subject:"Re\: \[OSM\-legal\-talk\] Would The ODbL and BY\-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY\-SA Produced Work\?"

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 On 09/05/2010 06:01 AM, Anthony wrote:
 And then the ODbL says you can do certain things provided you meet
 certain conditions?

 Yes. DB right covers the whole

Maybe.  OSM existed two years before OSMF, so OSMF would probably have
a pretty tough time claiming that it is the maker of the database.

, and copyright may cover the DB or the aggregated contents.

Yes, but only in certain situations.

 I think that it's the same with OSM: DbCL ensures that OSM can apply ODbL to
 the result of combining all the individual contributions.

1) I assume by OSM you mean OSMF.
2) The worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable
license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything
within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other
gives them that.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 On 09/05/2010 06:01 AM, Anthony wrote:
 I think that it's the same with OSM: DbCL ensures that OSM can apply ODbL to
 the result of combining all the individual contributions.

 1) I assume by OSM you mean OSMF.
 2) The worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable
 license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything
 within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other
 gives them that.

3) OSMF *doesn't* combine the individual contributions.  They just
provide the hardware which allows us to do so.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

2010-09-07 Thread Rob Myers


On 09/07/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote:


Maybe.  OSM existed two years before OSMF, so OSMF would probably have
a pretty tough time claiming that it is the maker of the database.


They are the maker of the current database.


, and copyright may cover the DB or the aggregated contents.


Yes, but only in certain situations.


Hence may.


I think that it's the same with OSM: DbCL ensures that OSM can apply ODbL to
the result of combining all the individual contributions.


1) I assume by OSM you mean OSMF.


I can. ;-)


2) The worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable
license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything
within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other
gives them that.


Yes you are right. Oops.

So DbCL is there as the guarantee of people's ability to licence 
Produced Works as they wish (including under BY-SA).


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

2010-09-07 Thread Francis Davey

On 7 September 2010 16:13, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 On 09/05/2010 06:01 AM, Anthony wrote:
 I think that it's the same with OSM: DbCL ensures that OSM can apply ODbL to
 the result of combining all the individual contributions.

 1) I assume by OSM you mean OSMF.
 2) The worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable
 license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything
 within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other
 gives them that.

 3) OSMF *doesn't* combine the individual contributions.  They just
 provide the hardware which allows us to do so.

Right. If its the case that OSMF doesn't have a database right in the
contents of its database, then, logically, that right would be jointly
owned by all contributors. The contributor terms don't (as yet)
expressly contain any grant of database rights to OSMF, though you
might decide that copyright in the terms is meant to cover similar
rights, such as the sui generis database right.

I'm not sure its entirely an open and shut case though. If I set up a
website and encouraged and invited people to contribute to a database
I put together on that site, it is not clear that couldn't count as
collection of the items in the database, just because they were
supplied by other people.

-- 
Francis Davey

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
 If its the case that OSMF doesn't have a database right in the
 contents of its database, then, logically, that right would be jointly
 owned by all contributors.

Ah, I see there is a provision for this in the EU database right: In
respect of a database created by a group of natural persons jointly,
the exclusive rights shall be owned jointly.

Of course, if a joint database right works like joint copyright, it's
fairly useless.  Any joint owner of the database right would have full
sub-licensable rights to the database, so long as they account for and
share all their profits in using that right.  All it takes is one
joint owner to grant a free worldwide license to do anything, and the
database right is effectively gone.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

2010-09-07 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer

2010/9/7  ed...@billiau.net:
 I got far enough through the Australian Copyright Act at the weekend to
 discover that this won't extend to Australia.


does this count, given that the contract (CT) is British law?

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:38 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 2010/9/7  ed...@billiau.net:
 I got far enough through the Australian Copyright Act at the weekend to
 discover that this won't extend to Australia.

 does this count, given that the contract (CT) is British law?

Probably depends what court you sue in.  An Australian court is
unlikely to accept the validity of a contract which is unlawful in
Australia.

