Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Removal of 'unsuitable' content from an OSM-related site
Hi, On 02.12.20 09:49, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > As I said I am paying for this out of my own money and do not want the > storage space to be used for purposes other than panos of walking trails. I think you have already done *much* more than can be expected of you. I would have removed the data long ago. Or, if you are in a business-y mood, offer to keep their images if they pay you some money - depending on what their use-case and expertise is, it might be cheaper for them to pay you than to run things themselves. If you're lucky, it pays for the whole server and then some. That of course then puts you in a situation where you will have some obligations, and you'd need to explain to them that they can't expect you to fix a bug on Christmas Eve. Which is likely going to be ok for them, since at the moment they rely on a service that could delete their images for good any time ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright
Hi GITNE, if you feel that you have let your manners slip in changeset comments in the past, then just adding an apology (instead of starting a discussion about whether it is legal to republish your disrespectful comments) is always an option! http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=1836535 is another site that has all your writing nicely listed. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright
Hi, On 23.09.20 12:34, GITNE wrote: > The issue is not availability of the data but Slack *republishing* > content Surely Slack is doing that not out of their own decision, but because someone has instructed them (or their web service) to do so? > (for profit) which presumably is not covered either by the ODbL Assuming that the data is covered by ODbL, then "These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour." (section 3.0) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
Hi, On 14.12.19 06:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Can you point me to legal definition > of "substantial part"? There is none, hence: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
Hi, On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote: > “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and > includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any > other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the > Contents. Interesting. I knew the ODbL text but I have always glossed over this definition, assuming that "well you know what derived means". I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some assumptions I had made. It would mean that, for example, a database that contains a count of all pubs in each municipality, or a database that contains the average travel time from a building in a city to the nearest hospital, or a heatmap of ice cream parlours, would not fall under the ODbL because these, while derived from OSM, do not actually contain a copy of anything in OSM (and neither could they possibly be used to reassemble OSM). I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under the ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative Database" definition. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
Kathleen, On 12.12.19 23:40, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote: > No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data. Are you sure about this? Let me give an example: > If I understand your usecase correctly, Matthais, you are essentially > checking your list against OSM boundaries. If something is both on your > list and within the OSM boundary, then you say 'yes, this goes on the > secondary list.' Then you want to publish your secondary list. There is > no OSM data in the secondary list so it is not a Derivative Database. Let us assume I have a list of all streets in Germany with their geometry, from a non-OSM source. I want to divide these into two groups: streets that have at least one pub, and streets that have no pub. Using OSM information about the location of pubs, I count the number of pubs along each street, allowing me to make the desired separation. I end up with a database of "streets that have at least one pub". This database does not include OSM data. In my eyes, though, it is still *derived* from OSM data. It is the result of an algorithmic process that has made use of OSM data; if you will, the OSM data residue is in the name/description of my new database: "roads with pubs". It is derived from OSM; it could not have been made without OSM. Do you disagree? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
Hi, On 12.12.19 07:59, matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de wrote: > I want to use polygons (district boundaries) from OSM dataset to select > points for a proprietary dataset. > The OSM dataset might be altered trivially (f.e. boundaries might be merged > where needed). > The proprietary data isn't allowed to be used freely and is incompatible with > ODBL. > > The result of the intersections is a geodatabase, which doesn't contain any > OSM data. In my NAL opinion, the result will be derived from OSM data and therefore inherits the ODbL license. This does, however, not mean that you have to publish it; but *if* you publish (or "publilcy use") it, then it has to be available under ODbL. If you just use it internally then it is still ODbL but that doesn't matter to you. As an exception to the above, if the number of boundaries you use is less than 100 - an crucially this could be after the trivial alterations you mention - then the extract you are making is considered not to be substantial (see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline) and therefore does not have to be under ODbL. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensability of an employee's work
Hi, On 21.10.19 12:31, Edward Bainton wrote: > If the employer is to give permission, do we have a way of capturing > that somehow? Is there a repository of PDFd emails authorising such > things, for example? When employees are asked by their employer to contribute data to OSM in the course of their employment, this is something we call "organised editing" and we have some rules around that (see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines). One part of these guidelines is that there should be proper documentation of the project (who's running it, what's the goal, who's participating, etc.) on the OSM wiki. This documentation would be the natural place to also upload any statements made by the employer about permissions granted. In my naive legal understanding I would say that if the employer asks their employees to upload data to OSM, the employer has thereby automatically granted the necessary permission, but it can never hurt to have it in writing. Best Frederik PS: I would strongly advise against using a "corporate account" that groups the activities of many individuals as it makes communication between the group/company members and other members difficult, and good communication is a cornerstone of every successful organised editing activity. -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] OSM for training ML machines
Hi, is it a community consensus that, when someone uses OSM to train their machine learning "black box", the internal data structures built during learning constitute a derivative database? Or are there people who argue that somehow the "black box" can ingest OSM data at will and still remain 100% intellectual property of its operator? Further, assuming that we have a system that has ingested OSM by deep learning and we say that this means its internal database is ODbL, what would this mean for the output later produced by the same machine? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Taiwan Open Government Data License
Hi, On 04/25/2017 01:38 AM, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote: > What do you folks think about > http://data.gov.tw/license#eng ? > Can we use that data? Not without further clarification. The way in which we would use the data could be seen as violating their 3.2: "[The user] must make an explicit notice of statement as attribution requested in the Exhibit below by the Data Providing Organization". We *can* make such an explicit notice on our osm.org/copyright page but we cannot ensure that anyone who downloads our data or who looks at our map sees that notice. We have to ask them if that kind of notice is enough. This is a similar issue as we always have with CC-BY licensed data. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] is legal-talk@openstreetmap.org searchable?
Hi, On 08/18/2016 10:01 PM, Thomas Gertin wrote: > is legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> searchable? Does anybody know the > link? There's an archive at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/ where full months can be downloaded, but other than that, you need to use your favourite search engine with something like "site:lists.openstreetmap.org legal-talk mykeyword". Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] attributive data enrichment using OSM
Hi, On 07/25/2016 09:05 AM, Stefan Jäger wrote: > That, in turn, means, any data put together using also OSM data, that is not > publicly accessible, but only in internal networks, can be produced? In the terms of ODbL, "publicly" means (quote) "to Persons other than You or under Your control by either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct their activities (such as contracting with an independent consultant)." Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] seeking understanding of usage of geocoding and POI
he customer inputs address and coordinate on the map > himself by clicking on the map. that would be pure collective DB (we > save nothing from OSM). Unless the map is made from OSM data, of course, in which case you'd again have a derived database. (Rule of thumb: Where would you be without OSM?) > *Q3)* if we were to obscure the starting point for privacy security > reasons and randomly add a few mmm to the coordinate, would we still > need to share the underlying "real point" (might potentially be > answered by Q2 answers if using Nominatim as a start is already a > derivative DB)? You'd always have to share the data that you use publicly. If you add random noise to the data before using it publicly, then the random-noise data is the but you have to share; the fact that there might by myriad purely internal steps that happened before arriving at the data that is used publicly, doesn't matter. > *Q4) *when developing our own tagging, (linked to OSM POI IDs) is > that a _derivative_ because of ODbL 4.4.b (are all tags of POIs a > substantial part of the OSM DB and we look at them prior developing > our own) and 4.6b (any additional content must be shared)? I'm a bit unsure here, suggest you review the "horizontal layers" guideline http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline Frankly, your further questions sound *so* much like you're looking for a way to share the absolute minimum possible that I'm not comfortable discussing this further. If keeping data proprietary for financial gain is part of your business model, you should really just look into working with proprietary data to start with, rather than trying to create an "OSM++" that you don't have to share - even *if* you find suitable loopholes in the license that make this legal. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Importing from an application's user generated content
Michael, On 01/28/2016 07:42 PM, Michael Ledford wrote: > I believe that > updating the OSM database upholds share-alike. Share-alike means that you have to make your derived database available under ODbL on request. If you regularly make sure your database contents go into OSM then you could potentially say, if such a request occurs, "it's all in OSM", but it would be legally clearer if your database was simply available for download from your server somewhere. > The concern I have > revolves around taking the user data and using that to update the OSM > database. Is there any problem with this under the contributor terms? Legal concerns could arise if your users, while *claiming* to make you the owner of whatever they contribute, don't actually have the *right* to do that (because e.g. they copied the data from a copyrighted source). Generally, OSM wants to be able to identify constributors. I.e. if I see a contribution from user X adding POI Y, I want to be able to write to him "hey, are you sure that restaurant is named Benito's because I was there a month ago and it was called Burritos". If your workflow decouples mappers (your users) from their data (POIs you upload to us) then it's more like an import and might be subject to more scrutiny. (Cf imports mailing list.) Worst case, if the data you upload contains copyrighted material and we cannot easily enough identify which of your data is tainted and which is ok, then *all* data you uploaded might have to be removed again. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Use of data from the EU GMES/Copernicus programme
Hi, On 01/16/16 14:57, Christoph Hormann wrote: > It is my understanding that by listing Copernicus data sources on the > contributors wiki page OSM would satisfy the requirements of the EU > regulation to inform the public about the data source. Perhaps you can explain your reasoning a bit more. I read: "The intellectual property of any Derivative Works made by the User belongs to the User. However he shall mark such Derivative Works as follows, whenever sharing, publishing, distributing or in any other way making them available to others: “contains Copernicus data (year of reception)”." This seems to be at odds with mentioning it on the Wiki; clearly the content of, say, planet.openstreetmap.org/planet-latest.osm.pbf is not "marked" by something that is put on an entirely different web page? Then again, maybe your reasoning is that in this agreement, the "User" is the individual mapper, who creates a derivative work on his computer and then uploads to OSM; in that case the mapper would have to "mark" his upload (possibly in a source tag?) with "contains Copernicus data (year of reception)" and then OSM would be in the clear? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] question regarding produced work
Hi,
On 11/19/2015 04:04 PM, Lars-Daniel Weber wrote:
> The guidelines say that you need even to release the steps to create
> a derived database (or share the diff or share the database itself).
Yes, but the Trivial Transformations guideline[1] explains:
"We therefore define a term "trivial transformation", ... which covers
alterations of OpenStreetMap data which are not considered interesting
or useful enough to warrant the conditions of a derivative database."
If the database used by the web site in question was a derivative
database, then your above statement (release data or steps) would be
true; but if it is the result of a trivial transformation, then it is
not even a derivative database - it is the *same* database that you find
in the planet file.
You have to understand that "database" here is not meant to be "the bits
and bytes I have in my PostGIS instance" but the more abstract
"collection of data from OSM that describes the physical world". If you
transform that from EPSG:4326 to EPSG:3857 then it is still the same
database, and not a different database.
The Trivial Transformations page has a discussion item about rendering
databases that says: "A rendering database should be considered a
trivial transformation provided that it is purely created from an
algorithmic recasting of the original data with the intent to make
rendering [...] easier and faster, since no information has been added."
This also reflects my opinion, and hence I believe the maker of the
OePNV-Karte cannot be forced to reveal anything. Although I should think
that he would, if asked politely.
> So it's not done by saying: "download the raw data".
> That's against the license.
Your opinion, not that of the Trivial Transformations guideline, because
if the preprocessing is a trivial transformation, then the "raw data" is
the *same* database as the preprocessed rendering database, and no
"derived database" exists which would have to be shared.
>> You said that you have made several requests to the site operator to
>> hand over the data. Has *any* of them been a polite request where you
>> did not express your assumed entitlement to receive it ("Dear XXX could
>> I perhaps have a copy of the data"), or have they been like ("Hello XXX
>> your data is ODbL hence you must give it to me") from the start?
>
> I've read some discussions about this on IRC. My request was about a
> small "how to get the result" as described before.
Was your request a polite "could you share this" request or did you
choose a "you have to share this so give it to me" wording?
