Re: [OSM-legal-talk] 'Contents'
Francis Davey fjmd1a@... writes: The ODbL definition of database implicitly contains a definition of contents, namely the things that are arranged in a systematic etc way. What the contents are will depend on the terms of OSMF's licence, I think the 'contents' must depend on the nature of the work being considered and not on the licence. For some works, such as a database of photographs, it is clear what is the 'contents' and what the database which contains them. I don't think that distinction is clear for the OSM map data, because the individual data items (such as latitude numbers, or names of things) are almost meaningless considered separately. So my question is really about how the law and the licence text apply to OSM in particular. The ODbL is a general-purpose licence for anything that may be considered a 'database' having 'contents'; the question is whether a given work can be considered in that framework. For a photo album, the answer is yes; for an individual photo, surely not (it would be stretching things to consider each square pixel as a separate item of 'contents'). The OSM map falls somewhere between these two extremes. The example you gave was that of the user diaries table, which contains prose written by OSM contributors. It would certainly be a good example of a split between database and contents. However, it's not in fact part of the map data which is proposed to be distributed under ODbL / DbCL. So, in the UK an entire table (and certainly the entire database), considered as a table, would attract database right and one or two forms of copyright (probably only the one, maybe none), but some of the data in the database might attract its own copyright. That copyright would not be licensed under ODbL which expressly does not deal with the licence terms of the contents of the database. This does make sense, but it makes it important to find out exactly what these 'contents' are. The ODbL text is no help because it is general-purpose and doesn't know about map-specific terms or OSM-specific data such as nodes and areas. Problem: what if I take a map and enter points on it into the OSM database? [...] However the map is not (as a map) contents of the database (in ODbL terms) because it is not individually accessible. Ah, so perhaps this is the test; if an object can be taken out individually then it is considered 'contents'. However, this is problematic; given the file of map data, whether something is individually accessible depends entirely on the computer program used to manipulate the file. At the extreme a whole city might be individually accessible through some interface. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] license for Wiki Loves Monuments
This september will be a relative large event from Wikimedia-side across europe: Wiki Loves Monuments. It is a public photo contest around monuments (overview of the cultural heritage, also small houses) and we will create lists of monuments in Wikipedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011 We (Wikipedia-people) will ask different official side for the object lists they have as starting point for us. This lists will contains a lot of objects (10.000) with adresses, descriptions, coordinates (with luck), year of build, architect, My question is now under which license or terms we should ask for these list so that they later reusable for OpenStreetMap. Would a CC-BY-SA ok or should it be ODBL? Greatings Tim alias Kolossos P.S: Are there other ideas to involve OSM in this project? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license for Wiki Loves Monuments
On 05/14/2011 06:01 PM, Mike Dupont wrote: Funny, based on my last question, the OSM will not be able to use cc-by-sa data in the future. Hence the question, I imagine. :-) PDDL/CC0 for the data would avoid this question, or dual-licencing ODbL/BY-SA might be good. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license for Wiki Loves Monuments
On 14 May 2011 18:49, Kolossos tim.al...@s2002.tu-chemnitz.de wrote: This september will be a relative large event from Wikimedia-side across europe: Wiki Loves Monuments. It is a public photo contest around monuments (overview of the cultural heritage, also small houses) and we will create lists of monuments in Wikipedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2011 We (Wikipedia-people) will ask different official side for the object lists they have as starting point for us. This lists will contains a lot of objects (10.000) with adresses, descriptions, coordinates (with luck), year of build, architect, My question is now under which license or terms we should ask for these list so that they later reusable for OpenStreetMap. Would a CC-BY-SA ok or should it be ODBL? One additional thing OSM asks is that the coordinates be derived from a free source and not Google Maps and the like. I'm just mentioning it because it's often a surprise for wikipedians who want to contribute to OSM something they previously made for wikipedia. We had a discussion about the Wiki Loves Monuments project on osm Polish forums in the context of collaboration between Wikimedia local chapter and the osm to-be local chapter, and this Google question came up again. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
