Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Simon Poole]

Am 22.09.2015 um 22:14 schrieb alyssa wright:
> What does this mean? "uses ratings from OSM " 
>
Again: it is just a hypothetical example.

Obviously using a real life use case and declaring that as
non-conformant or whatever in a not yet agreed to guideline would not be
sensible (just imagine the outrage).

Not to mention the ability of the OSM community to dig out many years
stale and obviously out of date wiki pages and to pretend that they are
meaningful implies that anything that we put in writing is going to be
quoted for the next couple of decades regardless of what guideline we
end up with eventually.

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] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Tom Lee]

Martin,


Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal
point of view, how it should be interpreted?


Correct--it's currently unclear how the license applies to many important
use cases. Partly this is because it's untested: OSM is the only important
user of ODbL (with allowances for some geo datasets that have been released
under ODbL in the hopes of being imported).

There is much more that could and should be done to clarify use and
establish norms without revisions to the license. This proposal could be a
useful step forward. A couple of us at Mapbox are taking a careful a look
at the specifics, and plan to weigh in with more thoughts.

I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise of introducing
more and more examples and guidelines how to interpret the legal text,
because every additional word is augmenting the risk of introducing
loopholes and weakening our position in a potential prosecution of
infringers.


As you note, infringements have never been prosecuted. But right now, every
day, data is being collected in places other than OSM because of
uncertainty regarding the license (cf OpenAddresses, OpenTraffic). I came
to Mapbox to work on open data, having spent six years advocating for it at
a nonprofit called the Sunlight Foundation. It's dismaying to see the
landscape fractured. I would like OSM to become a better legal home (or at
least partner) for all geodata, including new datasets like LIDAR, traffic
and street-level imagery. Those projects are going elsewhere right now.

I understand your desire to preserve a strong position for hypothetical
future infringement claims. But this goal clearly only makes sense insofar
as it serves the larger goal of creating a useful project. The point of
OpenStreetMap is not to win lawsuits, after all.

Tom
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

   this is not the right group to discuss the matter but let me just say
that your statement

On 09/22/2015 10:57 PM, Tom Lee wrote:
> It's dismaying to see the landscape fractured. I would like OSM to become a 
> better legal
> home (or at least partner) for all geodata, including new datasets like
> LIDAR, traffic and street-level imagery. 

is certainly not universally held in OSM, and that

> Those projects are going
> elsewhere right now.

is a welcome effect, rather than a shortcoming of OSM, for those who see
OSM as a project of makers rather than a receptacle for other people's
geodata.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Rob Myers]

On 2015-09-22 16:38, Paul Norman wrote:

I'm trimming the cc list and taking this to a new thread, since it's
independent of the metadata guideline.

On 9/22/2015 4:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike 
interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal 
intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to 
specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike to third party data 
elements intermingled with OSM data elements of the same kind. E. g. 
mixing OSM and non-OSM addresses should not extend ODbL to non-OSM 
addresses, mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs should not extend the ODbL to 
non-OSM POIs and so forth.


It's that time again! :-)


Turning this around, when do you think share-alike should apply in a
geocoding context?


As with any other context, and as described by the license, when a 
substantial portion of the database is copied.


- Rob.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Please unsubscribe this email from your list

[Kathy Bizzoco]

I don't know how to login to your site. Your list is clogging my email.

Can you please remove this email?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Tom Lee]

> Turning this around, when do you think share-alike should apply in a geocoding
context?

I think there are two goals that a successful geocoding guidance should
meet:

1. Enable greater use of OSM data for geocoding, including scenarios in
which sharealike provisions must not be applied (e.g. geocoding personally
identifiable or sensitive business information)

2. Protect the integrity of the OSM project and its sharealike requirements
-- i.e., don't open a backdoor by which the project can be copied without
ODbL attaching.

At the risk of putting words in others' mouths, I've seen some people argue
that a third goal should be met: compelling geocoding users to share the
results of their geocodes. It's sometimes suggested that this could be a
valuable source of POIs.

I don't think this is a workable goal for a guidance. Even if it did induce
people to contribute data back (rather than simply avoiding OSM geocoding),
it seems unrealistic to expect the community to figure out how to establish
that there are no other IP rights at play, nor to shepherd each
contribution through the import process.