Bye
Frederik
[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
Martin, On 10/14/2015 11:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > frankly, if there was a halfway usable repository of open > addresses that could be merged with OSM for those who want it, and if > open addresses become available for regions where OSM already has > addresses, I'd not be opposed to dropping the addresses from OSM in > those regions. > > Really? I've always thought our user's ground truth would be trumping > data we'd import, i.e. we'd request from importers not to drop features > that are already there, but to conflate in the opposite way, drop from > the external data set the stuff that we already have, before importing > the rest. Did I read you right? Can you explain why you changed your mind? You read me right and Michal did too. Yes, I always said that we would want to be able to import Open Data at the processing stage (i.e. into Nominatim etc.) instead of importing it into OSM, so Michal is right. This of course has the drawback that you can't edit the government data sets, and this is why Tom Lee would prefer to import the government data sets into OSM to make them accessible for editing. To which I replied that I would prefer to have this data in a non-OSM editable repository, rather than in OSM, because I feel that there is a disparity between the amount of address data and the number of mappers actually interested; I would prefer if those who want a crowd-sourced address data set would not burden OSM with that. Tom wrote that there's not enough manpower in openaddresses to actually edit the data, and I cautioned him against assuming that the OSM manpower would automatically be available for editing addresses. Now if there *was* a crowd-sourced address collection project, then I would not object to OSM deferring to that for addresses. If, say region X made their address data openly available, it would be possible to conflate that with the (supposedly better) stuff we already have in OSM, add the result to the crowd-sourced address collection project, and drop it from OSM. If the alternatives are to either add the gov't data to OSM or move existing OSM address data into a separate project, I'd clearly prefer the latter, although I recognize that there might be people who would like to keep "their" address data in OSM. It is something that would have to be discussed. It might be possible to piggyback the crowd-sourced address collection project onto OSM but I would really think that if crowd-sourced address collection is not viable as a project in its own right (because of lack of people willing to give away their spare time to improve it), then it will not be viable in OSM either - only that the situation would be less obvious. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
Hi, On 10/13/2015 06:12 PM, Tom Lee wrote: > Obviously, not all of those 200M points belong in OSM. But many of them > do. OpenAddresses does not have the toolchain or community needed to > improve and maintain that data. ... > I want to do that work once in OSM, not a hundred times in a hundred > different closed geo databases. Suggest to do it once (not a hundred times) and open (not closed) but without hijacking OSM community for it. Build a community that is as interested in addresses as you are and have them maintain the database. My guess is that while the address data set is more valuable to (large, commercial) users, it will attract less contribution from (private, unpaid) mappers, and will therefore require more constant paid work than OSM does. Anyone trying to get OSM to ingest the existing open address data of this world and then even maintain and improve it is hoping for a free ride on the back of mappers who'd rather do other stuff and who in many areas are already thin enough on the ground. Whoever wants us to add 200 million addresses, should also add to our community the people needed to do the maintenance on them. Yes there are addresses in OSM at the moment, but these are *mainly* created by people where no open data exists, in the same spirit that was guiding OSM when it started: "They won't give it to us, so we'll make our own." - frankly, if there was a halfway usable repository of open addresses that could be merged with OSM for those who want it, and if open addresses become available for regions where OSM already has addresses, I'd not be opposed to dropping the addresses from OSM in those regions. tl;dr addresses are valuable to have but just because OSM already exists doesn't mean it is the natural receptacle. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
(initially sent from from address, sorry) Hi, On 10/02/2015 06:31 PM, Michael Steffen wrote: >> ~~=== Examples of where you DO need to share your non-OpenStreetMap data > >> ~~* you own a database of restaurant star ratings, you publish a product >> ~~that provides one dataset that uses ratings from OSM when you don’t have >> ~~it in your database and otherwise your data. The data that you publish >> ~~is subject to sharealike. Note: if you don’t use the relevant OSM >> ~~attributes and just your data, your data is not subject to sharealike as >> ~~defined in the “Horizontal Layers” guideline. Note this is a >> ~~hypothetical use case and not an actual one.~~ > > I recommend striking the paragraph above: I agree that the example sounds a bit too contrived; but simply striking it out without a replacement makes the document much less useful. I'd suggest the following as a replacement: "You publish a mobile navigation app with a restaurant directory taken from OpenStreetMap, using the wheelchair attribute from OSM to flag some restaurants as wheelchair accessible. You allow your users to report back the wheelchair status they observed locally, and you collect that information in a separate data set, keyed by the OSM ID of the restaurant. Your application queries the database in a way that your user reports override the information taken from OSM, but for restaurants where you don't have user reports, the OSM information is used." Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding
Randy,
On 09/23/2015 07:18 PM, Randy Meech wrote:
> 3. The database you have created is partly derived from OSM (as far as
> "this address is at location lon=x, lat=y" is concerned).
>
> Actually I mis-spoke a bit (sorry, it was several years ago). The
> lat/lngs are actually from state agencies, although I did reverse
> geocoding with Nominatim and store the results in the database.
So you're not using the OSM-derived part for any computation ("which one
is nearest"), but just as an additional display for the user.
In your use case, you could conceivably do the reverse geocoding on the
fly when the user clicks on "view details", rather than do it for all
addresses in advance. Then your database would never contain anything
from OSM.
If your use case were, as I first assumed, that you needed the OSM
coordinates to even offer your service (compute distances), then
on-the-fly would not be an option, technically.
Not that this is particularly relevant in terms of the license but I
think it is an interesting distinction between the two use cases.
> geocoding results seem like
> a produced work to me. I believe that I am decorating other open data
> with the results of a geocoder that contains sufficient art to make it
> not derived, but produced.
Our usual definition of produced work doesn't look at how much art there
is, but whether something is a database. If we did ask "how much art is
there", I'd be tempted to say there's considerably more art in reverse
geocding than there is in forward geocoding.
> Curious about others' thoughts here -- I do think this is an important
> topic to figure out and I'm happy to be a guinea pig for this.
If you came to me with your use case and asked "what would you have me
do to be sure I don't run afoul of the license", I would recommend that
you have two databases or two database tables, one with your POIs and
their coordinates, and another with exactly these coordinates and their
OSM reverse geocoding result, and that you join them when displaying,
and make the OSM result database available under ODbL on request. I
would also tell you that it is very unlikely for anyone to request the
data in the first place.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding
Hi,
On 09/24/2015 10:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> and another with exactly these coordinates and their
>> OSM reverse geocoding result, and that you join them when displaying,
>> and make the OSM result database available under ODbL on request
>
> Does he even have to? Isn't this covered by the trivial transformations rule?
I think the trivial transformations rule would cover use cases where a
selection is made from OSM intrinsic properties ("everything with the
tag X"). This can easily be repeated by everyone.
I would hesitate to apply this rule for making a selection that can not
be repeated ("select reverse geocoding results for this non-public list
of coordinates and store them in my non-public derived database").
The case where the selection criteria are external to OSM, but publicly
available, is somewhere in between. I would always recommend erring on
the side of caution.
> In particular he doesn't add anything to OSM that isn't already in it, so
> there's nothing to share that would be useful to us.
Whether something is useful to us or not is not a factor in determining
where ODbL share-alike applies. This is not great - I'd love a license
that forces people to share stuff we're interested in and ignores
everything else. But it is hard to put that in lawyerese ;)
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding
Hi, On 09/24/2015 06:52 PM, Stephan Knauss wrote: > If a printed map is a database A printed map is not a database for us; the German court opinion you quote has been mentioned in the run-up to the license change but it didn't convince us. A database has to consist of things "arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means". While it is obviously possible for a court to stretch this definition to printed maps, most people find the idea absurd. > (refer to Landgericht München I, 21 O > 14294/00) and we treat it as a produced work, why can't another database > not be a produced work as well? For example a database used for routing > or a database used for (reverse)geocoding. A database that you create by repeatedly extracting snippets of information from OSM - the results of your geocoding query - is *clearly* a database according to the "arranged in a systematic or methodical way..." definition. Your logic seems to be that essentially because a court somewhere has once said that 1 = 0 in some cases, anything goes! > I'm out from this legal discussion. And I recommend all not having any > degree of legals and experience with database right also not to > participate in this discussion any more. It's all opinions. But for > legal discussions opinions don't count much (maybe unless you are the > judge). I don't think that we should switch off our rational thinking just because there are people with a law degree. But you are right in that this discussion goes much too far into the "what would a lawyer say" direction. We don't need that - the subject is quite appropriately "When *should* ODbL apply to Geocoding". If we as a project find an answer to that, then we can let lawyers fix (or interpret) the license so that it delivers what we want. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
Hi, I'm deliberately taking this out of the geocoding context here to make a point regarding the mixing of OSM and non-OSM data: On 09/23/2015 01:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote: > mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs > should not extend the ODbL to non-OSM POIs and so forth. What we'd like to avoid is someone making a business of selling "the better OSM" by adding to our data other, separately curated, proprietary data, thereby improving OSM without sharing any of the improvements back. That would enable someone to offer e.g. a "better navigation app" that was largely based on OSM but had proprietary data improvements, and the exposure OSM would get from that would be worth nothing as nobody else could use that same database. This would be a use case that the license is specifically designed against and we must take care not to weaken our position here. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work (was: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline)
Hi, On 09/23/2015 01:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote: > This could be well done within the confines of the ODbL by endorsing the > "Geocoding is Produced Work" > guideline > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-July/007900.html Frankly, even if I was of the opinion that it would be desirable for the ODbL to not apply to geocoding, I don't think that "Geocoding is Produced Work" could ever fly, legally, at least in countries that have a sui generis database law. I mean, nobody cares about a single on-the-fly geocoding result (this easily falls under the "substantial" guideline) but if you repeatedly query an ODbL database with the aim of retrieving from it, say, a million lat-lon pairs to store in your own database, then how in the world could this new database ever be *not* a derivative? Even if you were to define a single geocoding result as a produced work, combining a large number of them in a database would still get you a derived database again. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
Hi, this is not the right group to discuss the matter but let me just say that your statement On 09/22/2015 10:57 PM, Tom Lee wrote: > It's dismaying to see the landscape fractured. I would like OSM to become a > better legal > home (or at least partner) for all geodata, including new datasets like > LIDAR, traffic and street-level imagery. is certainly not universally held in OSM, and that > Those projects are going > elsewhere right now. is a welcome effect, rather than a shortcoming of OSM, for those who see OSM as a project of makers rather than a receptacle for other people's geodata. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal status of certain mapping activities
Hi, On 09/18/2015 02:11 PM, Simone Aliprandi wrote: > We should better understand the meaning of "substantial portion". What > about a script that extracts systematically single facts > (not-copyrightable) from the database? It is widely accepted that repeatedly extracting non-substantial parts and combining them to form a database is the same as if you had extracted a larger portion directly. This is true even if the data is extracted by different individuals. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal status of certain mapping activities
Lukas, IMHO a single fact is not copyrightable so if you take details about the POI from the web site run by the POI operator themselves, you should be fine. However if you take the same information from a collection (your difference between 4 and 1), then the maintainer of that collection could potentially claim database rights, *especially* if the collective of OSM editors uses that source in more that one case and therefore they could say that we "repeatedly extract" data. So I'd say 1 is a problem but 4 is not. > Case 2: > Assuming the website of the POI is showing a picture of the POI itself. Is it > legal/desired to look for the POI on aerial imagery and determine the correct > building, e.g. by outline, surroundings, or roof-color? (Case 2a: Aerial > imagery is from Bing; Case 2b: Aerial imagery is from another service > mentioned above.) To be safe I'd try and stick to Bing imagery altough it would probably be hard to prove you've looked at non-Bing. > If the building where the POI is situated is not present in the OSM database > yet, but the person who wants to add the POI knows its exact position, is it > legal/desirable that the POI is added anyway? Sure, buildings to hold the POI are not required. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal requirements of permissions to import into OSM
Hi, On 07/29/2015 12:39 AM, Christoph Donges wrote: 1. ask for a public domain dedication I think it's funny to ask for that which OSM is unwilling to give. Maybe you're misunderstanding. A PD dedication isn't a requirement for adding data to OSM, but it is the easiest way to go because it doesn't require the more complicated steps 2. and 3. from the message (and possibly others) that you have chosen not to quote. You seem to imply that anyone asking for PD data should also be willing to give their own data away as PD data. But the PD dedication is the exact opposite of such reciprocity. Asking for PD while not giving your own away as PD is quite standard actually - not least among most of those calling for OSM to be PD. Nothing funny about that. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using OSM data without modifying - are there any guidelines?
Hi, On 06/29/2015 05:21 PM, John Bergmayer wrote: Right, same in the US. As I mentioned, intended third party beneficiaries may enforce a contract against one of the parties. But a third party cannot be bound by a contract entered into by others. This was discussed at *very* *great* *length* before the license change. The basic question was: Could someone go to a relatively lawless country, extract OSM data there and make it into a new product to be sold outside of the ODbL in markets that we would consider important? I can't recap the whole breadth of the discussion here (legal-talk archive is your friend if you really want), but the gist of the discussion was that if this happened, while it may be cleverly exploiting legal loopholes, it would certainly be a gross violation of the spirit of our license and we would certainly not shy away from calling the party out for what they're doing, which would likely damage their business. The moral stick is probably the strongest weapon in our arsenal anyway, looking at the size of our legal battle chest ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When does a produced work has to be share-alike?
