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

[Tom Lee]

> In a way I would actually support [geocoding results being considered
non-substantive extracts] if geo-coding was a clearly and tightly defined
process, which, as I've pointed out earlier, it isn't.

Are you referring to this thread, Simon, or a larger conversation
elsewhere? If the latter, I'd e grateful for a link.

While I agree with you about the slipperiness of geocoding in the abstract,
as Alex points out it should be possible to narrow the scope within a
guideline. After all, when we license geocoding data from big proprietary
vendors, their lawyers, at least, feel it's possible to define geocoding
and to define unacceptable use in a way that protects their assets. Without
naming names or specific terms, I can point to this language from our TOS
as an example of how these requirements are passed along:

"You may not use geocoding results to develop a general database of
locations or addresses for any neighborhood, city, state, country, or other
such geographic region, or to develop any other general purpose digital map
database."

Naturally it would be preferable to work out a guideline that gives users
more freedom than proprietary vendors allow us to provide. But I think this
at least points in a useful direction (though of course the mechanism here
would be the non-substantive status of the geocoding product, not a bespoke
contractual provision).

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Alex Barth  wrote:

>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 5:10 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>
>> The later naturally makes the former unnecessary,  so we might as well
>> simply propose that geo-coding creates a non-substantive extract (which has
>> been suggested btw in a different forum and is in discussion in the LWG).
>>
>
> This would work.
>
>
>> In a way I would actually support this if geo-coding was a clearly and
>> tightly defined process, which, as I've pointed out earlier, it isn't.
>>
>
> We could work on a definition of geocoding for the purpose of a guideline
> though.
>
>
> ___
> 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] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Alex Barth]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 5:10 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:

> The later naturally makes the former unnecessary,  so we might as well
> simply propose that geo-coding creates a non-substantive extract (which has
> been suggested btw in a different forum and is in discussion in the LWG).
>

This would work.


> In a way I would actually support this if geo-coding was a clearly and
> tightly defined process, which, as I've pointed out earlier, it isn't.
>

We could work on a definition of geocoding for the purpose of a guideline
though.
___
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

[Simon Poole]

I think you are clearly illustrating why we are wary of opening the can
of worms bending the definitions of the ODbL creates.

So now we not only have to take the leap of faith that geo-coding
creates a produced work*, we have to expand the definition of
substantive to allow essentially complete country extracts to be
non-substantive.

The later naturally makes the former unnecessary,  so we might as well
simply propose that geo-coding creates a non-substantive extract (which
has been suggested btw in a different forum and is in discussion in the
LWG).  In a way I would actually support this if geo-coding was a
clearly and tightly defined process, which, as I've pointed out earlier,
it isn't.

Simon

* I'm not convinced that this solves anything since derivative databases
used to produce a publicly used produced work are subject to SA


Am 27.09.2015 um 23:54 schrieb Alex Barth:
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Paul Norman  > wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>
> If you methodically use a geocoder to reverse engineer the
> OpenStreetMap database, share alike would kick in. "Reverse
> engineering OpenStreetMap" would need a better definition and it would
> have to cover two dimensions:
>
> 1. Comprehensiveness (not just a "narrow extract" like addresses,
> buildings or businesses, but rather a comprehensive extract of the
> most important OpenStreetMap features together)
> 2. Geographic size (e. g. a country)
>
> We could establish these limits with an update to the community
> guidelines for what's Substantial.
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk



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] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Chris Hill]

On 27/09/15 22:54, Alex Barth wrote:


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Paul Norman > wrote:


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?


If you methodically use a geocoder to reverse engineer the 
OpenStreetMap database, share alike would kick in. "Reverse 
engineering OpenStreetMap" would need a better definition and it would 
have to cover two dimensions:


1. Comprehensiveness (not just a "narrow extract" like addresses, 
buildings or businesses, but rather a comprehensive extract of the 
most important OpenStreetMap features together)

2. Geographic size (e. g. a country)

We could establish these limits with an update to the community 
guidelines for what's Substantial.



Nice try Alex, but no :-)

Your definitions are *way* too generous. I would say reverse engineering 
parts of the OSM database, such as just addresses can easily be 
substantive and therefore trigger share alike. I would say that the 
geographic size of a few streets would also be substantive and trigger 
share alike.


I know you want to move away from share alike but you won't do it by 
making a barn door definition like that IMHO.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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