Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing implications when extending POI with external metadata
Thank for clarifying Anthony. I apologize for the mistake. Not the best way to start posting in this forum. I'm actually aware that the current license is CC-BY-SA 2.0 and this was an unfortunate copy/paste mistake. I do believe that my original questions still stand, as both licenses have a share-alike requirement. Of all the license requirements, that's the one that concerns me most, as providing all of my business data under the CC-BY-SA 2.0 would not be viable. Here are some of the questions that pop to mind: - If a commercial application complements OSM POI data with user-provided data (example: display a OSM POI along with user-provided address, phone number, etc.), is that considered altering, transforming, or building upon OSM data? In that example, would I have to distribute my user-provided data under the CC-BY-SA 2.0 license? - What if I keep the OSM POI data in a separate database and only reference it, would that make a difference? - If I help the community by feeding some of my user-provided data back to OSM, would that make a difference? - If the OSM POI data is displayed together (i.e. in the same page or same screen or same map, etc.) with data and POIs from other sources, does the share-alike apply? Thanks, Joao On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Joao Neto joao.p.n...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm planning to develop an Android application that displays OpenStreetMap POIs near you and complements the OSM data with data coming from other sources (address, phone numbers, user notes, etc.). What are the license implications in doing that? Would I have to expose the combined data under the ODbL? OSM is not currently licensed under the ODbL. It is licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.0. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
Thanks for posting this Kai. Those comments from Creative Commons look promising. On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to link to a recent interesting article on the OSM licensing change on LWN (Linux Weekly News) as I haven't seen it be mentioned anywhere yet. http://lwn.net/Articles/422493/ It also has a 60 entry long comment section. Although much is a rehash of the the endless debates on OSMs own communication channels, there are also a set of comments by user mlinksva from Creative Commons (e.g. http://lwn.net/Articles/422754/) that seem to bring points to light that would suggest a possible, quite significant, change of attitude (or at least a perceived change) of CC towards open data licensing and OSM. I'll try and paraphrase some of the main points and hope I don't missrepresent anyone. - CC does not (no longer) think data should be PD and would be happy with copyleft on data. The statements of CC saying data should be PD were from science commons for scientific data only and was a misscommunication that it was perceived as general CC viewpoint - CC does care about data and either sees their licensing as potentially valid for data or intend to make it work for data - CC is (or will be) working on a new version 4 of their CC licenses, which will apparently make every effort to address the needs of the open data ecosystem What exactly this all means, if it is indeed a shift away from the position CC appears to have held previously, why it comes to light now and if it has any relevance to the license change process for OSM I have no idea. But perhaps we will find out more about this soon from CC as mlinksva mentioned he wanted to follow up on these points publicly. Their wiki page on version 4 ( http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_4 ) at least is still entirely empty. So it probably isn't anything around the corner or of any certainty yet. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/LWN-article-on-license-change-and-Creative-Commons-tp5945925p5945925.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On 21/01/11 00:02, Kai Krueger wrote: I'll try and paraphrase some of the main points and hope I don't missrepresent anyone. I am *very* glad that CC are now publicly acknowledging the harm that Science Commons has caused. I don't know how far CC can go with the 4.0 licences, but Mike's comment does appear to represent a major shift in thinking within CC. It's well worth reading his responses to follow up comments in full. And I look forward to the post he promises with great interest. :-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing implications when extending POI with external metadata
Hi, João, On Friday 21 January 2011 00:28:21 Joao Neto wrote: I'm planning to develop an Android application that displays OpenStreetMap POIs near you and complements the OSM data with data coming from other sources (address, phone numbers, user notes, etc.). What are the license implications in doing that? Would I have to expose the combined data under the ODbL? The general consensus is that *displaying* data (POIs, etc) on top of a OSM layer is not a derivative work, so the ODbL doesn't apply to that data. Just remember to mention attribution and where does each layer come from in your app's documentation. If you're keeping data apart, it'll be perfectly fine. Being able to switch OSM on and off would be very good. However, if you're mixing OSM POIs with some other POIs with no easy way to tell them apart, then ODbL would apply. I hope that clears it up a bit. Best, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es i...@geonerd.org Now listening to: Lindstrøm Prins Thomas - Chillout Sessions, Volume 5 (2008) - [8] Run (6:20) (0.00%) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