Hi, On 03/29/2015 05:43 PM, Lars-Daniel Weber wrote: In Illustrator, I could load a SVG created by qGIS with OSM data. I could only *link* to this SVG only without embedding it. So it's in a complete seperate file / XML DB, which can't or doesn't have to be edited. Now I could add other layers with my own streets or even with data under a properity license. When storing the new file, the OSM-data doesn't get changed anymore. Provided that you don't edit your other data set based on the OSM data you now see on the screen (uh, this road is now there twice, let me remove it... etc.) Sure, I have to release the SVG file or the workflow under share-alike, that's fine so far. But when I press export to PDF, will this be an intermidiate database, which also has to be share-alike? I don't have enough information to say whether the PDF will be a produced work or a database, but even if it were a database, it could be a collective database in which case share-alike would only apply to the ODbL part inside. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Skybox for Good imagery
Hi, On 11/21/2014 09:08 PM, Josh Livni wrote: We know that some of this imagery can be especially useful in Crisis Response situations, and therefore we are explicitly authorizing usage of Skybox for Good imagery in any current HOT Activation http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HOT_activation, under the condition that changesets and/or features that are derived from Skybox for Good imagery and committed to OSM are attributed to Skybox. This could, for example, include the method of attributing Skybox as the source, or a similar method deemed appropriate by HOT. This probably calls for two things: 1. We will need a complete catalogue of HOT activations with exact time when they start and end and polygon for which the activation is valid, because any data that has a Skybox attribution and falls outside these spatio-temporal limits has to be removed. I guess such a list probably exists somewhere in HOT but it now becomes important for the wider community because for the first time there's a relationship between the exact time and region of a HOT activation and whether or not certain data is legal to to keep in OSM or not. 2. The methods by which our common editors select aerial imagery to offer to the user should be extended to be able to accommodate the information that certain imagery is only allowed inside certain polygons and certain timeframes (and editors would ideally have to pop up a warning if what you're currently mapping is outside of such a spatio-temporal window). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Regarding community guidelines for map layers
Hi, On 11/04/2014 04:47 PM, Preet wrote: I don't understand how this falls under the share alike terms of the odbl. If I have two separate databases with restaurant feature data (say the first is from OSM, and the second is under a non-obdl compatible license), and I combine the two to display restaurants in an application, why would that require me to share the second database? It doesn't require you to share the second database. But it would also in all likelihood lead to duplicate entries where your second database and OSM both have a certain feature. If this is not a problem for you, or if for example your renderer simply doesn't draw a second restaurant icon when one is already there, then good for you. You're simply drawing two completely independent databases on top of each other. You don't need to share your second database. If, however, you make a *selection* from your second database, taking only those items that are not already in OSM, then that selection (not the whole second database) becomes a work derived from OSM - because OSM was used as a mask to produce it. Is the argument that selectively deciding what to show in a produced work from a 'closed' database by comparing against an odbl licensed database somehow imposes that the closed database must also be odbl? Not the closed database, only the selection made from the closed database with the help of ODbL-licensed data. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Rob, On 08/21/2014 06:42 PM, Rob Myers wrote: It would be great if people would help fill in the blanks, or correct me where I might have misrepresented the discussion. The page asserts: Geocodes are a Produced Work [...] The rest of the page then silently slips [...] I have tried to present the two different viewpoints in two columns. On the left is Alex' original version which claims what you summarized in your message (that geocodes are produced works etc.); on the right is a version that explicitly claims A database of Geocodes is a derivative database by the definition of the ODbL - which seems to be exactly the statement that you were aiming at, no? The blanks that need filling are the consequences of this different interpreatation for the various use cases. I added one for use case #1, but only an empty column for use cases #2-#4 and #7. I added no extra column for #5 and #6 because those struck me as identical under both interpretations but of course I might be wrong. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Hi, On 07/25/2014 11:39 AM, Simon Poole wrote: As I've said before, I'm not convinced that trying to better define and clarify the issue by invoking the produced work clauses will lead to a satisfactory result. I would suggest that at least a comparison (for all your use cases) with a model based on the information that is used for geocoding is subject to share alike, but nothing else (which has been suggested in this discussion and previously a number of times). I have made a start on this comparison by adding a second column to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline outlining the position/results of the stuff used for geocoding makes a derivative database but only that and not the additional info approach. I call it the collective database alternative because the idea is that your proprietary data (store opening times or whatnot) form a collective database with the ODbL-Share-Alike location data. It would be great if people would help fill in the blanks, or correct me where I might have misrepresented the discussion. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Hi, On 07/28/2014 12:07 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote: What I'm not clear is if community guidelines are strong enough to able to change it without touching the license itself There's a couple sides to this. OSMF is limited to distributing the data under ODbL or CC-By-SA as per the contributor terms; using any other license would require a license change process as outlined in the contributor terms. Now where the ODbL leaves wriggle room, OSMF can to a certain degree interpret the license. Since OSMF are the ones who would have to sue you if you ignore the license, if OSMF say it is our interpretation that so-and-so is ok then you are relatively safe in trusting them. However, if OSMF were to take too many liberties in interpreting the license, and if someone were to make the point that what OSMF distributes the data under is not the ODbL as it was intended, but instead some ODbL with OSMF bells and whistles, then that could nullify the license that OSMF itself has been granted by the mappers. It is quite possible that a lawyer who was asked to assert whether a certain wriggle room exists or not, would not only look at the letter of the license but also at the process that has led to its implementation, or in other words, at the intention that people had when they implemented the license. And that, in turn, is probably why we're talking so much about use cases and do-we-want-this and do-we-want-that... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Hi, On 07/26/2014 01:38 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote: The fact that we’re scaring away well-intentioned users is sad. Let's not kid ourselves here. The overwhelming number of commercial OSM users are not driven by a motivation to help us, but by a motivation to save money (or perhaps a motivation to escape a monopolist's clutch but that boils down to the same). There is potential for an alignment of interests here - OSM wants more exposure, business wants to save money, win-win - but I wouldn't go so far as to label this as good intentions on the part of the business. There is a very, very small number of businesses who use our data and who go above and beyond what we require of them because they really believe in the idea of OSM. Businesses who come to us and ask how they can help, and who see the good in OSM even beyond their immediate use case which might be hampered by our license. *Those* are the ones for which I would reserve the term well-intentioned. By my definition, if you are scared away from OSM because you can't geocode your proprietary data for free, then your good intentions were maybe a bit too superficial. Also, keep in mind that lowering our requirements will lower them for *everyone*, not only the well-intentioned. Company X runs a restaurant guide that displays star-rated restaurants along your chosen journey. They pay lots of $$$ for geocoding their restaurant database. What we're discussing here is letting them switch to OSM for geocoding and the only thing we might get in return is a mention in an about box somewhere. There is no guarantee that this will do *anything* for OSM's exposure or to improve OSM's data, not even to provide an incentive to improve OSM data. Again and again we hear, make it easier for people to geocode their proprietary databases and OSM can only benefit from it because everyone who saves $$$ using OSM somehow magically helps OSM. I'm not convinced of that. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Hi, On 07/17/2014 01:25 AM, Kai Krueger wrote: For forward geocoding, the picture gets a bit more murky though, as the distinction between what is for human consumption and what is data, and thus a derived database, is much less clear cut. Indeed. If we were only talking about the enter your address here and we'll zoom the map to your location use case, we'd never be creating any database that contains OSM data in the first place. However, once you start manipulating and computing with those lat/lon values. E.g. to calculate the average distance between all of the POIs in your proprietary db, I guess the most commercially interesting use case is: I have a bunch of POIs or properties or client addresses and I want to be able to compute, at any time, for a given lat/lon, which of these are in the vicinity. The archetypal where's the nearest pizza place application comes to mind. This requires augmenting my proprietary database with lat/lons from OSM, else I would have to on-the-fly geocode half my database every time I want to make a query which would be too expensive. In your own distinction of is this for human consumption or for a computer's, it is clearly for a computer's - since the coordinates form the basis for filtering which items to display to the user. A human wouldn't be able to sift through the list so quickly. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Hi, On 07/15/2014 01:26 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: As long as the purpose of a geocoder is geocoding, and not reverse engineering OSM, then it sensibly fits within the notions of an ODbL produced work. What if there are two processes run on a city extract - one is a SELECT * FROM planet_osm_point WHERE shop IS NOT NULL, and the other is a yellow pages operator geocoding all their proprietary shop information with OSM and storing the results in their proprietary database. Let's assume for a moment that both were to result in an almost identical database, give or take a few mismatches. The first would clearly be a derived database - no matter for what purpose the SELECT command was issued. And the second - because it was made with the purpose of geocoding - would not be a derived database but a produced work. Is that what you are saying? Because if it is, it seems to require a *lot* more explanation because it doesn't sound very convincing to me. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Hi, On 07/11/2014 04:41 PM, Michal Palenik wrote: so wording As Geocodes are a Produced Work, they do not trigger the share-alike clauses of the ODbL. is totally against section 4.6. This was something that we often discussed during the license change - what if somebody uses produced works to build a database that essentially is a substantial extract of OSM? We agreed (and I believe even had legal counsel on that issue), that no matter what license a produced work is under, making a database from repeatedly produced works *will* trigger ODbL. Else someone could essentially trace a non-ODbL OSM from tiles just because the tiles are produced works. I've added a paragraph to the proposal saying that we should make this explicit when talking about a geocoding guideline, to avoid misunderstandings. I'm not sure but I think some of the use cases quoted on the page are essentially such misunderstandings, unless of course they are not substantial. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution
Hi, On 05.05.2014 16:39, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: I believe this is somehow more limiting than what we actually might want. E.g. we don't collect traffic data, but if there was a company which used our data as basemap and associated average speeds for time spans to our graph (e.g. automatically from the analysis of their users / smartphones) I think we would be interested to get this data to improve our routing. Usefulness to Openstreetmap is orthogonal to the ODBL. That traffic data might relate to way identifiers, but it does not improve or even modify Openstreetmap data - so I fail to see how Openstreetmap might lay claim on a map showing traffic over Openstreetmap highways. True but the use case sketched here went far beyond simply displaying an overlay; this use case was about snapping speed recordings to OSM street data to find out which street the recording was for in the first place, thereby creating a derivative database. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using Google Street View to perform virtual survey
Hi, On 05.04.2014 17:50, Paulo Carvalho wrote: Google Street View photos depict reality or facts, thus I could use them to observe reality and derive interpretations which would be genuine creative work. It would be illegal to use the images in Mapillary, for instance, but the facts depicted by the images are not property of Google. Your thoughts, please The general opinion on this list has been, for cases where there wasn't a clear-cut license that answers these questions: We'll use the data if the copyright owner says we can use it. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements
Jonathan, On 13.01.2014 13:17, Jonathan Harley wrote: What would happen if every data source started mandating that our attribution must be in the corner? The thing is that for us, for OpenStreetMap, the attribution is our main remuneration. We give our data away for free but in return, we expect to get at least a little bit of exposure, a little help in building our brand to borrow some marketing speak. Much has been said about how happy we should be if people use our data, because in the end it's all good for us becasue it increases our mindshare and therefor our contributor numbers etc.; this reasoning falls over if we allow users to bury us as an also-ran in a list of building blocks for their map. This would be different if we were a paid-for data source, in which case our major remuneration would be the money people pay us for our data - in that case, we could afford to be less demanding with regards to the attribution. But we aren't, and don't want to be. If OSM plays an important part in your map, then credit us properly. There are many maps out there which would be useless if you took away the OSM part, and nonetheless they are adorned (on-map) with the names of those who made the tiles and those who bought them for embedding in their web site, with OSM being relegated to one click away - in order not to dilute the brand building of those who rely on our data to make a map in the first place. I don't think that's acceptable. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements
Hi, On 13.01.2014 22:52, Stephan Knauss wrote: As long as other map suppliers like Google and Bing are happy by being only credited on a separate page, Are they? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] propriety layer over OSM
Yoav, So in short, my question is if it is possible to use OSM to create a closed layer, and keep the data in that layer accessible only through my service? No. If the closed layer you have your users create is in any way based on OpenStreetMap, then we would call that a derived database, and you would have to release it under the same free license that OSM comes under. This would for example be the case if your users drew areas onto the map and added information to them, for example something like This area is a pleasant area for taking a walk. Because your users would actually incorporate the geometry they see on OSM into your new layer, the data would be derived from OSM. It would be a different thing if the data that your users generate was created without using the OSM base map as a reference. For example, if your user pushed a button on their smartphone that says the GPS location where I currently am is really a pleasant spot for taking a walk, and you would then collect these nuggets and generate data from them, and then just *display* your independently generated data on top of OSM. In that case, your layer would not have to be released because OSM was not used in creating it. Was that layperson friendly enough? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Wiki Mapia Mass Upload
Hi, On 15.09.2013 13:25, Simon Poole wrote: a) some proof of this actually happening b) a pointer to who is doing it (if confirmed) I don't understand enough of Wikimapia to actually determine which account has uploaded what when, but a cursory glance at the link (OSM can be activated as a base map in tha layer switcher) seems to indicate that buildings look similar to OSM but not the same (my guess - both imported from same source?) while many parks, commercial areas, and graveyards seem to have 100% identical geometries to OSM. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question on publication of slides with Google and Bing screenshots
Hi, On 10.09.2013 11:20, Martin Feuersaenger wrote: To be hones, the license reading was quite confusing and frustrating. I couldn't really pull out crystal clear information from these texts. So my question is: Is my conclusion right, can I publish under less restrictive terms, or do I need to remove the shots in order to publish at all? *Personally*, i.e. if I had to decide, I'd just upload under any license I want and assume that my use of Google/Bing/whatever was fair use. The concept of fair use is different in different jurisdictions and content providers have a history of trying to abolish fair use altogether (oops, I've quoted a sentence of yours above, do I have to pay royalties now...). Still, my own working assumption is that if in a talk about maps I include an example of Google maps then it's fair use and I'm not bound by their respective license terms. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Hi, On 27.02.2013 21:24, Marc Regan wrote: +1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the cloud of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data is pretty terrifying. Just to make this one point clear: What you *can* do with the data is pretty clear and pretty easy. Some use cases run into trouble specifically because an essential part of the use case is that third parties *cannot* do something. OSM are not the ones that prohibit certain uses; it is those who want to prohibit certain uses that (sometimes) have a problem with OSM. The share-alike clause makes the barrier to using OSM data very high. It is essentially a question of business models. It is true that it is sometimes difficult to marry share-alike data with all our data belong to us business models. We've had these discussions a lot in the run-up to the license change; we had people to whom even the lighter rules on produced works that the ODbL brought were an unacceptable weakening of share-alike. I think that the OSM community is already very open towards commercial use; even in CC-BY-SA times, a large majority explicitly approved of commercial use of our data which is not something you can take for granted in a volunteer project, and ODbL has made things easier at least for those use cases where non-database works are considered. Before we complain and ask for more and more concessions from the OSM community in order to build more and more commercial products with OSM instead of proprietary geodata, we should think about what we already have - it is a lot, and represents a huge value. Personally while I'd be happy with a PD license, I don't think that the concept if you want to build proprietary solutions and make $$$ from the fact that they're proprietary then you have to pay someone $$$ to buy proprietary geodata is too outrageous. As I said in my opening paragraph, the share-alike license never prohibits you from doing something with the data; it just prohibits you from prohibiting stuff! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] (c) statement on openstreetmap.org slippy map?
