Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using data from Ville de Montréal
The way I read that 4th clause, it should be enough to add *Contient des données reproduites, modifiées, traduites ou distribuées « telles quelles » avec la permission de la Ville de Montréal. **Ce produit contient des données accordées sous licence « telles quelles » aux termes de l’accord de licence d’utilisation des données de la Ville de Montréal. L’octroi de la licence ne constitue pas une approbation du produit par la Ville de Montréal. * *Openstreetmap contains data integrated with other data with permission from the city of Montreal. This agreement does not mean Openstreetmap is endorsed by the city of Montreal. Maybe you can come up with a better translation. I redacted it to the essence. (Fortunately I didn't end up with 'mostly harmless') to this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors Once you add that, send them a message asking whether this is enough for them in terms of attribution and if not, what would need to be changed. If it's not enough and they need to change the license before reuse in Openstreetmap becomes acceptable, you can remove it once again. Or you can send them a message asking how to phrase it before adding it to the wiki. What we do with data from Brussels is to add ref:UrbIS to each object, which will make it easier to compare future versions, keep them up to date and detect vandalism or editor's mistakes. We also add source=UrbIS as a tag on the changeset, but all that is for internal use. The text on * *http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors is the source reference for the public. Jo * 2013/6/6 Guillaume Pratte guilla...@guillaumepratte.net Hello, The Ville de Montréal has some interesting data available under their own licence: http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/licence/licence-texte-complet/ However clause 4 of the licence (attribution) is more restrictive than the terms of the ODbL, and thus the data cannot be used in OSM. Since this licence can and will change in the future (the city want to make it evolve to be on pair with other big North American cities), we would need a more permanent and explicit authorization from the city to use its data within OSM. Surely this situation is not the first of its kind to happen regarding OSM. Are there examples of how this was handled with other data sources? What would be the general guidelines to suggest to the city for such a legal document to authorize contributions of its data to OSM? Should the city somehow allow explicitly the relicensing of its data under the ODbL for the OpenSteetMap project? Thanks, Guillaume Pratte ___ 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Current status on UK Council footpath data
Hi, Just wondering what the current state of what we can do with the UK council footpath open data is? Generally I don't just copy the data into OSM anyway: it's more fun to survey :-) However I'm wondering whether we can do this? 1. Use the council data to verify whether a footpath surveyed by GPS is actually a public footpath, in cases when the waymarking is ambiguous and we think it's a right of way but may or may not be; 2. Removing the designation tag from a footpath surveyed from GPS before the council data was available. I've discovered that a path I surveyed in 2010 is not actually a right of way, according to Barry Cornelius' rownmaps.com. Thanks, Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Current status on UK Council footpath data
On 6 June 2013 08:11, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Just wondering what the current state of what we can do with the UK council footpath open data is? It will depend what data you are referring to. But the general rule will apply: you can only use data/information that is subject to someone else's copyright if you either have explicit permission to use it in OSM, or permission to use it under a license that's compatible with OSM's license. * In the case of current OS Landranger and Explorer maps showing Public Rights of Way, these are copyright Ordnance Survey. I'm not aware of OS giving any permissions to re-use these maps, and so are not usable in OSM. * In the case of the Definitive Maps maintained by each council, then these contain IP rights belonging to both the Council and Ordnance Survey. I'm not aware of OS giving any permissions to re-use these maps themselves. Hence they're not usable for OSM. * In the case of GIS data for PRoW routes derived from Definitive Maps, these also contain IP rights belonging to both the Council and Ordnance Survey. However, under the Public Sector Mapping Agreement, the councils can apply for permission from OS to release them under the OS OpenData License. However, there are question marks over whether this license is compatible with the ODbL+DbCL used by OSM. The most recent statement I'm aware of from OS maintains that their license is not compatible, and hence we shouldn't make use of this data in OSM (unless we can obtain separate explicit permission from both the council and OS). See http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-gis.html and http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html for more discussion. * In the case of the Definitive Statements that each council must maintain, OS has publicly stated that they don't claim any rights in them, so the