On Oct 23, 2012, at 5:44 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/23/12 01:24, Alex Barth wrote:
>> Say we clarified that geocoding a dataset with an OSM powered
>> geocoder (e. g. Nominatim) does not extend the ODbL license to such a
>> dataset. This clarification would not apply to the dataset that
>> actually powered the geo coder. So if I went and gathered improvement
>> suggestions of my users ("move the marker to the right position on
>> the map") and I added them into that OSM dataset that powers the
>> geocoder, this OSM dataset would still constitute a derivative DB.
>
> That much is clear + agreed, but there will likely be a good business case
> for gathering improvement suggestions from your users and *not* adding them
> to the OSM dataset that powers the geocoder.
>
> As I tried to say with the geocoder.ca example, even without actively
> involving the user - just recording what they typed - you can collect
> valuable information and improve your own geocoding database without
> necessarily adding the results to OSM; your collecting that information,
> however, can only start once you have a geocoder that basically works, i.e.
> OSM. So, for your particular use, the OSM geocoding capability is clearly
> essential - you could not start from nothing.
If I understand this case right, it wouldn't be governed by the ODbL at all
either way, strict interpretation of substantial or not. If I record my user's
corrections to my OSM powered geocoder's output and if I never add these
corrections to my geocoder's OSM database, there wouldn't ever be a derivative
database, hence the ODbL's share alike clause couldn't even begin to come into
effect. As long as I don't combine datasets into the same database, I'm fine.
In fact, there are such geocoders, for instance Carmen doesn't need to mix
datasets in order to leverage them all for a single query
https://github.com/mapbox/carmen.
Now, the story is different for the dataset I'm geocoding, of course the result
of a say, OSM+PD powered geocoder would continue to have the grey area
questions that I'd love to clear up...
>
> It is *possible* that something is essential and insubstantial at the same
> time, but it does sound a bit strange.
>
> Another question that we could ask to enlighten us is: What do commercial
> geocoding providers usually allow you to do once you have paid them? When you
> geocode a dataset with TomTom data and you pay them for that, do TomTom then
> still claim any rights about your resulting database, or do they say, like
> you sketched above, that "their license does not extend to the geocoded
> dataset"?
Interesting question. Not sure what the pricing is, but I'm sure you can get
commercial datasets for geocoding with no strings attached. Right now you can't
get a no-strings attached geocoding guarantee with OSM at all and that's what
I'm worried about.
>
> I think that nobody in OSM actually expects users to share their customer or
> patient record just because it has been geocoded with OSM. But there is
> likely an expectation that any data someone might have that can help to
> *improve* geocoding should be shared back.
>
> During the license change discussion, my position was often this: Instead of
> trying to codify everything in watertight legalese, let's just make the data
> PD and write a human-readable "moral contract" that lists things we *expect*
> users to do, but don't *enforce*. - Maybe the same can be done with
> geocoding; we could agree on making no legal request for opening up any
> geodata, but at the same time make it very clear that we would consider it
> shameful for someone to exploit this in order to build any kind of "improved
> geocoding" without sharing back.
I would welcome such an approach. Not sure about the shaming part, I like
encouragement better… In my life as an open source contributor I have never
seen good contributions coming from enforced rules, but from inspired and
driven community members - individuals, orgs, companies. Share alike has us
have these mind breaking conversations :)
>
> (In today's world, a press release that goes "The OSMF foundation regrets to
> see company X violating OSM's moral code by doing Y" can be more powerful
> than legal threats anyway.)
>
>> In my mind there's much to be gained by giving
>> better incentives to contribute to OSM by clarifying the geocoding
>> situation and little to be lost by allowing narrow extracts of OSM.
>
> The whole share-alike thing is about striking a balance between exposure
> (surely a public domain release would give us maximum exposure) and incentive
> to contribute back (the more open your license, the less you force people to
> contribute back).
Yes, yes, yes. And again, the contributions we're looking for are improvements
to the data. I truly believe that if we manage to clarify the geocoding
situation that we'll create a very important incentive for improving the map.
>
> Addresses seem to be a valuable part of OSM data. Could an extract of
> potentially millions of addresses really be "narrow"?
At the same time addresses are lagging in comparison to other data. Wouldn't we
create a strong incentive for adding more addresses by clarifying geocoding?
>
>> I
>> believe we can do this within the letter of the ODbL and within the
>> spirit of why the ODbL was adopted.
>
> I think that to preserve the spirit we would have to find a way of saying
> "you can use our data to geocode your patient database and we don't want any
> of your patient data in return" while at the same time saying "if you devise
> anything to improve this geocoding on your side, or have additional data that
> can help improving the geocoding, then that falls under ODbL". I don't know
> if this can be done within the wriggle room that ODbL affords us but it is
> worth a try.
Right, so your OSM-derived database that powers your geocoder is governed by
ODbL (just like any other derivative db's), but the database you're geocoding
isn't.
>
>> BTW, I don't want to know how many people out there have used
>> Nominatim for geocoding without having any idea...
>
> Any JSON or XML result from Nominatim contains the explicit "Data (c)
> OpenStreetMap contributors, ODbL 1.0" and even the URL of the copyright page.
Heh, should have looked better :)
> I'm sure people are using that without having any idea - but that's the same
> everywhere. I have personally spoken to lots of people who casually said
> things like "then we ran that through Google's geocoding..."; OSM has even
> been offered, on several occasions, "donated" POI data where it later turned
> out that they had not surveyed the POI locations but just ran their addresses
> by a commercial geocoder and disregarded the license restrictions.
>
> 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
Alex Barth
http://twitter.com/lxbarth
tel (+1) 202 250 3633
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