Hi, On 17.01.2013 02:29, Jeff Meyer wrote: Should we be marking our own map at openstreetmap.org http://openstreetmap.org with the same markings we ask others to use? This has been discussed frequently in the past. It is not necessary, from a legal point of view, that we create such markings. (The license requires that you make it clear that the data comes from OpenStreetMap but if your URL is www.openstreetmap.org then that makes it clear enough.) Personally, I do think that it might make sense to put such markings on the map even though they are redundant, for the purpose of instruction - some people might look at our web page and think I'll simply do as they do, they'll know what is right. 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] Collective database
Stefano, On 11/21/2012 09:57 AM, Stefano Fraccaro wrote: I have a question from the talk-it mailing list. If I have a company that has an internal database used in conjunction with osm data, I need to share my internal database? For example: * I use my internal database to select 2 locations * I use OSM data to calculate the best route between this locations In this scenario, the internal database must be shared? IMHO I think no. It's right? The distinction between a collective and derivative database is not always 100% clear but in your case it is obvious that you'd have a collective database at best (maybe not even that) so your internal data would not have to be shared. It would be a different issue if, for example, your internal database contained information about the traffic density on various roads and you combined that with OSM data to find out the fastest route at a given time of day or so - that kind of tight integration with OSM data would clearly be ask a lawyer terrain if you want to determine wheter you have a collective or derivative database. 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] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
Hi, On 25.10.2012 17:30, Mikel Maron wrote: I don't see the issue with companies complying with like-for-like. There is some logistical burden, but that could be offloaded by geocoding services. +1 - I think we're all (including LWG) still waiting for concrete use case where somebody says: This is how I want to use OSM for geocoding, this is what I believe the ODbL would mean for me, and this is why it is unacceptable for my business. I don't know if it has already been said, but there is a *vast* amount of use cases where we need on-the-fly geocoding - user enters address and is zoomed to location - which are totally unproblematic as no derived database is even created. In many other use cases I can think of, the ODbL's requirement may mean an inconvenience and may mean that users can't be just as secretive as they would like to be, but still sufficiently secretive as not to hurt their business. I'm willing to hear concrete examples but I think that talk of giving up and too much at stake sound like OSM was unsuitable for geocoding which in my opinion it clearly isn't! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi, On 10/22/12 12:07, Igor Brejc wrote: 2. I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished, closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM attribution text. 1. Is this possible? Yes (assuming that the PDF is not a database). 2. What are my obligations in terms of ODbL license? What (if anything) do I have to provide, publish etc.? Recipients of the PDF, i.e. anyone who views iStockPhoto, would have the right to ask you to hand over the database on which the map is based. You would then have the option of saying it's plain OSM, simply download it from X, or actually give them the data. If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. 3. Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? I don't think so. 4. Can the buyer of such a map then password-protect his own resulting work (which includes that map)? Yes. You will have sold him the work under the condition that he continues to attribute OSM, but other than that he has no obligations (unless you put some in). If you sell the work with an OSM attribution but without the condition to perpetuate that attribution, you may be in breach of ODbL or you may not; this depends on how you interpret the suitably calculated to make anyone ... aware clause. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi, On 22.10.2012 18:45, Igor Brejc wrote: What does pre-processed or augmented data really mean? OSM data has to be preprocessed to get to the form suitable for rendering. Some examples of preprocessing: 1. Importing it into PostGIS and flattening the geometries (like Mapnik does it). osm2pgsql does that, not Mapnik, and ODbL gives you the option of specifying the algorithm that produces the data from the source instead of handing out the data itself. So in this case, while the osm2pgsql database is clearly a derived database that falls under ODbL, when someone asks you for the data you can say: Get it from OSM, run it through osm2pgsql with the following options, and you're done. 2. Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a certain map scale. Same process - either you share the generalized data or you share the algorithm that produces it. If, for example, you were to import with ImpOSM which does generalisations when importing, that's all you'd have to say. 3. Finding suitable label placements. 4. Extracting topology from the data (like multipolygon processing, merging of polygons, road segments etc.). 5. Running other complex algorithms on the OSM data. This preprocessing can be done on-the fly or (in case of Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step. The boundary between what is done as a separate step, leading to a derived database, and what is done on the fly as part of the rendering process may sometimes be muddy but I guess in these situations they are pretty clear. Another interesting question is how easy the algorithm you specify must be. It is clear that the algorithm cannot include buy some Navteq data and then do this, or buy ArcGIS and then do that - but what if the algorithm includes run this code, it will take 1000 days, or make sure your machine has at least 1 TB of RAM, then continue as follows Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] SOTM-US geocoding/share-alike discussion
Hi, on talk-us there was a mention of Carl Frantzen's recent three-part article with SOTM-US coverage, http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/openstreetmap-part-1-new-cartographers.php, and his mention of OSM moving away from his open-source roots. Apparently, this refers to some unfortunate statements at SOTM-US about share-alike being bad for business or something, and Frantzen mentions that a couple of businesses have set up an informal group to discuss which bits of our license they don't understand or want clarification on. As far as I know, nobody who knows anything about OSM seriously suggested that we move away from open source, it was just a phrase unfortunately reported. I am still rather surprised to hear about this as a side note of SOTM-US coverage instead of here on this list where license discussions should be at home. I would urge anyone who is unclear about anything with ODbL and/or who believes that any community norms we have must be refined, to discuss that here on this mailing list - whether it's for business or personal use. Looking through past discussions in the archives of minutes of our Licensing Working Group, it seems clear to me that OSM data under ODbL is unlikely to ever be available for no strings attached geocoding; we won't ask for your customer database just because you geocode with OSM, but you will have to adhere to some rules nonetheless. LWG has never actually made a decision on geocoding, and all mentions in their minutes carry big disclaimers (This is a summary of our discussion and should NOT be construed as a formal statement of position). Under that disclaimer, the 20120515 minutes contain the following: To be able to claim that the remainder of the record, (often proprietary business information or personal information such as a patient record) is not virally touched by geocoding against OSM ODbL data needs a distinction to be demonstrated. This distinction needs to be a clear and logical general rule or principle. It also needs to be acceptable to the OSM community. At the moment, we feel this does not exist. In the same notes there's a discussion of a like with like principle which means that Whatever is used in the (reverse)geocoding look-up is virally touched, but nothing else. The 20120522 meeting notes contain a link to a concept paper https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Ag81OlT1TtnhYwVE-bBtL018SNoU_V-anG4wLdwMT4c and explicitly say: To improve it, and test the rationality of the ideas expressed, we need and welcome real-world cases of geocoding and reverse-geocoding. So I guess anyone who wants to use OSM in a geocoding scenario should read that and submit their opinion, here or to LWG. Personally, I've gone on record as an advocate of a non-share-alike (PD) license for OSM but the project as a whole has decided to have a share-alike license and I accept that; I don't think that geocode as much as you want without sharing any data is possible with the ODbL data set. 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] Is there a PD part in OSM?
Hi, On 21.10.2012 11:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Is it possible to download this data from OSM servers (or mirrors/extracts/elaborations from this) under a cc-by-sa or ODbL license and still consider it PD due to the dual licensing, the user has expressed he wishes his data to be under? A very short answer since elaborations on details can indeed be found in the archives, as Jukka wrote. 1. The legal effect of the PD declaration is unclear due to several reasons, one of them being that some users probably didn't really know what the checkbox meant, another being that there's no PD in some countries. 2. Even if we assume that the legal effect was binding, OSMF can choose to exercise database rights (which apply to the collection of things, even if the individual things are free) and assert that the whole collection and any substial extract is under ODbL and ODbL only. I would assume that since OSMF have not made a statement to the contrary, this is the status quo. 3. This leads to the interesting side effect that someone downloading his own data from OSM would be bound by ODbL for his own data as well. I find that a little strange and I guess there will be some loophole to make it not so ;) 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] [OSM-talk] OSMF Board auto industry / What's the story?
Hi, On 08/09/2012 11:54 PM, Mike Dupont wrote: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: CC-BY-SA is similar in broad terms (you must license the mixed database to the user under CC-BY-SA), but lacks the details more specific to datasets, like the reasonable-format requirement. Can you provide more information on this? I think this might be a misunderstanding. Both CC-BY-SA and ODbL have a clause that prohibits you to use technological measures to circumvent the freedoms guaranteed by the license. This is mostly aimed at DRM and similar concepts. For example, you could theoretically make an electronic map based on OSM which is freely copyable but users must buy a decryption code keyed to their software installation from you in order to be able to use it. This is prohibited under both licenses. (Some people are of the opinion that therefore any sale of OSM derived products through something like Apple's AppStore is not allowed under CC-BY-SA.) The ODbL has a clause softening that rule (4.7. b parallel distribution), which essentially says that you can distribute DRM-encumbered databases if you offer a non-DRM alternative that is at least as accessible as the non-restricted version. But neither CC-BY-SA nor ODbL clearly say what counts as restricting the data. For example, in order to be usable in a routing application, the data will likely have to be heavily preprocessed and indexed, and various manufacturers will use their own data formats for that. The line between complex data format and encrypted data is certainly blurry. I think, under ODbL as well as CC-BY-SA, car navigation manufacturers are in the following situation: * they can make OSM datasets available for their navigation systems * they do not have to publish their data format, or publish software that allows users to make their own OSM-derived datasets for the navigation system * they must not restrict the copying of such datasets (i.e. it must be possible for one guy to buy it and give it to another guy who has the same navigation system to use it there) * (ODbL special) if they do restrict copying then they must make an un-restricted version available in parallel that is at least as accessible as the restricted version, which in my opinion means that it must be loadable into the car navigation system. I don't know much about the automobile industry but my guess is that they are less concerned about loss of sales due to people being allowed to copy data; I think they are very keen on controlling precisely what gets into their cars because they have liability paranoia. Therefore I think neither license is an obstacle for them, because neither forces them to open up the car navigation system to free imports by the user. 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] [OSM-talk] OSMF Board auto industry / What's the story?