only IP rights rest with the council. Hence if you can obtain permission from the Council (either explicitly for OSM, or under a suitable licence), then it is ok to use them for OSM. FOr some advice about how to obtain Defintiive Statements and ask for permission to use them in OSM, see http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-docs.html Having said that, while various sources listed above are not usable directly in OSM, there's nothing to stop you using such a source to look for discrepancies in the current OSM data, and then using that information to choose where to survey or search other sources for information that can be used for OSM mapping. However, doing this, you'd have to be careful that whatever you map in OSM comes only from the sources you can use, and isn't tainted by the sources that you can't. Hope that helps, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-GB] Current status on UK Council footpath data
Hi Jerry, On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:59:11 +0100, sk53.osm sk53@gmail.com wrote: ... One thing which concerns me is the 'private' release of Open Data. A number of counties have given ProW data to persistent pesterers (not meant perjoratively) apparently under a suitable license. I'd far rather see this published on the official websites of the Highway Authorities, not least because then one is reasonably sure that they have checked with OSGB re. OS data. ... I think you are asking a lot if individual contributors who are not lawyers should be expected to second guess councils and the licenses they choose to release data under. If an OSM contributor uses this data (either by contributing it to OSM or outside the project) in good faith and in accordance with the stated license then it is hard to see what the comeback could be either to OSM or to the individual. It may be the case that PRoW geometries include OS data but I don't see that this would apply to designations and prow refs that are surely owned and managed by the councils and therefore theirs to license how they see fit. Kevin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using data from Ville de Montréal
More specifically, I got advice from le...@osmfoundation.org stating that the licence was more restrictive than the ODbL, and thus could not be used as is. I am quite unsure if I should cite the email I received from them, but I will take the risk for the sake of the current discussion. I have been told, about the licence from Montréal, that the attribution requirements itself (Point 4) are more restrictive than those from ODbL. You should there approach the data owners and seek the permission. As I do not know exactly what is more restrictive in the licence than the ODbL, I am left to interpretation. That is why I am asking for help here. My best interpretation of the problem concerns points 4.2 and 4.3 (roughly translated here: see the original at http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/licence/licence-texte-complet/ ) : Point 4.2 - - - - - - - 4.2: If a Value Added Product contains Data [from the city], then you must include the following statement on this Product : This product contains data provided as is under license under the terms of the current agreement. The granting of this license does not mean an approbation of the product by the City of Montréal. The problem I see with this point is the definition of a Valud Added Product: 1.4: Value Added Product means any product, system, device, hardware or software made by you or for you in the exercise of your rights under the terms of the present agreement. My understanding is that the tiles generated by OpenStreetMap falls into this Value Added Product definition, and that to respect the license, the statement would have to be printed on the map. I am misreading the license? Also, there is point 4.3. Point 4.3 - - - - - - - 4.3 The following elements are forbidden from reproduction […] on any place: 4.3.1 [any official city symbol] 4.3.2 [any statement that would leave to interpretation that you have an exclusive distribution deal over the data or that you have had access to confidential data] Can this be respected through ODbL? Thanks, Guillaume Pratte Le 2013-06-06 à 02:54, Jo winfi...@gmail.com a écrit : The way I read that 4th clause, it should be enough to add Contient des données reproduites, modifiées, traduites ou distribuées « telles quelles » avec la permission de la Ville de Montréal. Ce produit contient des données accordées sous licence « telles quelles » aux termes de l’accord de licence d’utilisation des données de la Ville de Montréal. L’octroi de la licence ne constitue pas une approbation du produit par la Ville de Montréal. Openstreetmap contains data integrated with other data with permission from the city of Montreal. This agreement does not mean Openstreetmap is endorsed by the city of Montreal. Maybe you can come up with a better translation. I redacted it to the essence. (Fortunately I didn't end up with 'mostly harmless') to this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors Once you add that, send them a message asking whether this is enough for them in terms of attribution and if not, what would need to be changed. If it's not enough and they need to change the license before reuse in Openstreetmap becomes acceptable, you can remove it once again. Or you can send them a message asking how to phrase it before adding it to the wiki. What we do with data from Brussels is to add ref:UrbIS to each object, which will make it easier to compare future versions, keep them up to date and detect vandalism or editor's mistakes. We also add source=UrbIS as a tag on the changeset, but all that is for internal use. The text on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors is the source reference for the public. Jo 2013/6/6 Guillaume Pratte guilla...@guillaumepratte.net Hello, The Ville de Montréal has some interesting data available under their own licence: http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/licence/licence-texte-complet/ However clause 4 of the licence (attribution) is more restrictive than the terms of the ODbL, and thus the data cannot be used in OSM. Since this licence can and will change in the future (the city want to make it evolve to be on pair with other big North American cities), we would need a more permanent and explicit authorization from the city to use its data within OSM. Surely this situation is not the first of its kind to happen regarding OSM. Are there examples of how this was handled with other data sources? What would be the general guidelines to suggest to the city for such a legal document to authorize contributions of its data to OSM? Should the city somehow allow explicitly the relicensing of its data under the ODbL for the OpenSteetMap project? Thanks, Guillaume Pratte ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
With two State of the Map conferences coming up now and plenty of opportunities for face time, I'd like to restart our conversation around clarifying the ODbL's implications for geocoding and get to a result. Over here at MapBox we're hoping to use OpenStreetMap soon as much as possible for geocoding (right now we don't) and we'd like to do this on firm legal ground. I know that others have raised similar questions in the past [1]. To quickly recap: the ODbL is unclear on whether or not its share alike stipulations extend to a dataset that is geocoded by a geocoder that is powered by ODbL data. So, if I use Nominatim or MapQuest Open's geocoder and geocode my vacation trip, schools in Kenya or BestBuy's store fronts, would my vacation trip, schools in Kenya or BestBuy's store fronts need to be licensed under the ODbL? Over the past months, we've tried to get legal advice on this question. This is difficult as the lack of existing case law makes it hard to get official legal opinion on the document and the license is very complex. But here is what we have heard back informally: 1. Geocoding can be interpreted as Produced Work per the defintion of Produced Work in the ODbL [2]. 2. The ODbL is too vague in the definition of its terms, requiring additional clarifications by licensor. This is most importantly the case around the terms derivative database and what constitutes a substantial extraction of data [3]. This is the gist of two different opinions and obviously they are somewhat conflicting. (2) is particularly an issue as the publicized guidelines [4] do not include clarifications on Geocoding. To start this process at a concrete point, I'd like to suggest to adopt to following terminology as part of the Community Guidelines [4]: Geocoding Geocoding results in a Produced Work, as that term is defined in the ODbL. Section 4.5 provides that a Produced Work is not subject to the share-alike provisions of Section 4.4 of the ODbL. This would broadly clarify that databases geocoded with OSM data would not have to be licensed under ODbL, the share alike provisions would not apply. From a political standpoint, I think this is a key move for OpenStreetMap. The project needs a strong incentive to build up its most lacking asset - addressing. As long as it's not clear that addresses in OSM can actually be used reasonably this incentive will be missing. That's particularly an issue for businesses and organizations where buying whole sale into the ODbL is just not an option because of strategic considerations but much more often because of the complexity of ownership situations on typical databases. Further, ODbL is not just incompatible with less open licenses but also with more open licenses (e. g. public domain). For the upcoming State of the Map US I'd like to invite attendees to a Birds of a Feather round table to discuss these aspects. I'm particularly interested in finding out how we can take a decision on this question and update the community guideline accordingly over the next month to three months. I (and others?) will be posting summaries of the discussion here. Suggested date and time for the State of the Map US session: Saturday, June 8, 5PM Pacific - **look out for confirmation on the white board**. Please also post your comments here on the thread. Thank you, Alex [1] https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/14449/license-question-odbl-use-case [2] ODbL section 1.0 Produced Work – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database. http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ [3] “Substantial” – Means substantial in terms of quantity or quality or a combination of both. The repeated and systematic Extraction or Re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the Contents may amount to the Extraction or Re-utilisation of a Substantial part of the Contents. http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
