Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
+1 anyway I just wanted to make clear that our current data is submitted under CC-BY-SA (at least our community members declares so) but there is absolutely no prove that the data submitted can be CC-BY-SA. I just want to say that copyright is not just something you can declare or deny in ordinary mapmaking, let alone once is becomes a database and/or mixed with times. The discussions on this list become theoretically beyond a level an ordinary lawyer can understand, let-alone us. Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] Verzonden: zondag 19 juni 2011 6:59 Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap On 19 June 2011 03:40, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: What if Betty changes country and decides to reside in France -before- publicating her tiles on a server located in the Bahama's and claiming CC0 ;) It's silly because some people injected a silly argument into it, but it would seem that ODBL opens up some pretty big loop holes that CC-by-SA doesn't, and we've been told time after time about how much better it is, CC-by-SA is working just fine, but ODBL won't. ___ 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] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 19:55, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I just wanted to make clear that our current data is submitted under CC-BY-SA (at least our community members declares so) but there is absolutely no prove that the data submitted can be CC-BY-SA. Well the assumption is that the data can be licensed as CC0/PD or CC-by-SA etc, but your statements are more against the CT than relevant to ODBL... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 10:22, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: OK. So what I mean by some of the questions don't make sense is exactly this. I'm afraid you and lots of others who ask questions use a lot of short-hand (lawyers sometimes do this too). The problem is then I don't know what assumptions are built into that short-hand and what exactly you are trying to say. I think the question being asked arises from the following hypothetical chain of events: 1/ Person A has a database that he licenses under ODbL. 2/ Person B takes the database and creates a produced work from a derivative database. He complies with ODbL by releasing the derivative database under ODbL, and also licenses the produced work (eg map tiles) under either (i) PD/CC0 or (ii) CC-By. 3/ Person C takes the produced work under PD/CC0 or CC-By, and creates a derivative work from it by 'reverse engineering' the map tiles to recover (some of) the data in the original database. Since the produced work was licensed to him under (i) PD/CC0 or (ii) CC-By, he then is able to release the database under PD/CC0 or CC-By respectively. Now looking at this process, it seems to me that there are three possibilities: 1/ Everyone has fully met all their licensing obligations / agreements, and so this represents a loop-hole in ODbL; or 2/ Person B didn't actually have the ability to release the produced work under either PD/CC0 or CC-By, presumably because of the database rights contained in the data within them or something arising from the ODbL contract; or 3/ It's possible for some rights to be contained in a PD/CC0 or CC-By image that aren't under the PD/CC0 or CC-By license, thus limiting what you can do with the image in terms of reverse engineering the data behind it. Hence Person C is unable to release the results of the reverse engineering in the way suggested, despite the license on the image seeming to allow them to do this. Thinking of the example someone gave or the copyright in sound recordings being separate from the copyright in the music / lyrics, I'm guessing the answer is some sort of combination of 2 and 3; along the lines that person B needs to specify that while the images are under the license specified, the underlying data isn't. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 20:16, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: Thinking of the example someone gave or the copyright in sound recordings being separate from the copyright in the music / lyrics, I'm guessing the answer is some sort of combination of 2 and 3; along the lines that person B needs to specify that while the images are under the license specified, the underlying data isn't. You are correct up until the assumption is that person C doesn't have access to the original data, instead they are deriving data from the produced images. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution in future licenses, so that wouldn't be compatible with CC-by either... According to this recent post, LWG are saying that CC-By and CC-By-SA sources are both currently fine to use under the CTs: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 11:21, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 June 2011 20:16, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: Thinking of the example someone gave or the copyright in sound recordings being separate from the copyright in the music / lyrics, I'm guessing the answer is some sort of combination of 2 and 3; along the lines that person B needs to specify that while the images are under the license specified, the underlying data isn't. You are correct up until the assumption is that person C doesn't have access to the original data, instead they are deriving data from the produced images. While person C could indeed get access to the original data (which must be offered by B), in the hypothetical situation I envisaged, they choose not to do so. They obtain the produced work under PD/CC0 or CC-By without seeing the database it was produced from or agreeing to the ODbL. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution in future licenses, so that wouldn't be compatible with CC-by either... According to this recent post, LWG are saying that CC-By and CC-By-SA sources are both currently fine to use under the CTs: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html Since CC-by and CC-by-SA both require attribution than the CTs would have guarantee attribution, yet ODBL allows people to output PD tiles, which don't offer attribution. So for the above statement to be true they'd have to enforce attribution on produced works at the very least. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 20:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: While person C could indeed get access to the original data (which must be offered by B), in the hypothetical situation I envisaged, they choose not to do so. They obtain the produced work under PD/CC0 or CC-By without seeing the database it was produced from or agreeing to the ODbL. Doesn't hosting/offering the DB only come into play if they make changes to the data? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 12:31, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 June 2011 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution in future licenses, so that wouldn't be compatible with CC-by either... According to this recent post, LWG are saying that CC-By and CC-By-SA sources are both currently fine to use under the CTs: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html Since CC-by and CC-by-SA both require attribution than the CTs would have guarantee attribution, yet ODBL allows people to output PD tiles, which don't offer attribution. So for the above statement to be true they'd have to enforce attribution on produced works at the very least. I think what Robert is trying to say is that you only have to check for compatibility with the current license. But the current license is CC-By-SA, so CC-By-SA data would be okay. But this is quite confusing, I'm not sure if Robert is right and Mike Collinson's e-mail makes it even more difficult to interpret the Contributor Terms becuase it seems to say: contributed data needs to be ODbL compatible but doesn't need to be strictly compatible with all the possible future free and open licenses But I see only two possible interpretations of the Contributor Terms: * contributed data needs to be compatible with the *current* license or * contributed data needs to be compatible with CC-By-SA, ODbL 1.0+DbCL and any future free and open license with no midway point. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 23:20, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: I think what Robert is trying to say is that you only have to check for compatibility with the current license. But the current license is CC-By-SA, so CC-By-SA data would be okay. Since things seem to be going head first towards ODBL shouldn't that license also be considered when advising people about compatibility with the CT, otherwise it could be seen as very misleading and/or deceitful if they have full knowledge that it could mislead people. The ODBL and CT are being sold as a package deal, so that's how things should always be treated. with no midway point. Even with the current wording in the CT there is no guarantee that future license changes would definitely remove any data not compatible, so there and then that should be a show stopper over compatibility, the CT simply isn't compatible with any CC license other than CC0. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
I forgot to ask, do SVG files constitute a produced work? The kind OSM.org currently outputs as SVG maps. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 20 June 2011 00:53, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 19 June 2011 12:31, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: yet ODBL allows people to output PD tiles, which don't offer attribution. The ODbL requires attribution of the database. The database can contain other attribution. Have you forgotten the PD tiles thread that you and I participated in on this list? Here's a reminder: The problem is I keep getting conflicting information and being told it's possible to put tiles under any license, including CC0/PD. So you are saying that CC-by, or equivalent license, is the minimum compatible with the ODBL? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 20 June 2011 00:55, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely difficult for them to argue that is a produced work and not a database. That's assuming a single party acting on bad faith, 2 independent parties operating independently would be able to claim otherwise. There is a simple guideline on the wiki: (from 2009) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. No. See above. You are assuming that a single party or both parties involved are operating under bad faith, in all likelihood there could be a range of places to source data from, even OSM.org for that matter, with a secondary party operating in the US. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] section 4.6 of ODbL was [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
- Original Message - From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 11:33 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap On 19 June 2011 20:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: While person C could indeed get access to the original data (which must be offered by B), in the hypothetical situation I envisaged, they choose not to do so. They obtain the produced work under PD/CC0 or CC-By without seeing the database it was produced from or agreeing to the ODbL. Doesn't hosting/offering the DB only come into play if they make changes to the data? From reading section 4.6 of ODbL[1] my understanding is no. There is no mention of it only applying if you change the data, the requirement seems to hold whenever You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, However, the more I think about it, the more insane the above seems to be, so I'm sure it cant be true, and someone will point out something which overrides section 4.6 David [1] http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] section 4.6 of ODbL was [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Hi, David Groom wrote: From reading section 4.6 of ODbL[1] my understanding is no. There is no mention of it only applying if you change the data, the requirement seems to hold whenever You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, However, the more I think about it, the more insane the above seems to be, so I'm sure it cant be true, and someone will point out something which overrides section 4.6 There's nothing I know that overrides section 4.6; however it is mellowed by two things: 1. You only have to supply something on demand, i.e. you can wait for someone to send you an email asking for the data. 2. Remembering that the Database is not, as a computer geek might think, the exact snapshot of data at a certain time, but may be the general concept of the OpenStreetMap Database; 4.6b says it is enough to hand out the method that makes up the difference beetween your database and the original one, so in effect if someone ever asks you can email them the osm2pgsql source code and say: run this on the OSM planet file and then you have my database. You are certainly not required to make available a historic snapshot of OSM just because you have a historic tile on your server. See also the work-in-progress page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_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] section 4.6 of ODbL was [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
- Original Message - From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 10:57 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] section 4.6 of ODbL was [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap Hi, David Groom wrote: From reading section 4.6 of ODbL[1] my understanding is no. There is no mention of it only applying if you change the data, the requirement seems to hold whenever You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, However, the more I think about it, the more insane the above seems to be, so I'm sure it cant be true, and someone will point out something which overrides section 4.6 There's nothing I know that overrides section 4.6; however it is mellowed by two things: 1. You only have to supply something on demand, i.e. you can wait for someone to send you an email asking for the data. 2. Remembering that the Database is not, as a computer geek might think, the exact snapshot of data at a certain time, but may be the general concept of the OpenStreetMap Database; 4.6b says it is enough to hand out the method that makes up the difference beetween your database and the original one, so in effect if someone ever asks you can email them the osm2pgsql source code and say: run this on the OSM planet file and then you have my database. You are certainly not required to make available a historic snapshot of OSM just because you have a historic tile on your server. Frederik, if what you say is true, that is indeed good news. In my naivety I had assumed that the actual derived database that you were required to produce( or the file containing all of the alterations made to the ,or the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm), including any additional Contents, that make up all the differences between the Database and the Derivative Database) was the one that had been used to produce the produced work. I hadn't realised that any copy of the OSM database, even if that copy could not itself be used to produce the produced work, would suffice. David See also the work-in-progress page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