Hi, On 08/10/2012 10:09 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: The ODbL has a clause softening that rule (4.7. b parallel distribution), which essentially says that you can distribute DRM-encumbered databases if you offer a non-DRM alternative that is at least as accessible as the non-restricted version. At least as accessible as the *restricted* version, sorry. 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] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
Hi, On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 01:23:00 +0200 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Not dropping CC-BY-SA would send the signal that ... everything that has been said about CC-BY-SA not sufficiently protecting our data was rubbish, and that we are happy with every user choosing whichever is the weaker license for their particular purpose. Even if you should think that CC-BY-SA is just as good as ODbL, you can hardly expect OSMF to concede that! It would essentially mean that all the problems we had with the license change were only created to be able to offer an *additional* license, ODbL, thereby providing more choice the downstream users. That would hardly have been a sufficient reason. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
Hi, On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 12:44:41 + Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Lets be clear here, I think the problems is not because of the license change, but the contributor terms , ( the click through license and the mass collection of all IP rights by the OSF). There is no click-through license. There is no collection of all IP rights by any one organisation. There is no OSF. What project are you talking about? As far as I know the new license is not even in place, the data is being deleted from users who did not agree to give up all rights to the OSMF Anyone who believed that agreeing to the CT would mean giving up all his rights to the OSMF has been badly misinformed. Anyone who withheld his agreement due to such a misunderstanding and now watched his data being removed is a tragic figure indeed. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work
Hi, On 24.07.2012 18:01, Tadeusz Knapik wrote: Do you state that ODbL license is equal to a patent when it comes to protect the data (apart from being 'free and open')? No, I mentioned the patent as an example of non-copyright IP that persists even through a CC-BY-SA chain where it is not mentioned at all. I think you need a better example No; the example is good enough for me, thank you ;) 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] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
Hi, On 22.07.2012 00:22, Paul Norman wrote: If CC4 comes out with such indiscrimante inclusion of database rights then my guess is that it will either be automatically impossible to licene Produced Works under CC, or we will have to explicitly disallow it. I'm not sure who you mean by we in that statement. If ODbL allowed produced works under CC4 the only people who could disallow it would be ODC with a license upgrade. OSMF couldn't stop produced works under CC4 licenses. The release of Produced Works under a CC license including database rights, and with that the danger of a complete and systematic reverse engineering under a CC license, would undermine one of the pillars of ODbL - the requirement to share a database from which Produced Works are made. I would estimate that ODC have something against that, and would react in some way. I don't know if the issue would be a big problem for us. It's possible that we just say: Oh well, if you think you need our data under CC4 then here you go. - we could even choose to dual-license at the source. That would weaken our share-alike quite a bit as everyone would use the license that requires them to share the least. A routing web site that operates on a clever enhanced routing tree would choose CC-BY-SA so they only have to release individual results and not the whole database; a publisher would choose ODbL so that they only have to release the database but not allow copying of the map. If we wanted to stop it, then the following actions could be possible: * lean on ODC to release new anti-Produced-Works-with-database-rights license; * execute CT license change procedure to change to homemade ODbL-with-extras license; * define that anything allowing the automated re-extraction of our data with less than x% precision loss is a derivative database and never a produced work -- 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] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
Hi, On 22.07.2012 08:43, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: So, conveying your work to a another entity and not the general public does not count as publishing. I think that as far as viral licenses are concerned, the public is anyone who is not yourself, or part of your own organisation. I think that the CC licenses often use distribute or publicly perform... which makes this a bit clearer, but ODbL also contains the definition: “Publicly” – means to Persons other than You or under Your control by either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct their activities (such as contracting with an independent consultant). 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] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
Hi, On 21.07.2012 20:18, Mike Dupont wrote: No. The Produced Work you create is uploaded to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA and that's all that counts. CC-BY-SA would not allow additional conditions (e.g. the making available of a source database) anyway. The Created from OdBL-licensed OSM data available here that you have to add to your Produced Work becomes, in the terms of CC-BY-SA, a copyright notice that the CC-BY-SA user is required to keep intact but that's all they have to do. Does that mean I can trace that data back into a cc-by-sa osm database? This is a point that has been discussed at length in the past three years on this mailing list and on the ODC mailing list. At times, the idea was floated to make it part of Produced Work licensing requirements that reverse engineering will bring back ODbL on the reverse-engineered database. This licensing requirement would have made it impossible to publish Produced Works under most known share-alike licenses (with the possible exception of CC-BY-SA-ND which disallows creating derived works altogehter). The currently accepted wisdom is that there exists a separate channel, apart from copyright, in which database right persists no matter what copyright license is used. This means that *if* somebody took lots and lots of CC-BY-SA-published OSM maps and reverse-engineered them into a new database, this database would then *automatically* fall under ODbL even if that was not mentioned in the CC-BY-SA product. This may sound hardly believeable to some but it is indeed not an uncommon concept. Imagine that I prepare an article about how Dyson's bagless vacuum cleaners work, and upload that to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA. Which is totally legal. Then you download the article and you go: Ha! This is CC-BY-SA so no further restrictions can be added. I will build this vacuum cleaner and flood the world with inexpensive and eco-friendly Dupont cleaners! - Sure enough, after a while Dyson will come knocking and sue you for infringement of their patent. So; the (entirely legal) publication of something under CC-BY-SA does not necessarily mean that you can do anything with it without infringing other rights. The tl;dr answer to your question is: No you cannot as far as OSMF is concerned - but whether you get away with it is probably a question of jurisdiction. (If anyone wants to pursue this discussion I would very much ask them to peruse the mailing list archives with the search term reverse engineering and read up on past discussions so that we don't have to repeat ourselves.) 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] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
Hi, On 21.07.2012 20:44, Adrian Frith wrote: Does this mean that, in my scenario, the only recipient to whom I have an obligation under ODbL sec. 4.6 is the Wikimedia Foundation? Everyone else who receives it receives it from WMF under CC-BY-SA and they have no claim on me? This is an interesting question. I don't think you are right though; CC-BY-SA does not work by sublicensing. For someone who downloads your image from Wikipedia, the licensor is *not* Wikipedia, but still you. This is governed by CC-BY-SA 2.0 par. 8a: Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work or a Collective Work, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License. This means that if someone downloads your map from Wikipedia, in that moment *you* offer a license on the map to whoever downloads it; and Wikipedia is not part of that chain. So I *think* that license-wise, you have at that very moment licensed the Produced Work to the downloader (even if he hasn't downloaded from you), and he can request the ODbL sources from you. If it were any different, you could team up with a co-publisher, publish your ODbL Produced Works to him and he forwards them to the world without you ever having to release anything. It would be a loophole that demands quick fixing ;) 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] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
Hi, On 21.07.2012 21:33, Paul Norman wrote: CC 4.0 licenses explicitly include database rights (sec. 1 (b) of draft 1). How will this work when 4.0 is published and CC BY-SA tiles include the database rights? Also an interesting question but one that would probably have to be addressed to the CC people; there are likely many works that are currently licensed under CC-BY-SA but where the database rights are not included on purpose. I cannot imagine that all these should suddenly be upgraded to include database rights without the rights holders having further say. That would be, to continue my example, as if CC4 were to suddenly include all patent rights, no matter if those who licensed something *had* those rights to begin with ;) If CC4 comes out with such indiscrimante inclusion of database rights then my guess is that it will either be automatically impossible to licene Produced Works under CC, or we will have to explicitly disallow it. 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] A license bot that has produced too many errors
Hi, On 07/17/2012 01:01 PM, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote: - agreeing mapper's node disappeared http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=60580009 Version 3 of this node (51.5400973, 9.9564636) was last edited by agreeing user Sasude. By removing this precisely located node, an intersection of four streets was destroyed. I see no legal implication here. - street has disappeared completely The southern part of Dahlmannstraße with bus route No. 6 has disappeared completely though it was last edited by agreers. No legal implication either. - intersections were cut off - ODbL history ignores agreeing users http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=8091768 Both intersections were cut off though these nodes were last edited by an agreer. Undediced mapper Hotte Degoe has created an empty line without any tags. All tags were added by agreeing users, all points have been moved by agreeing users as well. Only v1 should be hidden, all other versions by agreeing mappers should be visible. Only the tags of the additional versions could be shown; not the geometry. But I agree with you that it would be desirable to actually show the names of the participating mappers even if we cannot list details of their work. This is why we're making a distinction between Redaction 2 and Redaction 1. We plan to list basic meta data for Redaction 2 type events, see also: http://www.openstreetmap.org/redactions/2 - decliner included in ODbL history http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=60922724 Lobelt has declined the new contributor terms so far mainly for political reasons, but he still appears in the clean ODbL history because he has removed a senseless tag. Removing a tag does not constitute a copyright, but mentioning him in the history is an infringement of moral rights. No it isn't. - OSMF Redaction Account claims to be the only author http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=8573909 Since the OSMF Redaction Account did not create any way, he cannot pretend to be the author of any way. It doesn't. You are just reading it wrong, or looking at the wrong web page. Compare: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/8573909/history - ODbL history ignores too many agreeing users (2nd example) http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=8094092 Undediced mapper Hotte Degoe has created an empty line without any tags. All tags were added by agreeing users, all points have been moved by agreeing users as well. Only v1 should be hidden, all other versions by agreeing mappers should be visible. The bot always considers a node membership in a way to be copyrightable, no matter if that node has been moved or not. Had you thought about this earlier and contributed a test case - or even taken part in the constructive discussion - then maybe this could have been done differently. These seven examples are quite simple cases without any complications. I am sure that some of you will be able to find many more examples where the bot has made severe errors. None of these errors are severe, and none have any legal implications that I can see. - OSMI should not ignore bot deletions Streets destroyed by the bot (e.g. Dahlmannstraße in Göttingen) disappear on OSMI, so there is no chance to check what the bot has destroyed, and why he did so. I'm sure we'll find a good way of displaying bot edits. I made a post about this on the dev list. Simply showing all bot deletions is not very helpful though, because there is no way to get rid of such markings even if the deleted data has long been replaced. I object to your choice of the word destroyed a street. The bot does not destroy streets. It just prevents data from being published. Hiding versions may be considered as breech of Creative Commons license, See above remark about Redaction 1/Redaction 2. If you have any Rails skills then your help is certainly welcome. 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
[OSM-legal-talk] ASTER or no ASTER?