However, I find it unlikely that Australia bans the grant of
non-exclusive licenses over the Internet.  That would seriously screw
up e-commerce to the point of ludicrousness.  Not to mention kill all
open source projects (the ODbL, as well as CC-BY-SA, GPL, GFDL, etc.
are all non-exclusive licenses).

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

2010-09-07 Thread Francis Davey

On 7 September 2010 16:51, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 Ah, I see there is a provision for this in the EU database right: In
 respect of a database created by a group of natural persons jointly,
 the exclusive rights shall be owned jointly.

Yes, that's what I was alluding to. If there were no OSMF and the
project was being carried out by a group of interested individuals -
as quite a few crowd-gathering of data projects are - then that might
apply.


 Of course, if a joint database right works like joint copyright, it's
 fairly useless.  Any joint owner of the database right would have full
 sub-licensable rights to the database, so long as they account for and
 share all their profits in using that right.  All it takes is one
 joint owner to grant a free worldwide license to do anything, and the
 database right is effectively gone.

H, that sounds wrong to me. Joint ownership of copyright does not
work in that way at all. Either owner may prevent the other from (for
example) copying their joint work. If one joint owner licences their
work, it might well estop them from making any claim against
licensees, but the other joint owners would not be bound by it.

That's why joint copyright ownership is a ghastly thing and I try to
dissuade clients from entering into joint ownership agreements unless
there's a really good reason to do so.

Regulation 16(1) of the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations
1997 works in a similar way. It states:

16. — (1)  Subject to the provisions of this Part, a person infringes
database right in a database if, without the consent of the owner of
the right, he extracts or re-utilises all or a substantial part of the
contents of the database.

Where consent of the owner means the joint consent of all owners.

-- 
Francis Davey

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 On 09/07/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote:
 Maybe.  OSM existed two years before OSMF, so OSMF would probably have
 a pretty tough time claiming that it is the maker of the database.

 They are the maker of the current database.

According to whom?  Or according to what analysis?

I don't see it.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 7 September 2010 16:51, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 Of course, if a joint database right works like joint copyright, it's
 fairly useless.  Any joint owner of the database right would have full
 sub-licensable rights to the database, so long as they account for and
 share all their profits in using that right.  All it takes is one
 joint owner to grant a free worldwide license to do anything, and the
 database right is effectively gone.

 H, that sounds wrong to me. Joint ownership of copyright does not
 work in that way at all.

Sorry, I was inappropriately extrapolating from how it works in the US
(http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/copyright/ownership.html) to
how it might work in the EU.

[quote]
Absent an agreement to the contrary, authors own the work jointly and
equally. Each joint author, therefore, has the right to exercise any
or all of the exclusive rights inherent in the joint work. (For more
information on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, see What
is copyright? from the Office of Technology Transfer.) This means that
each author can grant third parties permission to use the work on a
nonexclusive basis without the consent of other joint authors. Each
author may also transfer his or her entire ownership interest to
another person without the other joint authors' consent. Each author
may also update the work for his or her own purposes. Additionally,
each joint author has a duty to account to the other joint authors for
any profits received from licensing the joint work.
[/quote]

 That's why joint copyright ownership is a ghastly thing and I try to
 dissuade clients from entering into joint ownership agreements unless
 there's a really good reason to do so.

Wow, yeah, here in the US it's just the opposite.  If you create a
joint work and don't enter into a joint ownership agreement, things
get really complicated really quickly.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

2010-09-07 Thread Rob Myers


On 09/07/2010 05:15 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org  wrote:

On 09/07/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote:

Maybe.  OSM existed two years before OSMF, so OSMF would probably have
a pretty tough time claiming that it is the maker of the database.


They are the maker of the current database.


According to whom?  Or according to what analysis?

I don't see it.


Then the new CTs are a very good idea. ;-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

2010-09-07 Thread edodd


 2) The worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable
 license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything
 within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other
 gives them that.


I got far enough through the Australian Copyright Act at the weekend to
discover that this won't extend to Australia.
Assignment of Australian copyright cannot be done over the internet.
There are new High Court rulings regarding digital signatures which will
have to be read to confirm this, but click-through is unlikely to meet the
standard required.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

2010-09-04 Thread Anthony

On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 Would removing the word individual from the CT improve it?

