[OSM-legal-talk] Re-using ODbL for other, similiar project?
Hi folks, this is my first post on this list, so kindly excuse if my questions are misplaced or have been answered before. I am working on a project similar to OSM: The objective is to provide a free database with basic geospatial and meta data of airfields (coordinates, height, runway info, and radio frequency). I am thinking about a good license for that database and I found ODbL. Question 1: May I copy and re-use the ODbL text for my project? Is the license itself free? Actually I inherited the database after the creator passed away some time ago. Back then he told me that all data in that database is either from free sources or had been collected by contributors. However, he neither had/demanded something like ODbL's Terms of Contribution nor archived the cotribution postings. So I have no objective evidence for the data source. Question 2: Under those circumstances, would you recommend not to add the data to OSM? Thanks a lot for your help, Willy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Re-using ODbL for other, similiar project?
Willy willy@... writes: Question 1: May I copy and re-use the ODbL text for my project? Is the license itself free? Yes, I believe so, although I do not see an explicit statement on http://www.opendatacommons.org/ or in the licence text. Actually I inherited the database after the creator passed away some time ago. Back then he told me that all data in that database is either from free sources or had been collected by contributors. However, he neither had/demanded something like ODbL's Terms of Contribution nor archived the cotribution postings. So I have no objective evidence for the data source. I don't believe the ODbL has any 'terms of contribution'. Those are a separate idea thought up by the OSM project. But yes, in general it would be a good idea to check that you have permission to release your project under this licence. Question 2: Under those circumstances, would you recommend not to add the data to OSM? That's not really a legal question but an organizational one. Note, however, that just releasing your project under ODbL might not be enough to allow its incorporation into the OSM project, which has its own set of contributor terms. You might also consider releasing as public domain. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ 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 21 June 2011 05:46, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Hang on, here's Nearmap's statement: All such additions or edits submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time. And here's Nick's interpretation: Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF) chooses at any time. OpenStreetMap.org has had Contributor Terms for at least the last 5 years. See the CTs history here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/History / Grant ___ 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
[Sorry to quote so much context - please do scroll down!) On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:16:03AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: 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 [...] 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. [...] I think it's worth re-iterating the point made earlier: If Person A has publically expressed their desire that the database and copies of it remain under ODbL, and Person C is aware of this, then Person C needs to get their own legal advice. Person A, if asked about the possible loophole, should just repeat that their intention is that copies of the database should only be available under ODbL. Person A also should do as much as they can to make sure any potential Person C is aware of the intention. In the case of OSM, it helps that it's the largest open map data project - it's likely anyone thinking of creating a map data from tiles they somehow got hold of from Person B would investigate and discover OSM exists. s ___ 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 21 June 2011 23:31, Stephen Gower socks-openstreetmap@earth.li wrote: [Sorry to quote so much context - please do scroll down!) On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:16:03AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: 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 [...] 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. [...] I think it's worth re-iterating the point made earlier: If Person A has publically expressed their desire that the database and copies of it remain under ODbL, and Person C is aware of this, then Person C needs to get their own legal advice. Person A, if asked about the possible loophole, should just repeat that their intention is that copies of the database should only be available under ODbL. Person A also should do as much as they can to make sure any potential Person C is aware of the intention. In the case of OSM, it helps that it's the largest open map data project - it's likely anyone thinking of creating a map data from tiles they somehow got hold of from Person B would investigate and discover OSM exists. I don't think intent alone is enough, if the intent is to limit derivative copies you need to stipulate that in your license to B, otherwise you know that C is able to do what ever he likes based on the license between B and C. ___ 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 Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:57 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: Person A also should do as much as they can to make sure any potential Person C is aware of the intention. In the case of OSM, it helps that it's the largest open map data project - it's likely anyone thinking of creating a map data from tiles they somehow got hold of from Person B would investigate and discover OSM exists. I don't think intent alone is enough, if the intent is to limit derivative copies you need to stipulate that in your license to B, otherwise you know that C is able to do what ever he likes based on the license between B and C. I wanted to stay out of this endless discussion, but let me point out the simple fact that copyleft is designed to solve this problem. When you get a copy of the data, you get the intended license and done need a contract. It is pretty simple and it has been tested in court via the gpl. mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