Hi, I'm slowly getting a headache from trying to find out wheter the use of ASTER data (for hillshading) in the creation of CC-BY-SA licensed map tiles is permissible or not. There are people who say that ASTER is only free for science and educational use. I used to think that too. But it's hard to find a good statement about that. From http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20090629.html: NASA and Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and industry (METI) released the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) Global Digital Elevation Model (GDEM) to the worldwide public on June 29, 2009. No license info on that page, but release to the worldwide public is something different from for academic purposes only, isn't it? Then http://asterweb.jpl.nasa.gov/gdem.asp: As a contribution from METI and NASA to the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), ASTER GDEM V2 data are available free of charge to users worldwide from the Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC) and J-spacesystems. No license info again, but free of charge to users wolrdwide. Hm. Then https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/aster_policies gets interesting but the language is somewhat twisted: ASTER Redistribution Policies for the General Public ASTER Global DEM (GDEM) data are subject to redistribution and citation policies. Before ordering ASTER GDEM data, users must agree to redistribute data products only to individuals within their organizations or projects of intended use, ... But this is about the *redistribution* of data, and I don't want to redistribute - I want to make tiles from it. Further down (Click here for additional GDEM redistribution information) it says: The general principle is one of reversibility: If someone can recover the original x-y-z values from the new product, then that new product can NOT be re-distributed. ... What are some examples of derived products that are re-distributable? 2. Creating a slope map This all sounds as if I *can* download the data and use it for hillshading as long as I don't redistribute the data itself. Doesn't it? 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] OpenStreetMap's Trademark Licensing Policy
Adam, On 28.06.2012 18:42, asaun...@uottawa.ca wrote: It is unclear to me what OSM/OSMF policy is with regards to third-party use of OSM trademarks. I am not surprised that this is unclear to you because there is no such policy, at least not any that's written down! I have no authority to speak for OSMF, the trademark owner, but I can say a few things: * There were cases in the past where someone has sold a mobile application through AppStore et al. the name of which was suitable to make people think it was somehow an official or sanctioned product; in some of these cases, people have been asked to rename their product. * No such requests have been made in cases where people have offered something that was clearly a tool made to support the project, like OSM relation analyzer or OSM inspector or ITO OSM analysis (all three, incidentally, made by commercial entities working with OSM). * Individuals have been doing publications (My OSM Blog) without asking whether it's ok to use the name. I'm one of the authors of a book named OpenStreetMap and it seems this is ok too. * National OSM groups all over the world have registered openstreetmap.xx domains in their respective countries; they don't belong to, neither are controlled by, OSMF. * People have been producing OSM merchandise of all sorts - T-Shirts, mugs, banners, stickers, pens - without asking OSMF, and nobody ever complained. I guess that I speak for many in the community when I say that don't really want to put any obstacles in anybody's way - we wouldn't want some eager community member in Brazil to wait for approval before he can annouce his OpenStreetMap mapping party! So if we ever adopt a trademark policy then it will be as liberal as possible, with a focus on prohibiting misleading use of our name (e.g. someone calling something OpenStreetMap when in fact it isn't, or people making things look like we endorsed something we haven't). But as I said at the beginning, I'm not aware of any policy already in existence. As a rule of thumb, as long as you don't do anything that provokes a community outcry you'll probably be ok. 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] Triggering ShareAlike in Government
Hi, On 06/18/2012 05:59 AM, Kate Chapman wrote: I have a question about what would trigger the ShareAlike in the context of government. Let's say for example a National Mapping Agency takes the OpenStreetMap road data for their area and then improves upon it. Those improvements are shared with the Ministry of the Environment. Is that redistribution? First of all, any share-alike - with CC-By-SA as well as ODbL - only affects those who are in receipt of the derived work. So if the NMA gives a derived work to the ME, then *even if* that is considered distribution, the rights arising from share-alike are only granted to the ME, and not to the general public. (Same if you sell OSM derived databases, under old or new license - the customer gains share-alike rights but not a non-customer.) The interesting question is, and I don't know if Paul intended to hint at that with his FOI reference: What happens if the information is leaked, e.g. if the ME has to reveal the derived data as a result of a FOI request - does the recipient (who made the FOI request) then gain share-alike rights also? I presume they do but I'm not sure. Other kinds of leaks are possible; among UK government officials it is customary to lose notebooks and hard disks on trains. The GPL FAQ (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#TOCInternalDistribution) contains the question whether theft of previously un-relesed GPL software would trigger share-alike and the answer is no, because the sharing did not happen intentionally. The GPL FAQ also says that company-internal use is not distribution, but providing copies to off-site contractors is; if that were true for OSM, then if you made a PDF and emailed that to a print shop to make 20 copies for you that would already be distribution. (What happens of the MoD takes an OSM map, draws a little bit on top of it and stamps it secret - is that allowed at all, given that the current license requires that they must not add any restrictions to the material...?) 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] Fwd: using OSM in our commercial application
Hi, On 05/16/2012 12:39 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: What if I am selling an application that uses OSM tiles for background, and users of the application can put their data over the background. So, I am distributing the application with the osm tiles, but users aren't distributing their data. Does this mean that they can do that Sure. 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] Signing of Contributor Terms
David, On 04/16/2012 04:57 PM, David Groom wrote: I would have thought all that is necessary is for the data provider to agree to release the data to OSM contibutors under ODbl, CC-BY-SA 2.0, and any such other free and open licence as defined by OSM contibutor terms clase 3. The CT is basically: I have this data and I contribute it to OSM and I grant OSMF the right to distribute it under Apart from the rather specific wording Contents that You choose to submit to the Project in this user account at one point in the CT, it would be perfectly possible to interpret contribute to OSM in a wider sense - i.e. contribute not by starting JOSM and entering data, but contribute by shipping a CD-ROM to Kate or so. If, for a written statement, that one sentence were changed from Contents that You choose to submit to the Project in this user account to Contents as detailed in attachment A or something, then I guess that should be sufficient. The mapper who later uses the data thus released as part of his OSM editing activity can honestly say that his contribution does not infringe anyone else's copyright because the original owner already authorized OSMF to distribute their data. 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] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
Hi, minor point of correction: On 04/10/12 12:32, Ed Avis wrote: However, for those who don't want to be quite so open, the ODbL has made a concession by allowing the concept of a Produced Work. Your resulting work does not have to be licensed under any particular terms. However, if you want to take advantage of this option, then it is your responsibility to publish the intermediate databases you used. You only have to publish (or more precisely, make available on demand) the last in a chain of intermediate databases, the one from which your produced work was made. 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] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
Hi, On 04/07/2012 07:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote: It looks like with the release of CC 4.0 there may be two share-alike licenses suitable for data with different copyleft provisions. CC with a stronger copyleft and ODbL with a weaker one that allows produced works under a non-free license. I don't think it is as simple as that; the requirement to share the derivative database that stands behind a produced work seems to be stronger than what CC does. Say I use an ODbL database to run a public route planning service, then I will have to share that database. Under CC-BY-SA until now I would have had to share the end result (eg web page displaying route instructions) only, not the full database. In ODbL terms, you publicly use the database and therefore trigger share-alike for the whole database even if in the course of the individual case of one planned route only a fraction of the database actually reaches the end user. CC 4.0 says for share-alike if you share an adaptation, you have to release it under ...; question is whether, they, like ODbL, would define your routing service as sharing the adaptation which is the database, or if in CC's case the adaptation is only the web site with the route instructions... 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] Infringements - examples, analysis and request for removal
Hi, On 03/31/2012 03:52 PM, Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote: It's not surprising that you get similar results if two people are using the same datasource for tracing. A tell-tale sign for JOSM copy+paste is often that a way is re-created at a slightly different location, but with the exact same number of nodes which all have the exact same relative position to each other. 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] What happens on April 1?
Hi, On 03/07/12 04:06, Steve Bennett wrote: Could someone explain exactly what will be happening on April 1? I had initially assumed that we would take the database offline, drop all decliners' data, and then come back online. But it now seems that this might not even be required, and that it might be possible to use a bot to make the license change preparations in the live system. License change preparations means that every object would be modified into an ODbL compatible state (worst case: deleted); after this bot has completed its work, the database would still be CC-BY-SA, but from that point on, OSMF would, at any time, be able to decree that as of now the database was ODbL. Will we really be purging all data from decliners? And if so, is this not terrible timing, given the recent, high-profile signups of companies like foursquare? There are many aspects to this. 1. Any timing is terrible, so why not do it now. 2. We have no obligations to Foursquare; they have made a business decision in the full knowledge about the upcoming license change. 3. If they, or their tile provider, MapBox, don't like what they see after the license change, they may choose to remain with the last CC-BY-SA data set for however long they want. Given that many people are now actively remapping, is there any prospect of pushing back the cutover deadline? If there really are people actively remapping and our rushing through the license change would sabotage their work and alienate them then yes, we should postpone for a month or two. Sadly, here in Germany many people are of the opposite opinion and they say let's wait until after the license change, and then see what's missing and fix it. I would much prefer people to remap now but it seems that remapping is not for everyone. The current graphs - http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html - point steadily downwards but if you extrapolate you'll see that they are unlikely to reach zero before autumn. Is there any reason not to? I think that a number of people on the OSMF board - Steve and Mikel at least because I've spoken to them in a management team conference call about a month ago, but likely others too - are of the opinion that OSMF must be seen by the world to be reliable and be in charge; they fear that if OSMF should now renege on the 1st April promise they've made, then people might come to the conclusion that OSMF cannot be trusted. However they see a trustworthy OSMF as a necessary basis for dealing with the business community, and acquiring funding, data, or other support from them. In the aforementioned management team telephone conference I said, You can't tell me that April 1st is success, and April 2nd is failure and was told that the board thinks different. (This is from memory.) (In my eyes, it is a very bad idea for OSMF board to commit themselves to something which is not under their control; and we must definitely avoid this kind of ambitious goal-setting in the future. OSMF can set goals for OSMF, but OSMF must not set goals for OSM. But that's a discussion we can, and should, have after the license change is through.) This doesn't mean that a postponement cannot happen; certainly board won't simply shut down OSM on April 1st until the bot run is complete just to be able to say that they met their target. But it does mean that a postponement would need really solid reasons which would allow those on the board who committed themselves to the 1st April deadline to save face. If we wait another month then 5% more data can be remapped is not a solid reason, and neither is I'm sure Foursquare would be unhappy to lose a few roads in the US. These reasons are especially bad because they an be repeated month after month and thus could make the process drag on endlessly. 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] Questions from a Journalist
Hi, On 03/07/2012 07:05 PM, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote: 1. Does the license change include the creation of a new experimental planetfile just for testing purposes or the final destruction of data? If your journalist opened with that question I would probably stop talking to him because his use of the word destruction already shows that even though he knows nothing about the license change, he has already made up his mind about what he wants to write! The other questions betray considerable misunderstanding, and I would second RichardF's suggestion for your journalist to contact RichardF directly. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Hi, On 03/06/12 10:55, Michael Collinson wrote: The OSMF acknowledges the kind help of UMP project and its members in creating the OSM map of Poland. The OSMF acknowledges that the UMP project is similar in spirit; providing geodata that is free and open. Provided that UMP continues to publish its data under a free and open license, the OSMF is happy to allow UMP to use OSM data for verifying road routes within Poland. I don't think there is a process for granting special permissions to anyone; this could only work through a license change (where the new license is basically ODbL for everyone but for UMP the following extras are established...). The only way I can see this fly is for OSMF to publish their interpretation of ODbL that allows whatever UMP want to do. Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data (in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not create a derived database. (The database that contains the results of the analysis might be derived and have to released.) UMP may also provide a layer of non-highway data made from OSM data or OSM map-tiles within its Garmin maps; the OSMF believes that this is allowed by the basic ODbL license and that no special permission is required. Are Garmin maps databases or produced works? If they are databases then UMP would have to make sure that the ODbL licensed OSM layer is accessible separately and would have to make users aware that it is ODbL. If they are produced works, then UMP would have to make the derived non-highway database available under ODbL. If UMP were not willing or able to do that, and OSMF were intent on removing this burden from UMP, then OSMF could offer to publish a derived non-highway database themselves, which would lead to UMP only having to point to that database and say there's our source and it's ODbL. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Is the license change easily reversible?
