently.

Am 18.01.2013 20:04, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
 2013/1/18 Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz:
 The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally
 Tuesday 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC.

 are you meeting on IRC or is this a telephone conference?

 cheers,
 Martin

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



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group 2013

[Alex Barth]

I love the outline you posted and the intention to clarify ODbL and promote 
open geo data more actively. I will get in touch to join the meeting.

Alex

On Jan 18, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:

 The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally Tuesday 
 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC.
 
 I would like to draw your attention to the following:
 
 We'll be discussing our future role and any input on that, preferably to this 
 list, is most welcome.  We've started putting together a remit document here:
 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3KwSM_BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pub
 
 We welcome new members and diverse views. If you are interested in opening up 
 geospatial data and imagery for anyone to use, please join us.  You can 
 contact me at my email address if you want more details or you can join us 
 for one meeting to see if you like it.
 
 If you cannot or do not want to join us long term but have a particular issue 
 that is important to you and it is in the best interests of OSM, we can make 
 it a project and you can join us for one meeting or a few weeks. In the UK, 
 example projects might be freeing up postcodes or public right of way route 
 definitions.  Do you have important issues in your country? Are you an 
 organisation that is finding OSM data difficult to use for legal reasons?
 
 Mike
 
 Michael Collinson
 Chair, License Working Group
 
 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Alex Barth
http://twitter.com/lxbarth
tel (+1) 202 250 3633





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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group 2013

[Kate Chapman]

Hi Michael,

The meeting time is 1am in Jakarta and even later in other parts of
Asia (though I think you are in the Philippines at the moment and are
well aware).

Anyway, are there plans to rotate the meeting at some point?

I often perform advocacy within governments and the United Nations and
there are definitely issues I would like to discuss and have more
clarity.

Best,

-Kate

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
 The LWG will hold its first post-license change meeting provisionally
 Tuesday 22nd January at 18:00 GMT/UTC.

 I would like to draw your attention to the following:

 We'll be discussing our future role and any input on that, preferably to
 this list, is most welcome.  We've started putting together a remit document
 here:
 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3KwSM_BO7KkcbVADQVVn7eFwkD-RNauMwidhhlVPsI/pub

 We welcome new members and diverse views. If you are interested in opening
 up geospatial data and imagery for anyone to use, please join us.  You can
 contact me at my email address if you want more details or you can join us
 for one meeting to see if you like it.

 If you cannot or do not want to join us long term but have a particular
 issue that is important to you and it is in the best interests of OSM, we
 can make it a project and you can join us for one meeting or a few weeks. In
 the UK, example projects might be freeing up postcodes or public right of
 way route definitions.  Do you have important issues in your country? Are
 you an organisation that is finding OSM data difficult to use for legal
 reasons?

 Mike

 Michael Collinson
 Chair, License Working Group

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

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

[OSM-legal-talk] License question: odbl use case

[Juergen Kurzmann]

Hi,

with your help, I'll try to answer my own question posted (in full
length) here:
http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/14449/license-question-odbl-use-case

I'd first like to mention that my customers, by now, are actively
contributing to OSM and we absolutely want to stick to this spirit (not
least, in our own interest)!


However, I'd like to discuss the following legal issues/questions:

 1) If I remain with the purchased geodata and CloudMade services, is it okay 
 to simply stick to the attribution as before?

I think the question can be answered with yes if proper notice/credits
are provided because of the following reasons:
The overlay (purchased geodata) is completely independent from the OSM
data (see ODBL/Use Cases[1] 3.1 On-line map service using OSM data
together with other data sources) and the CloudMade services can be
assumed to fulfill all license requirements.
A special case might state the calculation of the cost component for
each job that is *derived* from the distance of the route. But I think
this is no problem either as the transformation is trivial[2] and simply
based on the (published) pricing table of the bike courier service.

Is that correct?



The second question is:
 2) Would it be possible to extend the geocoding of addresses by openstreetmap 
 services (eg. via Nominatim)? ...

The example mainly falls into the section 4 Embedding OSM data into
other products/applications (see ODBL/Use Cases[1]).

The questions are:

Is the derived (non substantial) data publicly used?
(consequently 3.3 Using OSM mapping data together with confidential
data for analysis purposes from the ODBL/Use Cases[1] would not come
into account)
I think yes: the distribution (in form of a web service) to the staff
and customers of the courier service clearly states a public use!
Is this correct?


