Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.03.2016 um 19:31 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> Am So, 13.03.2016, 16:49 schrieb Simon Poole:
>> I wrote the opposite.
> Is my English that bad? Perhaps you can read German, perhaps anyone
> else can. That's what my brain has translated from your writing:
>
> "Es behandelt genau den Fall, dass du deine Fremddaten zur Generierung
> eines OSM-Ausschnitt verwenden kannst, der deine Dateien nicht
  ^kannst^könntest
> beinhaltet, wobei eine Ergänzung deiner Daten erzeugt wird, welche
> die Verbesserung der Abdeckung für ein bestimmtes Feature erlaubt,
> ohne diese gleich dem Share-Alike zu unterwerfen."
^gleich^
>
> Is this the correct translation?
See above. the basic issue is that you are confusing a description of
the problem that the guideline covers with the rule itself.

Another try: the guideline addresses the issue of using third party data
for specific objects together with OSM data. It says essentially that
you either need to use all OSM data for the objects in question or all
3rd party data.

But there is an implicit assumption in the guideline that your goal is a
de-duplicated set of such objects (even if just for display purposes) it
doesn't really address any other situation.

Simon




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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Tobias Wendorff]

Am So, 13.03.2016, 16:49 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> I wrote the opposite.

Is my English that bad? Perhaps you can read German, perhaps anyone
else can. That's what my brain has translated from your writing:

"Es behandelt genau den Fall, dass du deine Fremddaten zur Generierung
eines OSM-Ausschnitt verwenden kannst, der deine Dateien nicht
beinhaltet, wobei eine Ergänzung deiner Daten erzeugt wird, welche
die Verbesserung der Abdeckung für ein bestimmtes Feature erlaubt,
ohne diese gleich dem Share-Alike zu unterwerfen."

Is this the correct translation?

> The point that you are missing is that that selection is based on (a
> relative fuzzy) feature class, not on the object themselves. In the case
> of the example removing all restaurant objects from OSM and only using
> your restaurant data, or vice versa.

I completly give my. My English really seems to be that bad. That's
what I'm translating it into:

"Den Punkt, welchen du nicht beachtet ist, dass die Auswahl auf
(einer relativen Unschärfe) einer Feature-Klasse und nicht auf den
Objekten selbst basiert. Im Fall des Beispiels werden alle
Restaurants aus OSM enfernt und nur deine Daten verwendet - oder
umgekehrt."

Is this the correct translation?


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.03.2016 um 16:33 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> Am So, 13.03.2016, 16:06 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
>> It does (care about a change to the OSM layer). It addresses exactly the
>> case that you could use your 3rd party data to generate an OSM extract
>> that doesn't contain your data, generating a complement to your data
>> allowing you to improve your coverage for a specific feature without
>> being subject to share alike.
> I think, I don't understand your interpretation at all. Maybe a language
> barrier. You said, I could use my 3rd party data to extract data from
> OSM missing in my data to improve the coverage WITHOUT being forced
> to share-alike. 
I wrote the opposite.

>> If it is just coincidental that none of the corps hiking tracks are in
>> OSM then that is just a coincidence and it is not clear to me what the
>> issue should be, if they remove all tracks that are already in OSM then
>> the layer has been modified by OSM data and is subject to our licence
>> terms.
> The last part of your sentence isn't conform to the guidelines.
> The example for "no need to share" clearly says: You can add a layer of
> the same feature class (restaurants or hiking ways), if you make your
> best reasonable efforts to exclude ALL the features of the same class
> (restaurants or hiking ways). 

The point that you are missing is that that selection is based on (a
relative fuzzy) feature class, not on the object themselves. In the case
of the example removing all restaurant objects from OSM and only using
your restaurant data, or vice versa.


Simon



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Tobias Wendorff]

Am So, 13.03.2016, 16:06 schrieb Simon Poole:

> It does (care about a change to the OSM layer). It addresses exactly the
> case that you could use your 3rd party data to generate an OSM extract
> that doesn't contain your data, generating a complement to your data
> allowing you to improve your coverage for a specific feature without
> being subject to share alike.

I think, I don't understand your interpretation at all. Maybe a language
barrier. You said, I could use my 3rd party data to extract data from
OSM missing in my data to improve the coverage WITHOUT being forced
to share-alike. Of course, but only for internal use.

Example says, you're forced to release the data under OdbL when: "You add
restaurants in one area from non-OpenStreetMap data based on comparison
with OpenStreetMap data in other layers."

Why should taking data from OSM to improve my coverage make it
non-share-alike on a produced work or online map?

> If it is just coincidental that none of the corps hiking tracks are in
> OSM then that is just a coincidence and it is not clear to me what the
> issue should be, if they remove all tracks that are already in OSM then
> the layer has been modified by OSM data and is subject to our licence
> terms.

The last part of your sentence isn't conform to the guidelines.
The example for "no need to share" clearly says: You can add a layer of
the same feature class (restaurants or hiking ways), if you make your
best reasonable efforts to exclude ALL the features of the same class
(restaurants or hiking ways). Sure, the OSM data still will be under
ODbL, but your features (hiking ways in this examples) won't be.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.03.2016 um 14:36 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> Am So, 13.03.2016, 14:06 schrieb Simon Poole:
>> I specifically limited my point to the case in which there was no
>> changes to the OSM layer due to the 3rd party layer and vice versa.
> Yeah, I've understood this point, but the guideline doesn't care
> about a change to the OSM layer! The layer either modified by the
> new features or unmodified, but with new layers. And that's the really
> interesting part.
It does (care about a change to the OSM layer). It addresses exactly the
case that you could use your 3rd party data to generate an OSM extract
that doesn't contain your data, generating a complement to your data
allowing you to improve your coverage for a specific feature without
being subject to share alike. 

>> In other words: there is no interaction between the layers other than
>> they are visually superimposed.
> Let's say, a corporation just ovelays their new hiking track on the
> hiking map, with other tracks being on the map already.
>
> Most of the people can't render their own basemaps and remove existing
> tracks. Will it complement the other features? That's exactly what the
> quoted guideline is about: It's talking about new layers with the
> same feature class.
>
If it is just coincidental that none of the corps hiking tracks are in
OSM then that is just a coincidence and it is not clear to me what the
issue should be, if they remove all tracks that are already in OSM then
the layer has been modified by OSM data and is subject to our licence terms.

Simon



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Tobias Wendorff]

Am So, 13.03.2016, 14:06 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> I specifically limited my point to the case in which there was no
> changes to the OSM layer due to the 3rd party layer and vice versa.

Yeah, I've understood this point, but the guideline doesn't care
about a change to the OSM layer! The layer either modified by the
new features or unmodified, but with new layers. And that's the really
interesting part.

> In other words: there is no interaction between the layers other than
> they are visually superimposed.

Let's say, a corporation just ovelays their new hiking track on the
hiking map, with other tracks being on the map already.

Most of the people can't render their own basemaps and remove existing
tracks. Will it complement the other features? That's exactly what the
quoted guideline is about: It's talking about new layers with the
same feature class.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Simon Poole]

Ahem, this is going around in circles.

I specifically limited my point to the case in which there was no
changes to the OSM layer due to the 3rd party layer and vice versa.

In other words: there is no interaction between the layers other than
they are visually superimposed.

Simon

Am 13.03.2016 um 13:57 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> Am So, 13.03.2016, 13:50 schrieb Simon Poole:
>> Am 13.03.2016 um 13:35 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
>>> but of course it interacts with the features.
>> How?
> That's exactly written in here:
> http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline
>
> "For example, if there are restaurants in the OpenStreetMap layer and you
> add additional restaurants in another layer, but you include only those
> restaurants not present in the OpenStreetMap layer so that the restaurant
> layers will complement each other, then the layers for this feature are
> interacting and the restaurants added in your non-OpenStreetMap layer must
> be shared."
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk




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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Tobias Wendorff]

Am So, 13.03.2016, 13:50 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> Am 13.03.2016 um 13:35 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
>> but of course it interacts with the features.
> How?

That's exactly written in here:
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline

"For example, if there are restaurants in the OpenStreetMap layer and you
add additional restaurants in another layer, but you include only those
restaurants not present in the OpenStreetMap layer so that the restaurant
layers will complement each other, then the layers for this feature are
interacting and the restaurants added in your non-OpenStreetMap layer must
be shared."


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.03.2016 um 13:35 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> but of course it interacts with the features.
How?



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Tobias Wendorff]

Am So, 13.03.2016, 13:27 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
> yes, you won't have to release your data if you remove similar data from
> OSM before rendering though.

So this means: layers with data under a properity license including features,
which already appear partially on a the official pre-rendered OSM tiles,
have to released under ODbL ?


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Tobias Wendorff]

Am So, 13.03.2016, 13:23 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> IMHO if you don't undertake any efforts to suppress duplicate objects
> (which would include purely visual operations too) you already have
> completely separate datasets and are already clearly in, potentially
> ugly though, Collective Database territory.

So you're saying, the Community Guidelines for horizontal map layers
don't take place here?

The idea came up in a GIS course some days ago. One of the students has
built a small geocoder to show POIs of uploaded addresses in Leaflet.

There are some services, for corporations and newspapers, to easily
create maps based on OpenStreetMap tiles. Actually, you just upload
your address lists or GPX files on their and style them. Since it's
on a seperated layer, it never touches the geometry of OpenStreetMap
objects - but of course it interacts with the features.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 13.03.2016 um 13:11 schrieb Tobias Wendorff 
> :
> 
> This would mean: If I show parking facilities for bikes as an GPX or
> GeoJSON overlay as a layer an top of the OpenStreetMap base tiles,
> which might already included existing facilities, I'd need to publish
> my overlay under ODbL?


yes, you won't have to release your data if you remove similar data from OSM 
before rendering though.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Simon Poole]

IMHO if you don't undertake any efforts to suppress duplicate objects
(which would include purely visual operations too) you already have
completely separate datasets and are already clearly in, potentially
ugly though, Collective Database territory.

Simon


Am 13.03.2016 um 13:11 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> Hi there,
>
> according the the Community Guidelines for Horizontal Map Layers,
> feature overlays have to be released unter ODbL, if they're completing
> content on an online map.
>
> Quote from
> http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline
>
> "For example, if there are restaurants in the OpenStreetMap layer and you
> add additional restaurants in another layer, but you include only those
> restaurants not present in the OpenStreetMap layer so that the restaurant
> layers will complement each other, then the layers for this feature are
> interacting and the restaurants added in your non-OpenStreetMap layer
> must be shared."
>
> This would mean: If I show parking facilities for bikes as an GPX or
> GeoJSON overlay as a layer an top of the OpenStreetMap base tiles,
> which might already included existing facilities, I'd need to publish
> my overlay under ODbL?
>
> This guideline takes clause 4.5(b) as a background. This clause is
> for produced works only... Does this clause even work for overlays?
>
> Also the examples shown below on the page aren't pretty clear either:
> "If you improve data used in the OpenStreetMap layer, such as additions
> or factual corrections, then you need to share those improvements."
> => So this example is for the OpenStreetMap layer only. I won't touch it.
>
> "You add restaurants in one area from non-OpenStreetMap data based
> on comparison with OpenStreetMap data in other layers."
> => What if I don't run a comparism before? Perhaps it's fortune.
>
> "You add a non-OpenStreetMap cemetery layer that is defined as 'all
> cemeteries not found in the OpenStreetMap data layers'."
> => What if I don't explicite tell that those data is missing?
>
> Best regards,
> Tobias
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk




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