Sure, it'd make everything (except the database schema) DbCL, and DbCL
is better than ODbL.

 OSM ways aren't generally representations of artistic works, though.

They're not artistic, but then neither are most other maps, or an
encyclopedia article, or a newspaper article, or a police sketch, or a
textbook.

If you create a way representing the outline of a lake freehand from
memory, it's hard to see how that's any less copyrightable than any
other crude sketch of reality.  Now most lake outlines are not done
freehand from memory, but some might be, and I wouldn't feel too
comfortable copying a way which might be copyrighted.

 And even if any are copyrightable the DbCL will handle that.

That's what I'm wondering.  It's not really clear.  If the
individual in individual contents means a database row, and a way
is copyrightable, then the DbCL probably doesn't handle that, because
a way is a creative arrangement made up of many database rows.

And having a single database row as the individual in individual
contents fits best with the spirit of ODbL (which, oddly enough,
seems like it was never adapted for something like OSM even though it
was (*)).  In a database of white page addresses, or a database of
flickr images, or a database of baseball stats, or NCBI’s Entrez Gene
database, the definition of individual is obvious: a single white page
entry, a single flickr image, a single baseball stat, a single gene
name or pathway or protein product, which is probably going to
correspond to a single row.

It would be interesting trying to convert OSM into an unordered
collection of facts and then converting it back into a structured
database, in a clean room type operation.  You'd probably wind up with
a public domain database in any jurisdiction without database rights
or sweat of the brow, and possibly also in any jurisdiction with
database rights but without sweat of the brow, if you can argue that
no single person or corporation was first to make the substantial
investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of
the contents required to obtain database rights.  Notwithstanding the
ODbL, of course, since writing down what you want to be the
restrictions on a database does not amount to creating a law allowing
you to put such restrictions on that database.  (You can only bind by
contract people who want to be bound by contract.)

(*) I guess because it was adapted under the premise that OSM was an
uncopyrightable collection of facts.

  If such a database were released with DbCL 1.0 for the individual
 contents of the database, would the way be DbCL, or would it be ODbL?

 The way would be DbCL, and use of it would be covered by the ODbL or not
 like the rest of the database.

That's not the way licenses work, though.  If something is covered by
two licenses, you can apply *either* license, you don't have to apply
both.

I guess that's one part I don't get.  Because if you had to apply
*both* licenses, it makes sense.  But if you can apply *either*
license, it doesn't.

That said, I guess the answer is that the individual in individual
contents is *meant* to mean any non-substantial extract (i.e. any
extract on which the ODbL does not apply).

Of course we then still have the question as to what is substantial,
but at least that's a question for which there is likely to be some
case law (as opposed to individual contents).

 It's a licencing stack, with each level (data, database, map tiles) covered
 by an appropriate licence.

It's certainly strange that the middle of the stack would be the most
restricted level, isn't it?

  Would it make a difference if the way were split into 1,000 different
 connected ways?

 I wouldn't have thought so. If you can re-assemble the copyrighted work then
 you have the copyrighted work (teleportation doesn't strip copyright,
 remember :-) ).

Yes, but my question was over the application of the DbCL, not the
application of copyright law.  1 way, perhaps, is individual
content.  1,000 different connected ways isn't.  If it were, then you
could make substantial extracts and have them covered by DbCL.

 Individual ways in the drawing might be too simple to claim
 any rights over. But the DbCL means we don't have to worry about whether one
 way is likely to be covered by more rights than another.

Actually, it's not really clear what the DbCL accomplishes.  The
point, as was explained to me in another thread, is to accomplish
nothing - saying that the individual contents are DbCL is like saying
that the individual words in a Wikipedia article are DbCL.  Trivial,
obvious, and unnecessary.

Maybe that's all it does.  Or maybe there's more to it.  I don't know.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

2010-09-04 Thread Rob Myers

On 09/04/2010 03:38 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org wrote:

Would removing the word individual from the CT improve it?