Hi, the following occurred to me today, and I would be interested to hear other people's thoughts about it. What I'm writing here is not at all news; I just hadn't thought about it until now. In the Contributor terms, the license that OSM data is distributed under is mentioned in this way: OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents ... under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open licence (for example, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) as may from time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. It is clear that the license can be changed to a different one at any time through the 2/3 provision. But, even after the switch to ODbL, OSMF could go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 at any time - and would, as far as I can see, only need a simple majority board decision for that. This puts OSMF in a position of quite some power. Let us assume for a moment that there are a few big players waiting in the wings with products ready to be launched once the license change has come through; products that have been designed for over a year and at considerable cost. Assume someone launches a few months after the license change, and further assume that there is something we (as a project) are unhappy about. Say they mix their proprietary data with OSM data in a way where *we* think they have to release something back but *they* point to the legal analysis they have been doing for the last two years and say no way, Jose, come sue us if you dare, mwhahahaha. Could we - could OSMF - in such a situation simply say: Know what, Mr big guy? Either you play nice and release that data, or we'll simply go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 next month. I don't assume that we would really *want* to go back but it wouldn't exactly kill us, and depending on what is at stake (I assume it could easily be a multi million dollar thing) we (the project) would lose much less than those we'd be up against. We wouldn't really want to but we *could*, and the fact that the big guy would only have to piss off the wrong four people at OSMF to ruin his product could balance one thing or the other in our favour. Questions arising from this - 1. Is my reasoning correct? 2. Are we happy with OSMF board wielding this power - should we (the OSMF membership) perhaps curtail OSMF board's powers by creating a rule that says that any decision regarding the license under which the data is published must be taken by the whole membership and not just the board? 3. If the CTs were changed post-license-change to omit CC-BY-SA 2.0 from the list of available licenses, then the above scenario would become impractical - we could then not simply go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 without losing data from new contributors (unless going through the 2/3 rule). Such a change in the CTs would create more security for anyone investing in a product based on our data by taking away the bargaining chip I have written about. Does the power to change the CTs currently sit with the board alone, and are we happy with that? The power to modify the CTs carries with it the power to entrench the current license practically forever; someone with liberty to change the CT as they see fit could, for example, simply strike out the future license change possible with 2/3 of active contributors clause and therefore create a situation in which no future OSMF can change the license without going through what we go through now. Of course the CTs cannot be changed retroactively but doing so for new signups is effective enough. 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] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
Hi, (taking this to legal-talk from talk where it doesn't belong) On 02/13/12 00:00, nicholas.g.lawre...@tmr.qld.gov.au wrote: I accepted the license, and also ticked the box that said I was happy with my contributions to be considered public domain. Hypothetically, if some years in the future, OSMF proposed a switch to public domain, can they assume my acceptance from that? OSMF could certainly release *your* contributions under Public Domain (since you have checked the box, and advisory or not, there would be a reasonably solid legal basis for doing that). Regarding a possible future switch to Public Domain, this is a difficult issue. In theory, OSMF can choose to switch to any free and open license if 2/3 of active mappers agree. PD is a free and open license so that would be possible, providing that enough mappers find it a good idea. At the same time, OSMF promises in the CT to attribute You or the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.; This can be read - as Simon seems to do it - to mean the CTs guarantee that required attribution will survive any future licence changes, but I think he's on thin ice there; in my reading, the CTs promise that OSMF will provide attribution, not that OSMF will only ever release your data under licenses that guarantee attribution down the line. But Simon is right when he says data with such requirements would have to be removed. This means that if we ever wanted to go PD, then we'd have to find out which data has some kind of attribution requirement attached, and remove that data before we go PD. Since we don't require such data to be identified at the moment, that would be one hell of a job. In my eyes, this is a very sad development that undermines any future license change, even one to a non-PD license. Earlier versions of the CT basically required you to *only* contribute data of which you could surely say that it could be relicensed freely under the provisions of free and open and 2/3 of mappers agree. This as been whittled down to you can contribute anything that is compatible with the current license and you don't even have to *tell* us what further restrictions it is under. Any future license change has therefore become very unlikely - except maybe a switch back to a CC license -, and not much remains of the license change provision in the CTs. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
Hi, On 02/13/2012 12:53 PM, Simon Poole wrote: While I've expressed my displeasure with every revision of the CTs after 1.0 for exactly your reasoning, I don't believe that the situation is quite as bad as you paint it. Come April the 1st the only extra string attached to data that is in the database should be attribution via the Website. Which implies that further data removal would only be necessary if we wanted to use a distribution license that didn't require any attribution at all, which is extremely unlikely (not the least because of the necessary data removal). No, even after April 1st the following is entirely plausible: - mapper contacts government asking for data - government says here, you can have that, but it may only be distributed under ODbL or CC-BY-SA, nothing else - mapper contributes data to OSM without even *telling* us that there is this additional requirement (CT only require that the mapper makes sure data is compatible with current license) Any future license change to, say, CC-BY or GFDL3.15 or whatever would then require that data to be deleted, but we wouldn't even know that. 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] [Rebuild] Too many things to do before a license change
Freimut, it would be nice if you could at least sign your name *somewhere* in your emails. This list (rebuild@) is dedicated to the rather technical side of how to get from our current database to an ODbL clean database once it is clear what data can be kept and what cannot. Any discussion about the process that should come *before* that - i.e. any discussion about how to determine what is kept and what isn't, whom to contact, what significance your 80% number has, how to determine the right time to actually execute the license change, and so on - falls in the realm of legal-talk, where I'm full-quoting your message to. Bye Frederik On 02/13/2012 10:28 PM, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote: Only six weeks are left before the scheduled license change on April 1st. There are still too many open issues: - checking imports (e.g. h4ck3rm1k3) which is rather an administrative than a political issue - only 80% of worldwide mappers have agreed so far, despite a tremendous mailing effort - checking invalid e-mails? - sending paper letters to ~200 non-responding real-name mappers? - enabling self adoption of anonymous edits and second accounts? - How to deal with group accounts like mapping parties or schools with multiple authors? - How to deal with guest and test accounts? - How to deal with short-time mappers who did not reach the level of database protection? - How to deal with low-quality first-time mappers whose contributions can easily be removed? - How to deal with armchair mappers who (are supposed to) have copied from official maps? - How to deal with deceased mappers? - How to deal with forks that are ODbL-compatible, e.g. Commonmap? - How to deal with split ways? - How to replace ways that have been manufactured by decliners or non-responders and later modified by active mappers? In some cases, the current ownership attribution of split ways is simply fraud. As mentioned above, there are some special cases which can be rebuilt without any data loss, e.g. if the first editor has manufactured an empty way. I have seen many low-quality edits perfectly suited for silent rebuilding in the first stage. Gradual rebuild of clean ways would increase confidence among those who have declined for pollitical reasons. However, a sudden data loss makes many mappers more angry and drives them off :-( Based on historical experience, each of these issues will take at least one LWG session. As the OSMI inspector still contains many errors, it would be a good idea if any mapper was able to report typical license problems to a bug system (and not to the press nor to the court). Remapping is another activity that cannot be done neither in six weeks nor in six months. Remapping according to high ethical standards (local survey in the outback) requires some coordination. E.g. a bug tracking system like OpenStreetBugs to identify neighborhoods that need to be remapped on the ground. It would make sense to handle both license and remapping issues within the same bug tracking system. a) remapping required (e.g. adding maxspeed, surface) b) license problem (e.g. decliner has imported from a clean source) c) license and remapping problem: armchair mapper has redrawn the way that still needs to be verified by local survey. These bugs need to be confirmed twice. There are too many open issues which cannot be solved within few weeks (only if the LWG meets every weekday until April 1st). However, I would be happy if the LWG seriously pursued rather a clean than a quick license change. If anybody involved has already booked his vacation after April 1st, we may continue in May to pursue a clean license change. Cheers -- 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] ODbL implementation plan - extra phase proposal
Petr, In a recent discussion on talk-cz Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) have suggested it would be good to have an extra phase (couple of months) in which only untainted edits would be accepted. This would prevent users to put their time into something that will be gone after final cut-off and it would probably accelerate the remapping efforts in problematic regions. There is nothing fundamentally wrong or impossible about that. But it does introduce more work for us (because we would have to implement a way for the API to reject changes to tainted objects). I am unsure if adding such an extra phase of, say, three months would really bring a lot of benefit compared to the - much easier - potential decisions of delaying the planned changeover for three months. Or, in other words, do you have reason to believe that a three-month only edits to non-tainted objects accepted phase would actually make people re-map more and better compared to the phase we are in now? And if so, why? 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] The Copyright of Split Ways
Hi, On 01/28/2012 11:08 PM, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote: Thank you very much for the wise decision to postpone the license change until all open problems are solved. Citation needed? Generally, - if the second-oldest node of a way is older than the way itself, the way probably was split. Its v1 belongs to the changeset where the second-oldest node was created. - if the second-oldest node of a way is younger than the way itself, the way was probably re-created by other mappers and cannot be considered property of the v1 mapper. Thus, it would make sense to assign copyright ownership to the v3 mapper (who has contributed the second-oldest node). There's no reason for such vodoo logic. A way split or merge can be determined from looking at a changeset. A changeset in which a chain of nodes is removed from one way and added to another, new way denotes a split. It is possible to determine these automatically, without comparing the date of nodes; the only difficulty is that it requires looking at a full history file sorted by changeset rather than by object ID which means that considerable processing is required, for an outcome that is worth relatively little. I'm sure it is going to be tackled one way or the other but it really isn't the big issue some people seem to make of it. Splitting ways is a common thing but it is only relevant for the license change if an agreer splits a way created by a decliner and vice versa. There are simply not so many cases of that to warrant all the brouhaha that is made. 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] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
Hi, On 01/19/12 03:07, andrzej zaborowski wrote: Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28.. pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters import ODbL-incompatible data. With version 1.2.4 requiring compatibility with only the current licensing terms, Ah yes. This really is a problem, and it certainly was a very bad decision to make that change to the CT. The issue has been discussed here http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005915.html and elsewhere on this list. We can only hope that most people misunderstand this whole thing and in their minds treat agreeing to CT and agreeing to ODbL the same. A strict reading of the current CT leads to the conclusion that while we can re-build the database to only contain data by CT agreers in April, we cannot release the result under ODbL because we do not even *know* which contributions are ODbL compatible and which aren't. I hope that LWG have some clever plan on how to deal with this. Otherwise they would not have made that change when they released 1.2.4, right ;-)? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Implementing the licence change
Hi, On 01/19/2012 09:48 PM, ant wrote: So moving a way is not considered a modification of the way, but of the individual nodes. Yes. And changing a way's references from ABC to ACB is not a modification at all, because no reference is created and no reference is removed. We cannot say that there was a modification in regard to any of the references. No, the (relative) place of the reference in the list of references also counts. Changing the node list from 1,2,3 to 3,2,1 is a meaningful change. Next question, since according to your answers the approach is rather fine-grained, one might ask if single words within tags are copyrightable. Our current approach is to take a tag value as a whole. This is certainly not always correct. Also, let me remind you that we don't judge what is copyrightable and what isn't; we're trying to do something that is *reasonable* with regard to copyright. This involves a lot of judgment calls. What about roles of relation members, are they separated from the members' references? I'd treat them like a tag, so yes. Above all, we must not forget to consider whether the creation or modification of a single reference, a single role - i.e. anything we say to be atomic - can possibly constitute a creative work. Some people have called for summarily force-relicensing the contribution of anyone who has added less than a certain amount of data. Problem is, we're starting to get into the database realm. If you take the latest Harry Potter novel then no single word in it is copyrightable. But the combination of a significant portion of words is. Our fine-grained approach (i.e. let's simply try not to use *any* word from Harry Potter, that way we're sure that we won't infringe copyright) might be erring on the side of caution, but I'd prefer that over non-agreers raising a fuss after the license change because they spot something in there that isn't clean. I'm not demanding. I just want to help raising the bar of certainty, in order to prevent us from overseeing something. Well if you find certainty, be sure to inform us since we'll be very interested ;) 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] Implementing the licence change