But more to the point, this is the wrong theory of action for how geocoding
can compel people to improve the map. If more people can run geocoding
services built on OSM data, more people will have an incentive to improve
the map in order to improve their results. I'm not merely speculating: I
spend most of my time working on the Mapbox geocoder these days. If, when a
user reports a missing small town boundary for a reverse geocode, I could
fix the problem by adding the boundary to OSM, I would be delighted. As
things stand, I need to correct these errors by pursuing a much more
complicated process with a proprietary data vendor.

Tom
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Rob Myers]

On 2015-09-22 16:26, Alex Barth wrote:


Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike
interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal
intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to
specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike to third party data
elements intermingled with OSM data elements of the same kind. E. g.
mixing OSM and non-OSM addresses should not extend ODbL to non-OSM
addresses, mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs should not extend the ODbL to
non-OSM POIs and so forth.


This would explicitly go against the license if it's a qualitative 
rather a quantitative statement.


Calling something "geocoding" is a distraction.

Look at what processes are involved (copying a database) and what the 
results are (a substantial or non-substantial amount of the database 
being copied).


- Rob.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Luis Villa]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:58 PM Tom Lee  wrote:

> Martin,
>
>
> Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal
> point of view, how it should be interpreted?
>
>
> Correct--it's currently unclear how the license applies to many important
> use cases. Partly this is because it's untested: OSM is the only important
> user of ODbL [...]
>

Also, unlike copyright, the ODbL is based on legal terms and concepts that
are largely untested and undefined. As I've explained on this list
before[1], some very basic terms like "substantial" are not well-defined in
the statute or caselaw. In some cases, that vagueness may be helpful for
OSM; in other cases, not so much.

Luis

[1]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-April/007809.html
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Randy Meech]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:43 PM Tom Lee  wrote:

> If more people can run geocoding services built on OSM data, more people
> will have an incentive to improve the map in order to improve their
> results. I'm not merely speculating: I spend most of my time working on the
> Mapbox geocoder these days. If, when a user reports a missing small town
> boundary for a reverse geocode, I could fix the problem by adding the
> boundary to OSM, I would be delighted.
>

Totally agreed on this. When we set up the free Nominatim service at
MapQuest years ago, part of the thesis (besides utilizing spare compute
power freed up by declining AOL dial-up customers ;) was to create a large
group of developers who would use the services and improve the data, an
effort that I believe was successful. I've heard many anecdotes of
individuals and teams doing just as Tom suggests -- fixing the data to
improve their geocoding results.

We talk of OSM as a community of individuals, but some of those individuals
are in companies and working on projects that need geocoding -- they can
improve the data in non-automated ways just like anyone else & should be
encouraged by clarity on the license.

We never worried about what people did with our Nominatim service, we
passed along the license and let people do what they wanted. I wonder how
many companies are in a licensing grey area now as a result, and I also
wonder how much it really matters in the end.

For example -- I have a side project I built years ago called Tides Near
Me. It's the most popular tides app in the iTunes & Google Play stores, and
also has a decent web presence. I used the MapQuest Nominatim service to
geocode and/or reverse geocode all the global tide stations used in the
app. What would the community have me do? I'm actually curious, let's use
this as a litmus test, what should I do with this database? What do we
want? Personally, because I haven't improved any OSM-relevant data that I'm
not sharing back, I don't see how it would benefit anyone to open this (but
I also wouldn't really care about opening it). What do you think I should
do and why?

-Randy
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Simon Poole]

Naturally musings about hypothetical better worlds in which OSM has a
different licence (and in which we undoubtedly would be having exactly
the same discussions) are just as off topic in this thread as
stipulations that company XYZ is violating the licence.

Could we pls have some comments on the subject at hand.

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] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Kathy Bizzoco]

Please unsubscribe. Please. I don't know how to login.

On 9/22/15, 5:27 PM, Simon Poole wrote:

Naturally musings about hypothetical better worlds in which OSM has a
different licence (and in which we undoubtedly would be having exactly
the same discussions) are just as off topic in this thread as
stipulations that company XYZ is violating the licence.

Could we pls have some comments on the subject at hand.

Simon



___
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] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Simon Poole]

I've added a clarification to the example in question as it is causing
some contention.