Sure, it'd make everything (except the database schema) DbCL, and DbCL
is better than ODbL.

It would make contributions DbCL. The database aggregation of them would
then be ODbL.

OSM ways aren't generally representations of artistic works, though.

They're not artistic, but then neither are most other maps, or an
encyclopedia article, or a newspaper article, or a police sketch, or a
textbook.

Agreed, but in the example you give any copyright will be a product of
the way representing an original artistic work.

If you create a way representing the outline of a lake freehand from
memory, it's hard to see how that's any less copyrightable than any
other crude sketch of reality. Now most lake outlines are not done
freehand from memory, but some might be, and I wouldn't feel too
comfortable copying a way which might be copyrighted.

That's what the DbCL is for, to ensure that all Ways are covered by
precisely the same level of rights.

And even if any are copyrightable the DbCL will handle that.

That's what I'm wondering. It's not really clear. If the
individual in individual contents means a database row, and a way
is copyrightable, then the DbCL probably doesn't handle that, because
a way is a creative arrangement made up of many database rows.

If the CTs specified the levels of organization of the DB, e.g nodes,
ways, meatadata, etc. would that be better? Or would saying any
contribution suffice to cover any level of organization or abstraction?

I think the latter should do it, but I understand that something more
precise might be more convincing.

And having a single database row as the individual in individual
contents fits best with the spirit of ODbL (which, oddly enough,
seems like it was never adapted for something like OSM even though it
was (*)). In a database of white page addresses, or a database of
flickr images, or a database of baseball stats, or NCBI’s Entrez Gene
database, the definition of individual is obvious: a single white page
entry, a single flickr image, a single baseball stat, a single gene
name or pathway or protein product, which is probably going to
correspond to a single row.

I think that you are right that this is an important distinction, but I
also think that the levels of structure in OSM are easily identified and
descibed (nodes, ways, tags, etc.). The example you give of a row
doesn't preclude an entity that consists of multiple rows being covered,
indeed it makes it more covered as it contains many covered entities.

It would be interesting trying to convert OSM into an unordered
collection of facts and then converting it back into a structured
database, in a clean room type operation. You'd probably wind up with

Teleportation. ;-)

a public domain database in any jurisdiction without database rights
or sweat of the brow, and possibly also in any jurisdiction with
database rights but without sweat of the brow, if you can argue that
no single person or corporation was first to make the substantial
investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of
the contents required to obtain database rights. Notwithstanding the
ODbL, of course, since writing down what you want to be the
restrictions on a database does not amount to creating a law allowing
you to put such restrictions on that database. (You can only bind by
contract people who want to be bound by contract.)

(*) I guess because it was adapted under the premise that OSM was an
uncopyrightable collection of facts.

I was recently reminded of this blog post that explains more generally
why the DbCL (or FIL as it was called at the time) is needed:

http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/2007/09/open-data-commons-contracts-and-factual-information/

If such a database were released with DbCL 1.0 for the individual
contents of the database, would the way be DbCL, or would it be ODbL?

The way would be DbCL, and use of it would be covered by the ODbL or not
like the rest of the database.

That's not the way licenses work, though. If something is covered by
two licenses, you can apply *either* license, you don't have to apply
both.

Your examples of various kinds of potentially copyrightable Ways show
why the DbCL is a pre-requisite for OSM applying the ODbL. And the ODbL
applies to the combined DbCL work collected by OSM. So both licences
certainly apply.

I guess that's one part I don't get. Because if you had to apply
*both* licenses, it makes sense. But if you can apply *either*
license, it doesn't.

You have to apply both. Or, rather, the DbCL has to be applied so that
OSM can then apply the ODbL to the results. I think. In any case, the
DbCL is what allows BY-SA Produced Works to be created.

That said, I guess the answer is that the individual in individual
contents is *meant*

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?


On 09/03/2010 03:05 AM, Anthony wrote:

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org  wrote:

So when you extract the data, you have not extracted
anything that is covered by BY-SA. Any database you create as a result is
therefore not covered by BY-SA, so the ODbL applies without clashing. And
the user knows this because of the ODbL advertisement attached to the BY-SA
work.


