[OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
I am trying to find a solution that will allow the UMP project in Poland to continue using OSM data and therefore reciprocally allow OSM to keep a large amount of data that went into making the initial road map of Poland and which is still there. The UMP project collects road routes within Poland and makes routable maps for Garmin devices publishes its data under CC-BY-SA. I hope that they will consider ODbL in the future, but that is their choice and I am sure that they will want to see how we fare first. From what I understand of how UMP uses OSM data, (which may not be 100% right yet), I have made the following draft statement. May I ask you: - as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make such a statement? - is it true? - can you see any negative consequences? The OSMF acknowledges the kind help of UMP project and its members in creating the OSM map of Poland. The OSMF acknowledges that the UMP project is similar in spirit; providing geodata that is free and open. Provided that UMP continues to publish its data under a free and open license, the OSMF is happy to allow UMP to use OSM data for verifying road routes within Poland. UMP may also provide a layer of non-highway data made from OSM data or OSM map-tiles within its Garmin maps; the OSMF believes that this is allowed by the basic ODbL license and that no special permission is required. (DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY!) The key line for me is the OSMF is happy to allow UMP to use OSM data for verifying road routes within Poland ... this is probably granting permission for something not completely within the ODbL. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Legally there's no downside for granting extra permissions. They are additive on top of whatever licence is used and don't damage anyone else's use of the data. However, it is not in the spirit of the community terms for OSMF to grant exemptions or extra permissions - particularly not if they are specific to one user, which looks like favouritism. So I suggest, firstly, any extra permission granted should be to everyone on equal terms or not at all; and secondly, if you believe that the permission notice is necessary as an addition to the ODbL (rather than just a clarification of what is already the legal situation) then its text needs to be approved by the OSMF board and a 2/3 vote of active contributors. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Hi, On 03/06/12 10:55, Michael Collinson wrote: The OSMF acknowledges the kind help of UMP project and its members in creating the OSM map of Poland. The OSMF acknowledges that the UMP project is similar in spirit; providing geodata that is free and open. Provided that UMP continues to publish its data under a free and open license, the OSMF is happy to allow UMP to use OSM data for verifying road routes within Poland. I don't think there is a process for granting special permissions to anyone; this could only work through a license change (where the new license is basically ODbL for everyone but for UMP the following extras are established...). The only way I can see this fly is for OSMF to publish their interpretation of ODbL that allows whatever UMP want to do. Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data (in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not create a derived database. (The database that contains the results of the analysis might be derived and have to released.) UMP may also provide a layer of non-highway data made from OSM data or OSM map-tiles within its Garmin maps; the OSMF believes that this is allowed by the basic ODbL license and that no special permission is required. Are Garmin maps databases or produced works? If they are databases then UMP would have to make sure that the ODbL licensed OSM layer is accessible separately and would have to make users aware that it is ODbL. If they are produced works, then UMP would have to make the derived non-highway database available under ODbL. If UMP were not willing or able to do that, and OSMF were intent on removing this burden from UMP, then OSMF could offer to publish a derived non-highway database themselves, which would lead to UMP only having to point to that database and say there's our source and it's ODbL. 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] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Is there a way to provide what UMP want by making a Produced Work (which could be public domain or CC) rather than a Derived Database? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Michael Collinson wrote: - as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make such a statement? - is it true? - can you see any negative consequences? I'm with Ed and Frederik on this one, I'm afraid - I don't see any way in which we can afford additional permissions on a one-off basis under ODbL+current CTs; nor do I think that we should do so except universally (i.e. to everyone, worldwide, not just to one project in one country). The question raised by Frederik is whether verifying their data against OSM data creates a derived work. As ever, ask in a different jurisdiction, get a different answer, but there is at least one case that suggests that it may (Singapore maybe?). If we were to say we don't think verifying data creates a derived work, would the great mass of OSM mappers be content to see Google (for example) use our effort to determine where new streets are; send the StreetView cars/satellites out; and have the new streets on Google Maps within a couple of days? I'm sure they wouldn't - indeed, I suspect many of those who've signed the CTs would feel cheated if they were told that it would permit this. So... sorry, but no, I don't think it'll work. :( cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Feedback-requested-OSM-Poland-data-tp5540425p5541176.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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Post-Changeover Attribution