I think the more crucial point is the combination of the (copyright
protected) purchased geodata and OSM data. This is clearly an
improvement plugging gaps in a commercial product (see 5 Negative Use
Cases from ODBL/Use Cases[1]).
Of course the problem is, that I'm not allowed to publish the purchased
geodata under the ODBL. The question is: Am I allowed to combine the
purchased geodata with OSM data if I publish at least all modification
made to the OSM-derived-data?
In other words: Are the ODBL license requirements fulfilled, if I
publish all changes to the data extracted from OSM for example by
publishing:
1. the script that queries/filters data from OSM
2. the log (machine readable diff) of all changes to this derived data
Does this fulfill the ODBL?

Thank you very much in advance for your answers!

Juergen.


References:
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases
[2]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline

other sources:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODBL
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ/ODbL
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Common_licence_interpretations

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

[OSM-legal-talk] License violations if switching to ODbL

[Lobelt]

Hello,

as the OSMF is determined to change the license in the next days, I inform you 
that several mappers in my former mapping-aereas have copied CC-by-SA lizensed 
material.
Besides the question wheter this is allowed after accepting the new CTs or not, 
if this stuff is released by the OSMF as ODbL-only it is a violation of 
CC-by-SA.
As long it is in the Database or the planet.osm, CC-by-SA is still effectiv.

Below I will name the users and give some examples of copied ways for each of 
them. For each of the ways, wich are source for the copy, I can either claim 
creation or an large part of editing.
Some of the ways are edited after creation by other mappers, but even then it 
is an derived work and copying is a violation of CC-by-SA.

I ask you to verify the examples and other edits of this mappers.
I have not the time or the technical capabilities to check all of their edits, 
but I have other examples for each of them. Those I will use to recheck if 
there is such material in an ODbL-only database.

You should made sure that no such material pop up in an ODbL-only database.


This text is going to le...@osmfoundation.org and the legal-talk mailing list.



Lobelt





dwausr
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dwausr

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144887569
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/101274474

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144959073
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/59862124

The following two changeset consist mainly of copied ways.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10342241
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10349020


RaZoR88
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/RaZoR88

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/148049362
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/93464102

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/148054828
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/93464241

The following two changeset consist mainly of copied ways.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10538363
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10538728


atz
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/atz

version 1 of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/149760654
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/30529140

version 1 of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/149144687
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/30529140


tjuca
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/tijuca

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/143818791
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/30529140

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/144422627
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/45185124


Erno54
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Erno54

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/146056849
is a slightly modified copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/45185124

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/145593647
is a slightly modified copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/23554471


vonLausitzOelpen
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/vonLausitzOelpen

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/156045196
and
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/147532785
are split copys from
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/41320036


Carsten Güse
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Carsten%20G%C3%BCse

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/151284340
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/71333277

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/151284342
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/71333276


scai
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/scai

www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/132013099
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/47635572

www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/134427625
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/47636164


Teddy80
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Teddy80

www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/20419183

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/155241297
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/21992002


Teddy73
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Teddy73

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/150389410
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/59578224

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/156539611
is a copy of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/51449821





-- 
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de

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

Re: [Talk-it] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Alberto Nogaro]

-Original Message-
From: totera [mailto:g...@hotmail.it]
Sent: giovedì 29 dicembre 2011 19:43
To: talk-it@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-it] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM
Inspector

Buona idea... risposte? Dei miei 14 hanno accettato soltanto in tre.

Idea apparentemente poco efficace, su 15 ha accettato solo uno, l'unico che
ha risposto

Facendo qualche ricerca ho visto che alcuni utenti con lo stesso nome e
della
stessa zona in cui hanno operato su OSM sono attivi su altri siti/reti
sociali, ma
contattarli al di fuori di OSM mi sa un po' di stalking...

Sarebbe interessante perlomeno poter sapere i casi in cui il PM inviato su
OSM non è stato letto e la relativa email di notifica è rimbalzata. In
questo caso credo che sarebbe accettabile tentare di contattarli con altri
mezzi.

Ciao,
Alberto


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

Re: [Talk-it] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[totera]

Alberto Nogaro wrote
 
 Mi sembra di ricordare che Paolo si fosse dichiarato disponibile a
 rilasciare sotto la nuova licenza tutti i changeset relativi ai suoi bot -
 come quello dei confini amministrativi.  
 Se si riuscisse a ricontattarlo, a o reperire una sua dichiarazione
 impegnativa, credo che si possano aggiungere tali changeset alla lista dei
 changeset non problematici [1], così che non si perda tempo a rimappare
 gli
 oggetti interessati.
 
 O forse è sufficiente sapere che sono modifiche eseguite in maniera
 automatizzata, senza contributo personale, per poterli dichiarare puliti,
 anche senza il suo consenso?
 