Kai Krueger kakrueger@... writes: It also has a 60 entry long comment section. Although much is a rehash of the the endless debates on OSMs own communication channels, there are also a set of comments by user mlinksva from Creative Commons (e.g. http://lwn.net/Articles/422754/) that seem to bring points to light that would suggest a possible, quite significant, change of attitude (or at least a perceived change) of CC towards open data licensing and OSM. I hope there is no turf war brewing between Creative Commons and Open Data Commons. -- Andrew ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Andrew wynnd...@lavabit.com wrote: I hope there is no turf war brewing between Creative Commons and Open Data Commons. I wouldn't know. On the other hand, Mike Linksvayer, from Creative Commons, joined the License Working Group conference call on 18 Jan 2011. The discussion was cordial. I found it interesting to hear the CC perspective on things. So I wouldn't say that a turf war is brewing between CC and OSM. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
I think there has been a bit of a crossed wire between 'scientific data' and 'anything which can be considered as data'. The position that scientific data sets should be placed in the public domain seems reasonable (IMHO) but it is not directly relevant to OSM because we are not a science project. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing implications when extending POI with external metadata
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Joao Neto joao.p.n...@gmail.com wrote: Great points Anthony. Thanks for sharing! To be honest I think the share-alike aspect of the license is too restrictive and working against the project. The most successful projects in the open source / community space all seem to have a very healthy balance between individual contribution and private contribution/investment. I think the share-alike requirement is killing the potential for growing a private ecosystem. In my opinion there aren't that many sustainable business models in this space where companies can freely share their data. If you do that, then eventually someone will copy your data and business model. With your differentiation factor gone, you'll be out of business pretty soon. I think the same could be said of Wikipedia, and in fact there are very few companies successfully making a business model out of taking Wikipedia content. Of course, that doesn't seem to be hurting Wikipedia, which is a project to create a free encyclopedia, not a project to help people make money off their non-free encyclopedias. Likewise, OSM is, or at least was, a project to make a free editable map of the world, not a project to help people make money off their non-free maps of the world. Unlike some in the OSM community I don't think there's anything wrong with you wanting to make a profit off your maps and/or map data. But I also don't think helping you do so is any part of the goal of the OSM project. Fortunately for you OSM is changing to a license which is much more favorable for exploitation by businesses. Ask this question again in a few months when and if the project has adopted the ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing implications when extending POI with external metadata
Hi Joao, On 21 January 2011 16:32, Joao Neto joao.p.n...@gmail.com wrote: Great points Anthony. Thanks for sharing! To be honest I think the share-alike aspect of the license is too restrictive and working against the project. The most successful projects in the open source / community space all seem to have a very healthy balance between individual contribution and private contribution/investment. I think the share-alike requirement is killing the potential for growing a private ecosystem. In my opinion there aren't that many sustainable business models in this space where companies can freely share their data. If you do that, then eventually someone will copy your data and business model. With your differentiation factor gone, you'll be out of business pretty soon. I'll investigate the possibility of building a business that generates significant contribution to OSM POI data, but I'm skeptical that it can be made profitable while sharing data with the competition. The hope here is that the availability of open data like that of OSM will change this view at one point and the business models will change. If your differentiation factor is data it'll probably be harder to stay on the market. But it'll be much easier to enter the market for those that make creative uses of data, which is what the contributors of a project like this will often want (what I want anyway) -- more creative uses, more new uses, more advanced technology, faster. If the underlying data can be crowdsourced fro free then, for me, there is no need for a company to exist that will do the same thing commercially and it's only better if the company directs efforts elsewhere. I see the situation as a little similar to when open-source software wasn't yet popular and people thought it was a funny idea that it would be exploitable commercially. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: I think there has been a bit of a crossed wire between 'scientific data' and 'anything which can be considered as data'. The position that scientific data sets should be placed in the public domain seems reasonable (IMHO) but it is not directly relevant to OSM because we are not a science project. Strongly agree. Whether started and/or spread by CC, OSM, both, or neither, there definitely seems to be a common misconception that OSM is simply a database of facts, and that therefore what's best for a database of facts is best for OSM. I'm thrilled to see that CC seems to be distancing itself from this position. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