Why does the ODbL apply?  Maybe in a state with database rights laws,
but in a state without database rights laws, if the data isn't covered
by BY-SA (and therefore copyright law), it wouldn't be covered by ODbL
either.


If it is possible for the data, or the database, to be covered by 
copyright law then teleporting it doesn't strip that copyright. The 
copyright provisions of the ODbL therefore still apply after you 
teleport it.



Which will be interesting when someone releases the entire database as
an SVG file.


Do you mean that they distribute a database as an SVG file in some way, 
or that they render the database as a map in an SVG file?


In the former case the database is a database, and it's covered directly 
by the ODbL.


In the latter, the map is a map and it's a produced work, so it can be 
covered by whichever licence you like but must advertise the 
availability of the ODbL database that it was produced from.


In neither case is there a problem. I would refer you back to the 
examples I gave of different kinds of copyrightable and uncopyrightable 
works being represented as software and data.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 On 09/03/2010 03:05 AM, Anthony wrote:

 On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org  wrote:

 So when you extract the data, you have not extracted
 anything that is covered by BY-SA. Any database you create as a result is
 therefore not covered by BY-SA, so the ODbL applies without clashing. And
 the user knows this because of the ODbL advertisement attached to the
 BY-SA
 work.

 Why does the ODbL apply?  Maybe in a state with database rights laws,
 but in a state without database rights laws, if the data isn't covered
 by BY-SA (and therefore copyright law), it wouldn't be covered by ODbL
 either.

 If it is possible for the data, or the database, to be covered by copyright
 law then teleporting it doesn't strip that copyright. The copyright
 provisions of the ODbL therefore still apply after you teleport it.

And the provisions of CC-BY-SA would apply as well.  Unless you're
talking about a CC-BY-SA produced work created solely from an ODbL
database, anyway.

 Which will be interesting when someone releases the entire database as
 an SVG file.

 Do you mean that they distribute a database as an SVG file in some way, or
 that they render the database as a map in an SVG file?

I'm not sure what the difference is.  The latter describes how you
accomplish the former.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 On 09/03/2010 02:58 PM, Anthony wrote:]
 Unless you're
 talking about a CC-BY-SA produced work created solely from an ODbL
 database, anyway.

 See thread title. ;-)

Okay...Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a
BY-SA Produced Work?

Doesn't this include a BY-SA Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA
and ODbL data?

The interesting part of the question is whether or not it's allowed to
create a BY-SA Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA and ODbL
data, and if so, whether that makes the ODbL data BY-SA.

 Which will be interesting when someone releases the entire database as
 an SVG file.

 Do you mean that they distribute a database as an SVG file in some way,
 or
 that they render the database as a map in an SVG file?

 I'm not sure what the difference is.

 In the former, the contents of the SVG file would be a database and would be
 a Covered Database under the ODbL. In the latter it would be a piece of
 cartography or graphic design and so would be a Produced Work under the
 ODbL.

 The ODbL can tell the difference.

 The latter describes how you accomplish the former.

 It does not. The latter describes how you distribute a Produced Work, the
 former describes how you distribute a Covered Database.

Ah, if you meant Covered Database you shouldn't have said database
:).  Produced Work and Covered Database are mutually exclusive.
Produced Work and database are not.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 The interesting part of the question is whether or not it's allowed to
 create a BY-SA Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA and ODbL
 data, and if so, whether that makes the ODbL data BY-SA.

The answer from ODC seems to be that yes, you can create a BY-SA
Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA and ODbL data, and that it
doesn't make the ODbL data BY-SA, because the data is not a creative
work (and therefore can't be copyrighted).

This is actually quite a brilliant analysis.  But it means, in
non-database-rights jurisdictions, that the extracted data isn't ODbL
either (unless you were dumb enough to agree to the ODbL, anyway).

Now I see why Frederik likes the ODbL so much.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?


On 09/03/2010 03:52 PM, Anthony wrote:


The interesting part of the question is whether or not it's allowed to
create a BY-SA Produced Work which is a mash-up of BY-SA and ODbL
data, and if so, whether that makes the ODbL data BY-SA.


That's a different question, to which the answer is no. Quoting an 
all-rights-reserved text in a BY-SA article doesn't make the ARR text 
BY-SA either. BY-SA doesn't cover what it can't cover.



Ah, if you meant Covered Database you shouldn't have said database
:).  Produced Work and Covered Database are mutually exclusive.
Produced Work and database are not.


A Derivative Database is not a Produced Work. And map and database 
are mutually exclusive practically and legally speaking. The ODbL has 
the ability to recognise these differences.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?


On 09/03/2010 03:58 PM, Anthony wrote:

But it means, in
non-database-rights jurisdictions, that the extracted data isn't ODbL
either (unless you were dumb enough to agree to the ODbL, anyway).


It does not mean that at all. If the extracted data is Substantial 
enough to be covered by copyright on the database, the ODbL applies and 
it is a Derivative Database.


(I should add to all of these comments that IANAL, TINLA, etc.)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?


On 09/03/2010 03:04 PM, Anthony wrote:


Also complicating matters is that the individual data are released
under DbCL.  It's not really clear what that means in a jurisdiction
which doesn't have a database right,


The rights on the database are not the same as the rights on the 
contents of the database. That's why the DbCL exists.



but it's hard to see how you can
protect an unordered (or trivially ordered) collection of data which
individually are DbCL.


  

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?


On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org  wrote:

The rights on the database are not the same as the rights on the contents of
the database. That's why the DbCL exists.


but it's hard to see how you can
protect an unordered (or trivially ordered) collection of data which
individually are DbCL.


 


But the extract is not the database.  It may be *a* database, but it's
not *the* database that's protected by ODbL.


Then if it contains a Substantial portion of the Database its *a* 
Derivative Database. (Capitalised words refer to ODbL term definitions.)


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:
 But the extract is not the database.  It may be *a* database, but it's
 not *the* database that's protected by ODbL.

 Then if it contains a Substantial portion of the Database its *a* Derivative
 Database. (Capitalised words refer to ODbL term definitions.)

ODbL term definitions only matter if the extract is protected by law.

I can't write a license which says you can't copy a substantial
portion of my phone book white pages and then expect to enforce it on
people who haven't agreed to those terms.  Not in a
non-database-rights and non-sweat-of-the-brow jurisdiction, anyway.

Whether or not the database is a Derivative Database only matters if
the database is a derivative database.  And if you haven't copied any
of the copyrightable portions of the original database, it isn't.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?


On 09/03/2010 05:50 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Rob Myersr...@robmyers.org  wrote:

On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:

But the extract is not the database.  It may be *a* database, but it's
not *the* database that's protected by ODbL.


Then if it contains a Substantial portion of the Database its *a* Derivative
Database. (Capitalised words refer to ODbL term definitions.)


ODbL term definitions only matter if the extract is protected by law.


Well yes but then that's true of BY-SA as well, and BY-SA avails itself 
of less of the law.



I can't write a license which says you can't copy a substantial
portion of my phone book white pages and then expect to enforce it on
people who haven't agreed to those terms.  Not in a
non-database-rights and non-sweat-of-the-brow jurisdiction, anyway.


In those jurisdictions BY-SA will not cover extracted facts either.


Whether or not the database is a Derivative Database only matters if
the database is a derivative database.  And if you haven't copied any
of the copyrightable portions of the original database, it isn't.


A Derivative Database will be covered by copyright/database 
right/contract law to the extent possible. BY-SA has 33% of that 
coverage at most.


So I'm not really clear about what the problem is meant to be.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
 In those jurisdictions BY-SA will not cover extracted facts either.

Agreed.  All I'm saying is that ODbL appears to be equivalent to BY-SA
in this sense, not that it covers less (though, the DbCL stuff might,
see my next message).

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote:
AFAICT the DbCL reduces the effective copyright level of the contents of the
database to that of facts.

It's a great answer by Jordan Hatcher. It rests on the assumption
that OSM consists solely of factual data (or, at least, that any
extract from a Produced Work would consist solely of factual data).
But that's probably a good assumption in many cases (e.g. tracing
roads without copying the categorization of those roads).

