Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: For corporations its most of the time easier to spend 500K€ on a commercial dataset than to spend 5k€ on a Lawyer analyzing a licensing issue. If we add up the cost of all the time company representatives have spent trying to get OSM to change its licensing *a second time*, it would have been a lot cheaper for them to get together and just hire a lawyer who knew what they were doing. 1. I wish this was true. 2. I wish you described the problem. There's a brake on adoption we put on OpenStreetMap by way of share alike for no tangible benefit. This is not just about shaping the OSM license to taste for certain 'company representatives' but about the overall growth potential of the project which is limited by its applications. All we have in favor of share alike is fear, and the fact that we've used it so far. We have no significant third party ODbL data releases due to OSM share alike to show for, but clear reasons and examples of people walking away from the project because of share alike. I've stated this argument before and I do understand that for many in the community share alike represents an important protection for the project. I don't follow this sentiment at all because of all the reasons Florian laid out in his response [1]. But I do understand the desire for a strong, lasting and independent OpenStreetMap. Maybe there's a way to think outside of the box of a license and come up with guarantees or principles the OpenStreetMap project would want to have to protect its interests. Thinking out loud. [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-October/008025.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-29 20:56 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com: Updated: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License%2FGeocoding_-_Guidelinediff=1102233oldid=1076215 wouldn't it make more sense to come to a conclusion here before updating the wiki? Hey Martin - the change you link to was to replace the term 'geocode' with the more common 'geocoding result' - do you have a specific concern with it? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk wrote: 4.4.c. Derivative Databases and Produced Works. A Derivative Database is Publicly Used and so must comply with Section 4.4. if a Produced Work created from the Derivative Database is Publicly Used. which say, that it does not matter whether you declare geocodes produced work or derivative db. if this didn't exist, i could declare anything a produced work (things like any enhanced database) and the whold odbl would not exists. Right, if your geocoding service is Public in the sense of the ODbL and it uses an ODbL Derivative Database to look up geocoding results, the Derivative Database must be disclosed per 4.4. Per 4.4 c this is the case for both current interpretations on the guidelines. The disclosure stipulations set forth in 4.6 apply. Right now, the geocoding guidelines don't talk about the database a geocoder uses to look up results though, they only talk about the database geocoding results are stored in. This could change. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
I have two questions on the Collective DB alternative: The derivative database consists of the data that has been used as the input data for the geocoding process, as well as the data that has been gained from OpenStreetMap in the process. Any additional data that may be linked to this data, even sitting in the same logical database table, is however not considered to be part of the derivative database (instead it forms a collective database together with the derivative database) and therefore, does not have to be shared under the ODbL. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline#.22Collective_Database.22_alternative 1. Why is the input data part of the Derivative Database? 2. This language is not explicit about Geocoding Results from other databases that are stored in the same database. Would they be part of the Derivative Database? An example to clarify my question in (2): Say I have a database of Starbucks locations with addresses. I use OpenStreetMap to geocode all addresses and store geocoding results (lat lon pairs) from OpenStreetMap next to my existing records. A handful of addresses failed to properly geocode so I use a geocoder with proprietary data to backfill the results. What specifically constitutes the Derivative Database here? A) the input data + records I copied from OpenStreetMap B) A + any additions of the same kind of Content, aka the lat lon pairs I added from the proprietary geocoder On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Rob, On 08/21/2014 06:42 PM, Rob Myers wrote: It would be great if people would help fill in the blanks, or correct me where I might have misrepresented the discussion. The page asserts: Geocodes are a Produced Work [...] The rest of the page then silently slips [...] I have tried to present the two different viewpoints in two columns. On the left is Alex' original version which claims what you summarized in your message (that geocodes are produced works etc.); on the right is a version that explicitly claims A database of Geocodes is a derivative database by the definition of the ODbL - which seems to be exactly the statement that you were aiming at, no? The blanks that need filling are the consequences of this different interpreatation for the various use cases. I added one for use case #1, but only an empty column for use cases #2-#4 and #7. I added no extra column for #5 and #6 because those struck me as identical under both interpretations but of course I might be wrong. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Updated: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License%2FGeocoding_-_Guidelinediff=1102233oldid=1076215 Hey Martin - the change you link to was to replace the term 'geocode' with the more common 'geocoding result' - do you have a specific concern with it? GEOCODE is a trade mark belonging to a litigious, oh I shouldn't get personal, professor. :-) The background is on the wiki, but I thought this was made clear earlier in the thread? http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Geocode_Trademark ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/11/14 02:11 PM, Alex Barth wrote: We have no significant third party ODbL data releases due to OSM share alike to show for, Then clearly OMS should have stuck with BY-SA for the database, as that did gain third party data releases. but clear reasons and examples of people walking away from the project because of share alike. If switching to a license that is more amenable to proprietary use hasn't stopped increasing numbers of people walking away then, again, the project should have stuck with BY-SA. So the stronger share-alike license got more of the positive results that you are blaming the weaker license for not achieving, and caused less of the alleged harm you are attributing to it. That sounds like an argument for stronger copyleft, not weaker. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUVtFBAAoJECciMUAZd2dZ3SoIAJ0NApsIcSEMUSiqnhvnY3fF u3vY3n5MU5gNrJV9WxSwLObyV2imyMPfbZhlF2OPQCXp8D4uN6Mot+9/cD7F7nan pjb0YIeHC0oruQrShoRTXFaHVCHBK7N4zOfhT+aI+gbavToYcGgcU4y38kM+DLml M7HA246sFny7NjckGJqmyDoOp/U0Nhw3YHFII1ZfG7j1yohYSrVE40WE2/D0oPs/ pExMVktZija/rG9moXwyQyd/vdAMizcFlbpfPEAWDyYDpKOn0+l+WWK6Oiw2626r ekKYAq+YDNf8lWl3o5SzmJS0uLLlzG/mSOK1+OUL7oq69t4HpGCQ471PvMHorRc= =NhmN -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