On 06/03/12 18:07, Michael Collinson wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ/ODbL3a. I would like to use OpenStreetMap maps. How should I credit you? I recommend Map tiles copyright OpenStreetMap, licenced CC-BY-SA, as that works better with BY-SA's requirement of a copyright notice. Spelling out Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike v3.0 and adding years to each notice wouldn't hurt either. I also recommend using the *word* copyright rather than (c), as it is my understanding that the English word has international legal weight but the copyright symbol or its ASCII equivalent doesn't. For offline works, CC recommend this text (sorry for the url): https://creativecommons.org/choose/non-web-popup?q_1=2q_1=1field_commercial=yfield_derivatives=safield_jurisdiction=field_format=field_worktitle=field_attribute_to_name=field_attribute_to_url=field_sourceurl=field_morepermissionsurl=lang=en_GBn_questions=3 Other than that, the FAQ is excellent but I do obviously recommend getting someone who IAL to take a look at it. I know that adding endless boilerplate legal text is bad, but more legal text is better than more misunderstanding. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Post-Changeover Attribution
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 06/03/12 18:07, Michael Collinson wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ/ODbL 3a. I would like to use OpenStreetMap maps. How should I credit you? I recommend Map tiles copyright OpenStreetMap, licenced CC-BY-SA, as that works better with BY-SA's requirement of a copyright notice. BY-SA doesn't require a copyright notice. It requires keeping intact copyright notices that are provided, as well as license notice. Given that copyright is automatic, many licensors don't provide the former, though it may be useful to do so anyway for education. The notices provided by CC don't include an explicit copyright notice. Spelling out Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike v3.0 and adding years to each notice wouldn't hurt either. It seems to me space is at a premium in the corner of a map or a caption, and spelling out doesn't gain much, but that's just my opinion. Just as an experiment in brevity ©OpenStreetMap data ODbL[ tiles BY-SA] With OpenStreetMap, ODbL, and BY-SA linked to the obvious places, [] when tiles used. I also recommend using the *word* copyright rather than (c), as it is my understanding that the English word has international legal weight but the copyright symbol or its ASCII equivalent doesn't. That's the oddest thing I've read today. Really? For offline works, CC recommend this text (sorry for the url): https://creativecommons.org/choose/non-web-popup?q_1=2q_1=1field_commercial=yfield_derivatives=safield_jurisdiction=field_format=field_worktitle=field_attribute_to_name=field_attribute_to_url=field_sourceurl=field_morepermissionsurl=lang=en_GBn_questions=3 Nobody has ever sent a request for a copy of a license via post, AFAIK. :) But the full license URL should be provided, not www.creativecommons.org. Same is true of ODbL which says If hyperlinks are not possible, You should include the plain text of the required URI’s with the above notice. IANALetc Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Post-Changeover Attribution
On 06/03/12 20:30, Mike Linksvayer wrote: I also recommend using the *word* copyright rather than (c), as it is my understanding that the English word has international legal weight but the copyright symbol or its ASCII equivalent doesn't. That's the oddest thing I've read today. Really? Para 7 here, I may have been wrong about the copyright symbol: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html Grepping Berne for the word English doesn't immediately show anything germane to this however. For offline works, CC recommend this text (sorry for the url): https://creativecommons.org/choose/non-web-popup?q_1=2q_1=1field_commercial=yfield_derivatives=safield_jurisdiction=field_format=field_worktitle=field_attribute_to_name=field_attribute_to_url=field_sourceurl=field_morepermissionsurl=lang=en_GBn_questions=3 Nobody has ever sent a request for a copy of a license via post, AFAIK. :) Oh I'm disappointed now. :-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
Hi all, Could someone explain exactly what will be happening on April 1? Will we really be purging all data from decliners? And if so, is this not terrible timing, given the recent, high-profile signups of companies like foursquare? Given that many people are now actively remapping, is there any prospect of pushing back the cutover deadline? Is there any reason not to? Why do we want to reveal a map with huge holes in it to the world, rather than doing the remapping privately, to minimise disruption to data consumers? Steve (I previously asked a version of this question on talk). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
