Simon et al - First of all, hello! I started a few months ago as in-house counsel at Mapbox. I come from the U.S. gov (FCC) where I did a lot of work, among other things, on opening FCC geodata to the public. I've had to focus on other things in my first few months, but am looking forward to finally being able to turn more of my attention to working with this group.
As Tom mentioned, several of us at Mapbox have been digging into the specifics of the Metadata guideline and I think something like this could be useful in clarifying and opening up important use cases. (This is true independently of the broader threads going on around geocoding.) I've offered specific suggestions below, with explanatory notes. Thanks for pushing this along Simon (and others), -Michael ----- > = Metadata Guideline = > == Background == > Many users of OpenStreetMap data are concerned about the share alike > implications of the ODbL when using OpenStreetMap derived data together with > proprietary data, even with such data that is clearly outside the scope of > the OpenStreetMap project. > This guideline attempts to better define usage of OpenStreetMap data that > the OSMF and the community views as acceptable without invoking the share > alike clauses of the ODbL. This does not imply, as with all community > guidelines, that this is the only legal way to do so, just legal usage we > consider in line with the goals of the project. > The ODbL defines two ways OpenStreetMap data can be utilized with third > party data: as part of a “Collective Database” or as a “Derivative > Database”. > Use in a “Collective Database” does not invoke share alike, the ODbL > requires that the individual component databases of the collective database > are “independent” however does not further define what that means. > ~~While it would seem to be simple to define “independent” as having no > ~~reference to OpenStreetMap data, every geographic dataset can be linked > ~~just by virtue of its location information and further it is a trivial > ~~exercise to link two datasets isolating OpenStreetMap derived data and > ~~references to the other dataset in just one of them, so that is likely not > ~~a useful criteria.~~ I'd recommend deleting the paragraph above: it's unnecessary and a bit confusing--the first two grafs amply explain why the guidance is needed. > == The Guideline == > A database containing one or more datasets derived from OpenStreetMap data > and other sources is considered an ODbL collective database if one of the > following conditions are fulfilled by the database elements from other > sources: > * the elements do not contain references to OpenStreetMap original or > derived elements > * the elements that contain references to OpenStreetMap elements do not > replace or modify existing attributes or geometry of the referenced > OpenStreetMap elements. > For the purpose of this guideline > * a reference can be a primary or composite database key or any other method > of identifying a specific OpenStreetMap derived element. > * adding additional attributes by means of such a reference is not > considered modifying the existing attributes of the referenced > OpenStreetMap element. > * referring from an OpenStreetMap derived element to an element from another > source in the database is considered equivalent to a reference in the other > direction. I'd add an additional bullet akin to the following: > * technical implementations that are functionally equivalent to a primary or > composite key reference but facilitate performance improvements -- for > example a join of tables by a primary ID for purposes of a production > database -- are equivalent to a reference. > == Examples == > The following examples will demonstrate this further. > === Examples of where you DO NOT need to share your non-OpenStreetMap data > * You collect restaurant reviews and reference the restaurants in your > database by OSM object id.__[^1]__ ~~(note this is technically > defective)~~. Your restaurant reviews are not subject to sharealike. As indicated above, I think it would be clearer to move the technical point to a footnote, where we'd briefly explain *why* it's technically defective to use OSM ID as a database key. > * You generate traffic data from in-car GPS information and use the location > information to identify roads in OSM to weight them differently in your > routing application. > ~~=== 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: This statement doesn't clearly flow from the ODbL under all circumstances. That would also be in line with the the stated intent in the opening of the guideline: describe "usage of OpenStreetMap data that the OSMF and the community views as acceptable without invoking the share alike clauses of the ODbL" without implying "that this is the only legal way to do so" I'd also add something like the following note to the end of the guideline, as described above: > __[^1]OSM IDs are not stable identifiers, so this is not a recommended > method of linking other data to OSM extracts.__ On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > I've added a clarification to the example in question as it is causing > some contention. > > Simon > > Am 22.09.2015 um 22:39 schrieb Simon Poole: > > > > Am 22.09.2015 um 22:14 schrieb alyssa wright: > >> What does this mean? "uses ratings from OSM " > >> > > Again: it is just a hypothetical example. > > > > Obviously using a real life use case and declaring that as > > non-conformant or whatever in a not yet agreed to guideline would not be > > sensible (just imagine the outrage). > > > > Not to mention the ability of the OSM community to dig out many years > > stale and obviously out of date wiki pages and to pretend that they are > > meaningful implies that anything that we put in writing is going to be > > quoted for the next couple of decades regardless of what guideline we > > end up with eventually. > > > > Simon > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > -- This is a private email. Please check with me before forwarding, as it may include information that's confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. If you feel like this email was sent to you by mistake, please delete it and let me know. Thanks!
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