Given the DbCL I'm not sure that the contents being non-factual would change
things. But if you are concerned about this you should ask on odc-discuss.

I guess. Although it's not really the ODbL that gets me confused but
the CT, where it says DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the
database.

Even more specifically, the individual contents. What constitutes
individual? A row in the database? Is a way an individual piece,
and if so, what does that mean (does an individual piece which is a
way mean just the ordered node references, or does it include the
lat/lons of the nodes which are referenced). Etc.

Clearly an individual way could, in theory (not in OSM practice), be
copyrightable
(http://thisworldisnotforsale.com/cgi-bin/james/040821_taking_Line_For_Walk/singleLineFaces400x331.jpg).
If such a database were released with DbCL 1.0 for the individual
contents of the database, would the way be DbCL, or would it be ODbL?
Would it make a difference if the way were split into 1,000 different
connected ways?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

2010-09-03 Thread Frederik Ramm


Hi,

Anthony wrote:

Ah, if you meant Covered Database you shouldn't have said database
:).  Produced Work and Covered Database are mutually exclusive.
Produced Work and database are not.


The ODbL itself does not draw a clear line between Covered Database and 
Produced Work. A common definition of the term database as given e.g. 
in the EU database directive would apply even to a PNG fie, whereas we 
clearly do not want a map tile to be considered a database. Then again a 
PNG that simply contains a coded version of the full database would 
certainly be a database as far as we're concerned.


This is something that we the project have to define, and the current 
suggestion of LWG is


If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is 
a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work.


See 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline.


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] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,

 Anthony wrote:

 Ah, if you meant Covered Database you shouldn't have said database
 :).  Produced Work and Covered Database are mutually exclusive.
 Produced Work and database are not.

 The ODbL itself does not draw a clear line between Covered Database and
 Produced Work. A common definition of the term database as given e.g. in
 the EU database directive would apply even to a PNG fie, whereas we clearly
 do not want a map tile to be considered a database.

Exactly.

 Then again a PNG that
 simply contains a coded version of the full database would certainly be a
 database as far as we're concerned.

Why would it matter?

 This is something that we the project have to define, and the current
 suggestion of LWG is

 If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a
 database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work.

 See
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline.

LOL, I hope you go with that definition.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

2010-09-03 Thread Frederik Ramm


Hi,

Anthony wrote:

Then again a PNG that
simply contains a coded version of the full database would certainly be a
database as far as we're concerned.


Why would it matter?


I think it is meant as an added safeguard against reverse engineering.

ODbL already says that if you extract the database from a Produced Work 
then what you get is an ODbL database, so even if someone encodes the 
full database into a PNG then releases that CC-BY, someone else who 
extracts the database doesn't gain anything (he doesn't suddently end up 
with a non-share-alike database). However it is even better if we have a 
theoretical means to stop people from distributing such special PNGs 
under CC-BY.



If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a
database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work.

See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline.


LOL, I hope you go with that definition.


Actually, I liked an earlier version better: If someone makes something 
from an ODbL dataset and declares it a Produced Work, then it is 
considered a Produced Work. - It is refreshingly simple and doesn't 
actually open any loopholes because even if you took the full DB and put 
the PostGIS dump on a CD declaring it a Produced Work, someone who used 
it would fall under the reverse engineering 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] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

 If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a
 database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work.

 See

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline.

 LOL, I hope you go with that definition.

 Actually, I liked an earlier version better: If someone makes something
 from an ODbL dataset and declares it a Produced Work, then it is considered
 a Produced Work. - It is refreshingly simple and doesn't actually open any
 loopholes because even if you took the full DB and put the PostGIS dump on a
 CD declaring it a Produced Work, someone who used it would fall under the
 reverse engineering clause.

Yes, the current version opens up far *more* loopholes.  Having a
Derivative Database treated as a Produced Work isn't the problem.
Having a Produced Work treated as a Derivative Database is.

Of course, I hope you go with the definition with the most loopholes.
I don't like ODbL.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?