Hi, On 01/18/2012 06:13 PM, ant wrote: As far as I can see the details of the implementation of the licence change, i.e. of what is actually going to happen on April 1st, are not known - or at least not revealed. Correct me if I am wrong. They are not known. A mailing list has been created (the rebuild list) to discuss how exactly the database rebuild is going to happen, and in terms of policy, LWG will have the ultimate decision. And they are asking for out input via the What is clean page. That page is not, and was not intended to be, a binding document - it might become one later. I assume that LWG will certainly value your help in improving that document. IANAL. But I like to approach problems in a systematical manner. For example, I recently asked myself the question, „What is a copyrightable object in OSM?“. I think this is a fundamental question to answer if you discuss licence topics. It has often been said that computer geeks, of which I presume you are one, are not well suited to perform legal analyis. The lawyer's answer to Is a node copyrightable? will almost certainly be it depends. (On country, circumstances, ...) In OSM, our current answers are: Yes, we treat a node as copyrightable; If yes, what's copyrightable about it? Its position and tags, unless the tags have been created automatically. What's copyrightable about a way? The sequence of its nodes and its tags. Is the list of references to nodes copyrightable separately from the way's tags? Every single tag and every single node reference are a treated as copyrightable by us. Are references to nodes atomic? (I.e. Is a single reference copyrightable? Or is only the list as a whole?) Atomic. As I said, this is just our current working assumption, not something set in stone. All in all I think that the approach to the whole thing so far has been too pragmatic, just like identifying edge cases and modeling something around it. Of course, this might somehow work and the result might even be satisfying, but to me it doesn't seem appropriate in a legally significant matter like this. It is possible that the approach only *seems* too pragmatic to you. I'm not with LWG but I would assume that they would welcome you into their weekly telephone sessions if you want. Considering that neither the definitions of what is clean and what is tainted nor the technical details of the implementation have yet been finalized, it seems unreasonable for me to remap. Thankfully, few other people think like you do. There may be edge cases, but I guess that whichever way these edge cases are decided, a significant portion of what is now considered tainted will always be tainted. And that stuff should be remapped *now*. I don't want to discover later that I have done unnecessary work. Your call. I'd rather re-map a few items too many than fix the holes in my street in April. Besides, current remapping practice is completely based on the available inspection tools that implement - more or less precisely - a taintedness policy that is still in draft status. For this reason I also refuse to use the odbl=clean tag. The odbl=clean tag is a kludge for difficult cases anyway. If you bring an object into a state that does not have any of the properties added by a decliner, that is sufficient to make it clean automatically. Now I could elaborate a lot more. But the purpose of my post actually is to start a discussion, and I am asking you. Me too wants the licence change to be a success. So let's go. It's ok to discuss these things, but the approach I won't move a finger until I am told *exactly* what the rules are is not helpful. The rules might *never* be final - even when we do the rebuild according to the then-believed-final rules, it could happen that someone later points out an oversight, or a court decides something, forcing us to remove things we thought we could keep or vice versa. You can only ever go up to 80% certainty in these matters. Demanding more is not realistic. 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] Copyright of large-scale imports vs. small edits
Hi, On 01/18/2012 07:48 PM, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote: The risk of being sued by a non-responding 50-node mapper is rather zero as the cost of a small lawsuit in Great Britain is about £200 which is too high for a non-responding mapper. This is quite a cynical approach. We can ignore the copyright of small contributors because they won't sue anyway Not my style. 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] Maxspeed tags in Australia
Hi, On 01/06/12 13:13, Nick Hocking wrote: Although the usefullness(or correctness) of these tags is not being discussed in talk-au, there appears to be a concensus (7-0) about removing them now. Ok, I've discussed this off-list with Nick and did a test run for 1000 (of roughly a quarter million) ways. Here is one example touched by the script: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4018604 The license change view has picked up that this way doesn't carry any of JohnSmith's changes any longer and therefore it is now colored yellow: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfelon=151.94918lat=-27.56668zoom=17 Of course one can simply switch off the yellow stuff with the check box on the left if one finds it confusing - yellow is just a way for OSMI to tell you that it considers this way OK based in its own reckoning rather than because it has a squeaky clean history. If people are happy with that, I will run the script for the remaining ways. But don't expect miracles - it's a lot of data and it will take one or two weeks to complete. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Way with almost nothing left but created by decliner
Hi, here's an interesting example from the German forum. A way that was created by a decliner but later edited by 10 others; of everything the decliner originally created, only the very first node remains, everything else has been lost in the editing process. OSMI duly paints this way in red - created by decliner, no chance of survival. Maybe we need some sort of soft(er) approach for cases like this. Of all the information currently present in that way, less than 5% are remnants of what the decliner originally created, still we allow them to decide the fate of the whole object. 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] Maxspeed tags in Australia
Hi, On 01/06/12 11:38, Nick Hocking wrote: In this case it is essential to actually get rid of the maxspeed tags. The bot used a completly wrong algorithm and the data is dangerously wrong. Just today I drove down a high traffic road where OSM (curtesy of the bot) had the wrong max speed). It is possible to remove these bot contributions without affecting later edits. The OSM inspector would then, after a while, pick up the fact that the current version of the object retains no properties that were added by the license disagreer, and mark the objects as harmless (unless there are other problems). Is there a consensus in the Australian communitiy that these tags are worthless and should be removed? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Maxspeed tags in Australia
Hi, On 01/06/12 12:08, Nick Hocking wrote: Is there a consensus in the Australian communitiy that these tags are worthless and should be removed How many votes do I need :-) Well, nobody shouting stop, stop, these tags are useful to me! would already be a start. I can see only two ways to do this. 1) Remove the edits. 2) Get OSM Inspector to ignore them. Both will require that we identify all the changesets first. Can you sketch the selection criteria in natural language? Something like all changesets between X and Y in the Z bounding box by user(s) ABC that have more than N edits and a comment text of T and where all edits are adding a maxspeed tag or whatever. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] New rules for OSMI license change view
(taking this to legal-talk) Russ, On 12/27/11 05:08, Russ Nelson wrote: But this way is still marked as created by a nodecision user: http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=3753605 Well, maybe it was created, but the sins of the father do not pass onto the son. No part of what the nodecision user created remains *except* for source=PGS. There may be a misunderstanding here. I *do* in fact ignore source (and note and fixme and created_by) when deciding whether there's a copyright of a nodecision user involved, and if indeed the source=PGS tag was the only thing that remained then this way would not be flagged. In this case however, there's a sequence of about 20 nodes that was created by the initial user and even though these may all have been individually moved and therefore the individual nodes are considered clean, the fact that these 20 nodes in this sequence form a line is considered the work of the original mapper. This is, of course, open to discussion. If mapper A creates a way with 20 nodes and adds one tag, and mapper B moves all those nodes individually *and* replaces the tag with someone else, then if A disagrees and B agrees, do we believe that A retains a copyright? Or, to widen the question a bit: The geometry of a way is determined from its node list *and* from the position of each of the nodes. Assume that you have no copyright in any of the node positions (because either the nodes were there before you, or because someone else moved them all around) - can you still have a copyright in the node list? Currently at least my software assumes that yes, you can. It would be possible to change this and say: You can only have a copyright in the node belongs to way relationship if you also have a copyright in the node. That would then mark as clean a way like the one above. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
Hi, On 12/27/11 14:53, andrzej zaborowski wrote: * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if these tags are not present any more in the current version Did you manage to address your example of a user fixing a typo in the tag name (individually or for a large number of objects)? No. It would be possible to say that a constribution is only harmless if neither the tag nor the value are present in the final version but then there will again be examples where this is wrong. I think a good way to deal with such but what if... situations is not to make sure they never occur, but to produce some kind of quantitative assessment. If we have reason to believe that the new rules produce something like a hundred errors then who cares. If it's more like a million then it needs to be fixed ;) A similar case is where a mapper adds many ways in a city, but another mapper thinks all of the objects were misaligned and offsets them en masse. Is your assumption here also that this takes all IP away from the first mapper? Currently in OSMI, this mapper will continue to be viewed as the author of all the ways; it is just the node positions that he got wrong and where his contribution is overwritten by the change. But this is something that Russ questioned this morning, see my other message on legal-talk. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
Robert, when I wrote that I * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if these tags are not present any more in the current version I did indeed mean that the edit is harmless if the *key* is not present any more. This will still result in some harmless edits not being detected as such, but it is not as bad as you probably assumed it to be. In all these cases, the pertinent information in the new tagging can be derived entirely from the old tagging, without the use of any other source. So unless there's an explicit source tag for the new tagging, I think we would have to play it safe and regard the new tagging as a derived work of the old tagging. This is indeed something we can discuss. My current scheme will sometims assume copyright where there isn't: disagreer puts name=Fred's Bistro agreer corrects to name=Robert's Bistro - way still flagged as problematic since the name tag was placed by disagreer and is still present (even if different value) and will sometimes assume a harmless edit when it's not: disagreer puts nmae=Fred's Bistro agreer corrects to name=Fred's Bistro - way not flagged as problematic since tag placed by disagreer has been removed. Therefore if the original tags were added by a non-agreer, and an agreeing mapper made the type of change above, I don't think it can be argued that the object is now definitely clean. But if I've understood your proposed system, if those changed / altered tags were the only tags added by a non-agreer, the object would be automatically seen as clean. Yes. I have no strong feelings either way; your argument is correct. However the question must be asked in how far you can claim copyright for facts that others have to extract from your prose. In my personal opinion, if someone wrote a note tag describing in colourful English what it is that he saw, and someone else then extracted proper tags from that text, then I'd be prepared to ascribe a copyright on the original prosaic note to the mapper but not copyright on the interpretation of that note made by someone else. I'm sure it is an issue that we must watch, and maybe try and prepare a list with all cases affected, and make spot checks to get an idea of how many false positives/negatives we get. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
Hi, On 12/27/2011 09:08 PM, Richard Weait wrote: So if mapper adds nmae=Fred's Bistro, then decliner corrects to name=Fred's Bistro, do your current rules consider that node tainted? Yes, if a name tag is still present in the current version of the object then it is assumed to be dervied from whatever the decliner put there. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
Hi, On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 20:32:35 +0100 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to ... Activated now notified talk and talk-de lists, on both the WTFE view and on the database accessed by plugins/license views in editors. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
Hi, On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:48:24 + Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Agreeing mapper maps the restaurant and names it 2. Non-agreeing mapper adds the cuisine tag 3. Agreeing mapper removes the cuisine tag and sets odbl=clean. He or she does not have enough information to assert the cuisine tag and chooses, on balance, to lose the tag for now. 4. Well-meaning new (therefore agreeing) mapper sees the node, notices the cuisine tag in the history and reapplies it without having personal knowledge to back this up. odbl=clean is still set. To me, this is on par with well-meaning new mapper copies data from Google believing it is ok. It is something where we have to make a good effort to explain to people that they shouldn't do it, and if it turns out somebody has misunderstood, or made a mistake, then we have to fix that. I don't see *many* people using history to look for extra features to re-animate. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
Hi, On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:27:19 -0500 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position? I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to * treat untagged nodes as clean if moved by an agreeing mapper * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if these tags are not present any more in the current version * treat any nodes added to a way by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if these nodes are not present any more in the current version of the way I can activate these on the OSMI map + WTFE + Shapefiles on short notice; I expect that the number of red nodes will decrease about 10% by that. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
Hi, On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:32:21 + Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: 1. This would, I suppose, mean that a formerly tainted node which has both been moved and stripped of any tainted tags would also be considered clean. Is this so Yes. 2. Consider the case of a node that is mapped by an agreeing mapper as a restaurant. A non-agreeing mapper comes along and adds cuisine=pizza. An agreeing mapper cleans the object by removing this tag. Time passes... Another mapper walks by, notices that the place is a pizzeria and adds back an identical tag. Are we clean or dirty now? Dirty, because the very same situation could arise with a non-agreeing mapper adding cuisine=pizza, the agreeing mapper cleaning the object and a third mapper reverting that last action. I have no way of telling apart a revert to the non-agreeing mapper's version and a true remapping from original sources. I'm open to suggestions but I can't see an easy way out. * treat any nodes added to a way by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if these nodes are not present any more in the current version of the way Excellent. So this will have the effect of ignoring the edit by the non-agreeing mapper in the _way's_ history, right? Yes. These changes carry with them the slight complication that they make tainted-ness dependent on the current version of the way. This means that an object that was previously untainted could now become tainted again, by exactly the process that you outline above (re-adding of the cuisine tag). That would be a very good use case for odbl=clean, or maybe we could introduce something that users can place in their changeset comment saying all edits in this changeset are remapping from original sources, or we could even say: Whenever the changeset has a source tag we consider this to be original sources... Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Apologies for misleading munin graphs
Hi, as you probably know I'm running statistics on the raw count of objects processed by the OSMI view and making Munin graphs of them here: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html I'm afraid that there has been an error in some of the graphs (example graph with problem shown here http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/odbl_ways-month.png) where the Y axis did not start at 0, giving the impression that the number of problematic was smaller than it in fact is. Especially the way graph looked as if, if the trend continues, all problematic ways would be eliminated by January which was a bit over-optimistic! I've fixed the configuration and the graphs are less euphemistic now. They are meant to inform, not to manipulate. 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] [OSM-talk] Relations and the license change
Hi, (moving a talk@ post) On 12/18/2011 04:34 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Has there been any information as to how the OSMF will handle relations when deleting or reverting tainted objects? It is much easier for a relation to be tainted than a way; all that needs to be done is the splitting of a single member to ruin the entire relation. For example, 31 of the (non-super non-business) relations for U.S. Interstate Highways (network=US:I) were created by a red user and 63 were modified by one, which is 18% tainted out of a total of 517. Do the Interstate relations you mention contain information that can *not* simply be read from the planet file? I mean - if I removed all the bits that a non-agreeing user has added to the relation, would it then be trivial to put it back together by e.g. simply doing routing between the now dangling segment endpoints? 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