Simon

Am 22.09.2015 um 22:39 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> Am 22.09.2015 um 22:14 schrieb alyssa wright:
>> What does this mean? "uses ratings from OSM " 
>>
> Again: it is just a hypothetical example.
>
> Obviously using a real life use case and declaring that as
> non-conformant or whatever in a not yet agreed to guideline would not be
> sensible (just imagine the outrage).
>
> Not to mention the ability of the OSM community to dig out many years
> stale and obviously out of date wiki pages and to pretend that they are
> meaningful implies that anything that we put in writing is going to be
> quoted for the next couple of decades regardless of what guideline we
> end up with eventually.
>
> 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] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Alex Barth]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:

> One of the big grey areas remaining wrt our distribution licence is
> defining if, and how you can link from external data to an OpenStreetMap
> derived dataset. Nailing this down is, in my opinion, key to progress in
> getting rid of other areas of contention (for example geo-coding).
>

The Fairhurst Doctrine won't get us all the way on geocoding. It still
leaves open what happens in scenarios where elements of the same kind in
third party databases are geocoded with OSM data and others with third
party data. This is a highly relevant scenario as OSM data particularly for
geocoding (addresses, POIs) is usually not complete enough. The ability to
use OSM for geocoding and "backfill" it with (non-license-compatible) third
party data is exactly what would would make a gradual adoption of OSM
possible.

Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike interpretation
that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal intermingling of
narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to specifically _not_ extend the
ODbL via share alike to third party data elements intermingled with OSM
data elements of the same kind. E. g. mixing OSM and non-OSM addresses
should not extend ODbL to non-OSM addresses, mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs
should not extend the ODbL to non-OSM POIs and so forth.

This could be well done within the confines of the ODbL by endorsing the
"Geocoding is Produced Work" guideline
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-July/007900.html
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Paul Norman]

I'm trimming the cc list and taking this to a new thread, since it's 
independent of the metadata guideline.


On 9/22/2015 4:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike 
interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal 
intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to 
specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike to third party data 
elements intermingled with OSM data elements of the same kind. E. g. 
mixing OSM and non-OSM addresses should not extend ODbL to non-OSM 
addresses, mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs should not extend the ODbL to 
non-OSM POIs and so forth.


Turning this around, when do you think share-alike should apply in a 
geocoding context?


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal
point of view, how it should be interpreted?
I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise of introducing
more and more examples and guidelines how to interpret the legal text,
because every additional word is augmenting the risk of introducing
loopholes and weakening our position in a potential prosecution of
infringers. Also, according to the mandate the OSMF is given from the
original IP holders by means of the CTs, any modification of the current
license has to be approved by a majority of active contributors.

Is the OSMF consulting with their legal advisors before publishing these
amendments/interpretations?

Finally, the OSMF in the past didn't seem to care about prosecution of
actual infringers. Is there any example where some action was taken? Is
someone from the OSMF checking this list from time for instance:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution ?

FWIW, apple maps continues big scale infringement, e.g. their map app in
the most recent OS (OX-X 10.10.5) has the attribution very hidden, it is
neither on the screen nor when you print a map (but you can get to it by
clicking in the menu on "Maps"->"About Maps" and then on "Data from TomTom
and others ->"  (on my system nothing happens after the click, but that's
likely just a bug)). Also Apple's "Friends" app on iOS has no attribution
whatsoever.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Simon Poole]

Am 22.09.2015 um 11:05 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a
> legal point of view, how it should be interpreted?

Please read the introduction to the proposed guideline.

>
> I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise of
> introducing more and more examples and guidelines how to interpret the
> legal text, because every additional word is augmenting the risk of
> introducing loopholes and weakening our position in a potential
> prosecution of infringers. Also, according to the mandate the OSMF is
> given from the original IP holders by means of the CTs, any
> modification of the current license has to be approved by a majority
> of active contributors.
>
> Is the OSMF consulting with their legal advisors before publishing
> these amendments/interpretations?
>
> Finally, the OSMF in the past didn't seem to care about prosecution of
> actual infringers. Is there any example where some action was taken?
> Is someone from the OSMF checking this list from time for instance:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution ?
>
> FWIW, apple maps continues big scale infringement, e.g. their map app
> in the most recent OS (OX-X 10.10.5) has the attribution very hidden,
> it is neither on the screen nor when you print a map (but you can get
> to it by clicking in the menu on "Maps"->"About Maps" and then on
> "Data from TomTom and others ->"  (on my system nothing happens after
> the click, but that's likely just a bug)). Also Apple's "Friends" app
> on iOS has no attribution whatsoever.

Please stick to the topic at hand.

Simon




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk