Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution
Am 06.05.2014 21:40, schrieb Rob Myers: On 05/05/14 09:16 AM, Simon Poole wrote: We have raised the question of Dynamic Data in a dedicated guideline given that a number of things are not so clear and even while, using the example from the guideline, the occupancy of a parking lot is an observable fact it is questionable if we would want to require that anybody that creates such or similar application has to provide a real time feed of the data on ODbL terms. If a loophole for this case is inserted, expect to see a sudden increase in realtime (and realtime) generation of data. ;-) I hope we (as in the LWG) are not creating the impression that we are trying to assemble as many loop holes as possible, it is more identifying some of the edge cases and trying to document the community consensus on the interpretation. In the case at hand we are simply saying: here is a potential use case that is in a grey area, what do you think? In the case of the parking lot occupancy, dynamic data case: assume we have a proprietary source for that data. The owner of the data will already know which parking lot and where it is by some means, the dataset would clearly have value on its own. One way to combine the data in a useful way would be an app that routes you to the nearest parking lot that still has space (underlying assumption is that the app some kind of live feed of the occupancy data). Does this trigger SA? Does it depend on the internals of the app? Does it depend on how the match OSM parking lot id - proprietary parking lot id is done? Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution
On 07/05/2014 08:20, Simon Poole wrote: [..] Does it depend on how the match OSM parking lot id - proprietary parking lot id is done ? In this thread, we have seen a few mentions of the implementation as the ultimate factor in discriminating the resulting database between derivative and collective. Isn't that going to result in hypocritical implementations exploiting the letter of the license but not its spirit ? Shouldn't the decision be taken by looking at the data itself and how it combines at a functional level ? For example, would asking whether the external dataset can stand on its own be a relevant question in clarifying a situation ? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: I hope we (as in the LWG) are not creating the impression that we are trying to assemble as many loop holes as possible, it is more identifying some of the edge cases and trying to document the community consensus on the interpretation. In the case at hand we are simply saying: here is a potential use case that is in a grey area, what do you think? It is difficult to provide clarity and consistency/reliability without also introducing loopholes. Richard Fontana (co-author of GPL v3) has written about this issue in the software copyleft context here: https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/copyleft-next/2013-April/000639.html Richard's email may be useful reading for folks thinking about how OSM should approach this very difficult problem. Short version: balancing between clarity and loopholes is a well-known problem for lawyers (sometimes called the rules/standards problem), and there is no good answer when trying to write general-purpose legal documents, like laws, constitutions, or copyleft licenses :) I would suggest that OSM is better off creating some clarity (and thereby encouraging more contributions) and risking some loopholes, since the people interested in the loopholes are likely to not contribute back anyway. But that is a judgment call and there is no 100% right answer. Luis -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.* ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines (was Re: Attribution)
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: We also have a number of issues that are very immature in terms of constructing a useful guideline. What we have been lacking, with some notable exceptions, is data users prepared to give a real use case that they can share in a reasonable level of detail. Being able to deal with concrete rather than myriad hypothetical cases makes progress much faster. If you are user or potential user of OSM data, do share real-world issues here. Or, contact us at le...@osmfoundation.org. We can handle commercial-in-confidence provided that the end result is shareable publicly and applies to all equally within the parameters of our license. I would suggest that writing down and working through even basic, non-detailed use cases would likely help clarify a lot of the Guidelines. Even if all they do is result in saying it depends, explaining what it depends on can be helpful to everyone. For example, to kickstart the geocoding Guideline, it would probably be great to start with some of the basic examples/use cases from the mailing list discussion last year: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2013-June/007553.htmland https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2013-June/007554.html Which isn't to say that people shouldn't describe detailed use cases :) Just that a lot of progress could be made by walking through more basic ones as well. Luis -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.* ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