Quella lista serve soltanto a far segnalare come puliti i changeset da OSM
Inspector e dal plug-in di JOSM (e c'è anche una simulazione della mappa
dopo il cambio di licenza su http://cleanmap.poole.ch/), ma ancora non si sa
che cosa accadrà in realtà.



Alberto Nogaro wrote
 
 Per provare a fare un po di terrorismo psicologico, ho inserito nel
 messaggio un permalink di inspector (zoom 13) alla zona in cui era più
 attivo, per evidenziare il disastro se non accettasse ...
 

Buona idea... risposte? Dei miei 14 hanno accettato soltanto in tre.
Facendo qualche ricerca ho visto che alcuni utenti con lo stesso nome e
della stessa zona in cui hanno operato su OSM sono attivi su altri siti/reti
sociali, ma contattarli al di fuori di OSM mi sa un po' di stalking...

Ciao,
Gianluca


--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Fwd-OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7086716p7136454.html
Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Alberto Nogaro]

-Original Message-
From: totera [mailto:g...@hotmail.it]
Sent: domenica 18 dicembre 2011 13:33
To: talk-it@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-it] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM
Inspector

c'è poi un utente (Paolo Molaro) che è intervenuto anche in lista ed è
quindi
evidentemente a conoscenza del cambio di licenza, per cui l'ho aggiunto
alla
pagina.

Ho visto dal profilo utente che risulta ancora indeciso. 

Mi sembra di ricordare che Paolo si fosse dichiarato disponibile a
rilasciare sotto la nuova licenza tutti i changeset relativi ai suoi bot -
come quello dei confini amministrativi.  
Se si riuscisse a ricontattarlo, a o reperire una sua dichiarazione
impegnativa, credo che si possano aggiungere tali changeset alla lista dei
changeset non problematici [1], così che non si perda tempo a rimappare gli
oggetti interessati.

O forse è sufficiente sapere che sono modifiche eseguite in maniera
automatizzata, senza contributo personale, per poterli dichiarare puliti,
anche senza il suo consenso?


Agli altri 14 ho spedito un messaggio, aggiungendo sempre i loro nomi a
[1].
Uno di loro ha accettato nel giro di qualche ora, adesso speriamo bene per
gli
altri...

Ne ho aggiunti alti 15, di cui uno ha già accettato.

Per provare a fare un po’ di terrorismo psicologico, ho inserito nel
messaggio un permalink di inspector (zoom 13) alla zona in cui era più
attivo, per evidenziare il disastro se non accettasse ...

[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quick_History_Service#Changeset_Overrides

Ciao,
Alberto


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

Re: [Talk-it] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[totera]

Andrea Decorte wrote
 
 Interessante! Anche se in certi posti è peggio di quanto credessi...
 

Concordo, la situazione è molto più grave di quanto sembrasse dalla mappa
dell'uni-leipzig o dalla prima versione del plugin di Josm.

Io mi sono preoccupato delle Marche e ho individuato 18 utenti che non hanno
preso decisioni. Di questi, tre risultavano già contattati nella pagina [1];
c'è poi un utente (Paolo Molaro) che è intervenuto anche in lista ed è
quindi evidentemente a conoscenza del cambio di licenza, per cui l'ho
aggiunto alla pagina.

Agli altri 14 ho spedito un messaggio, aggiungendo sempre i loro nomi a [1].
Uno di loro ha accettato nel giro di qualche ora, adesso speriamo bene per
gli altri...

Ciao,
Gianluca

[1] = http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Asking_users_to_accept_the_ODbL

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Fwd-OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7086716p7105768.html
Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-it] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Maurizio Daniele]

Il 18/12/2011 13:32, totera ha scritto:

Concordo, la situazione è molto più grave di quanto sembrasse dalla mappa
dell'uni-leipzig o dalla prima versione del plugin di Josm.
Già... stando a questo tool, qui intorno rischiano di sparire due interi 
comuni e almeno un paio di quartieri di Torino... :-o


Mi sono preoccupato di mandare un paio di mail a utenti che risultano 
non più attivi da anni ma che hanno a loro nome queste importanti 
porzioni di territorio...


Vediamo il risultato.

--
Maurizio

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Jo]

I put up a video where I do some remapping. I'd like to hear whether I can
add this to the wiki as a good way to go about it?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaJ3DAFTjX8

Polyglot

2011/12/13 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org

 Hi,

   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
 posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs
 could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.

 I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:

 http://tools.geofabrik.de/**osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469**
 lat=35.88371zoom=2http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2

 This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined
 with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.

 There's also statistics on the number of objects here:

 http://tools.geofabrik.de/**osmi/munin.htmlhttp://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html

 And detailed information here:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Remapping/License_Change_**
 View_on_OSM_Inspectorhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector

 Bye
 Frederik

 __**_
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Andrew]

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes:

 
 Hi,
 
 apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have 
 posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs 
 could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
 
 I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
 
 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2
 

I’ve changed the ‘ODBL coverage’ link on wiki project pages to use your map 
instead of the less thorough Leipzig map.

--
Andrew



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

[OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have 
posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs 
could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.


I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2

This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined 
with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.


There's also statistics on the number of objects here:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html

And detailed information here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector 



Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Floris Looijesteijn]

So now we're remapping???

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping
states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license issue.
I can hardly imagine that is legally right.

Greets,
Floris Looijesteijn

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,

   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
 posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could
 be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.

 I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:

 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2

 This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with
 a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.

 There's also statistics on the number of objects here:

 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html

 And detailed information here:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector

 Bye
 Frederik

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Thomas Davie]

The key is to have your own valid source for the information.  If your can 
source the data in a license compatible way and recreate the node yourself 
without the use of the old node, then it's all good.
if (*ra4 != 0xffc78948) { return false; }

On 13 Dec 2011, at 09:29, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:

 So now we're remapping???
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping
 states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license 
 issue.
 I can hardly imagine that is legally right.
 
 Greets,
 Floris Looijesteijn
 
 On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,
 
   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
 posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could
 be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
 
 I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
 
 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2
 
 This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with
 a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
 
 There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
 
 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
 
 And detailed information here:
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector
 
 Bye
 Frederik
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Floris Looijesteijn]

That's exactly why I'm asking.

Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
verified by another
source except for resurveying.

I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page.

Or am I being paranoid? :)

Greets,
Floris

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com wrote:
 The key is to have your own valid source for the information.  If your can
 source the data in a license compatible way and recreate the node yourself
 without the use of the old node, then it's all good.

 if (*ra4 != 0xffc78948) { return false; }


 On 13 Dec 2011, at 09:29, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:

 So now we're remapping???

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping
 states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license
 issue.
 I can hardly imagine that is legally right.

 Greets,
 Floris Looijesteijn

 On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 Hi,


   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have

 posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could

 be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.


 I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:


 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2


 This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with

 a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.


 There's also statistics on the number of objects here:


 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html


 And detailed information here:


 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector


 Bye

 Frederik


 ___

 talk mailing list

 talk@openstreetmap.org

 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Jo]

Go ahead, it's  a wiki.

I found a way to make screencasts. Would it be useful to create a
screencast of an editing session with JOSM, while I'm resolving license
issues?

Jo

2011/12/13 Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu

 That's exactly why I'm asking.

 Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
 verified by another
 source except for resurveying.

 I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page.

 Or am I being paranoid? :)

 Greets,
 Floris

 On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Thomas Davie tom.da...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  The key is to have your own valid source for the information.  If your
 can
  source the data in a license compatible way and recreate the node
 yourself
  without the use of the old node, then it's all good.
 
  if (*ra4 != 0xffc78948) { return false; }
 
 
  On 13 Dec 2011, at 09:29, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
 
  So now we're remapping???
 
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping
  states you can just delete a node and add a new one to resolve a license
  issue.
  I can hardly imagine that is legally right.
 
  Greets,
  Floris Looijesteijn
 
  On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
 wrote:
 
  Hi,
 
 
apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
 
  posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs
 could
 
  be ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
 
 
  I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
 
 
 
 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2
 
 
  This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined
 with
 
  a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
 
 
  There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
 
 
  http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
 
 
  And detailed information here:
 
 
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector
 
 
  Bye
 
  Frederik
 
 
  ___
 
  talk mailing list
 
  talk@openstreetmap.org
 
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 
 
  ___
  talk mailing list
  talk@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 
 

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu wrote:

Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
verified by another source except for resurveying.


It is true that information type nodes will require re-surveying or 
good knowledge.


It is however not true that these make up most nodes. In fact, of 
about 1.3 billion nodes in our database, only 30 million nodes are such 
information type nodes - that's about 2.5%.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Floris Looijesteijn]

Oh course, that's right. I was talking about single nodes, not part of a way.

I've added a little note to the wiki.

Greets,
Floris Looijesteijn

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,

 Floris Looijesteijn o...@floris.nu wrote:

    Most nodes ('information type' nodes like POI) can not be easily
    verified by another source except for resurveying.


 It is true that information type nodes will require re-surveying or good
 knowledge.

 It is however not true that these make up most nodes. In fact, of about
 1.3 billion nodes in our database, only 30 million nodes are such
 information type nodes - that's about 2.5%.

 Bye
 Frederik

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Richard Fairhurst]

Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
 I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page.

You mean the fact that the _very_ _first_ _sentence_ of the main page
content is

Remapping means 'replacing with new content'. It does not mean simply
copying the old content - that might infringe the original mapper's rights.

isn't enough for you? Blimey.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7089165p7089462.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Floris Looijesteijn]

I just think it's unclear...

deleting and recreating is probably not considered copying by some people.

greets,
floris

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
 I think that should be made more clear on the remapping page.

 You mean the fact that the _very_ _first_ _sentence_ of the main page
 content is

 Remapping means 'replacing with new content'. It does not mean simply
 copying the old content - that might infringe the original mapper's rights.

 isn't enough for you? Blimey.

 cheers
 Richard



 --
 View this message in context: 
 http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7089165p7089462.html
 Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Nathan Edgars II]

What will happen to buildings that were drawn by a CT-agreeing mapper 
but with tags copied from a red node?


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Adam Hoyle]

Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going to 
cease to be.

Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been 
editing, and think there is a bug somewhere.

For example (there are a lot more examples):

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-0.81228lat=51.72366zoom=17

Shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited, and 
as far as I know I've signed the updated license thing. (I am 'atom oil' on 
openstreetmap.org). Also other paths around that are edited only by me and 
don't show up as red, so that's inconsistent at least.

Do I need to file this as a bug somewhere (can anyone point me where please?).

Best,

Adam

On 13 Dec 2011, at 08:46, Frederik Ramm wrote:

 Hi,
 
   apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have posted 
 to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major bugs could be 
 ironed out before I announce this to a wider audience.
 
 I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
 
 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom=2
 
 This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with a 
 current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
 
 There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
 
 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
 
 And detailed information here:
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_Inspector
  
 
 Bye
 Frederik
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 13 December 2011 11:52, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 Remapping means 'replacing with new content'. It does not mean simply
 copying the old content - that might infringe the original mapper's rights.

Is that statement even correct?  If editing old content after May 12
doesn't infringe rights of the authors of previous versions then
surely copying and pasting old content does not infringe either, or
this functionality should not be in the editors.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Richard Fairhurst]

Adam Hoyle wrote:
 For example (there are a lot more examples):
 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-0.81228lat=51.72366zoom=17
 shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited

If you look at the history of each node, you can see who's edited it.

In this case, opening the area in Potlatch 2 shows those nodes highlighted
in orange, which P2 uses to mean someone who edited this way hasn't
responded to the CTs yet. You can click on any of these nodes and then,
using the advanced view, click on the object ID to open it in OSM's data
browser like so:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/413600706

which says that the nodes were created by ngent. ngent is undecided (not
responded), as you can see by clicking on their username. Maybe send them a
mail asking?

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-Change-View-on-OSM-Inspector-tp7089165p7090946.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector

[Michael Andersen]

There's no bug there

If you examine more closely you'll notice that those 7 nodes were added by 
user 'ngent'. You're probably listed as the only contributor to the path 
because it was part of a longer path which was cut in 2 by you (when you cut 
up ways you get listed as original author of one of the 2 new paths).

Tirsdag den 13. december 2011 18:08:52 Adam Hoyle skrev:
 Wow, that's scary, most of the major towns around where I live are going to
 cease to be.
 
 Actually, I've just looked in more detail at some of the areas I've been
 editing, and think there is a bug somewhere.
 
 For example (there are a lot more examples):
 
 http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-0.81228lat=51.72366zoom=17
 
 Shows a path with red nodes, but I added that and no-one else has edited,
 and as far as I know I've signed the updated license thing. (I am 'atom
 oil' on openstreetmap.org). Also other paths around that are edited only by
 me and don't show up as red, so that's inconsistent at least.
 
 Do I need to file this as a bug somewhere (can anyone point me where
 please?).
 
 Best,
 
 Adam
 
 On 13 Dec 2011, at 08:46, Frederik Ramm wrote:
  Hi,
  
apologies if this is the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading this, I have
posted to dev and legal-talk yesterday in the hope that any major
bugs could be ironed out before I announce this to a wider
audience. 
  I have added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector:
  
  http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=-1.80469lat=35.88371zoom
  =2
  
  This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined
  with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly.
  
  There's also statistics on the number of objects here:
  
  http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html
  
  And detailed information here:
  
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Remapping/License_Change_View_on_OSM_
  Inspector
  
  Bye
  Frederik
  
  ___
  talk mailing list
  talk@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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