Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

> What I meant by legal assessment is that I would like to know what OSMF's
> layers
> think of this. I would assume that the OSMF has some sort of legal
> department,
> like the people who have drafted some of the fundamental legal documents
> (like
> Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Contributor Terms, ODbL etc) regulating
> some
> aspects of OSMF's operations.
>
> OSMF does not have a legal department. OSMF has the Legal/Licensing
Working Group. I am on that working group. If you want the opinion of the
entire group, you are welcome to request it, and it will perhaps be taken
up on the agenda.



> So, it is absolutely feasible that the Contributor Terms may lack
> something.
> Legal documents, laws, and regulations are not perfect. Nothing is. And,
> it is
> nothing to be ashamed of if anyone spots a loophole or gap in a legal
> document
> or regulation. It is an opportunity for improvement. The Contributor Terms
> have
> been drafted when OpenStreetMap was developing and was accepting not much
> more
> than map data contributions. So, it was sufficient to handle geo-database
> contributions only. Since then, OpenStreetMap has grown, new functionality
> and
> tools have been added. Perhaps OpenStreetMap's progress has outpaced its
> legal
> framework? Or maybe the legal framework did not keep up with
> OpenStreetMap's
> progress? I do not know. What I do know, is that “Content” is limited in
> scope
> to geo-database contributions in the Contributor Terms.
>
> I read "geo-database contributions" as including changeset comments &
discussions and map notes, because they are tied to the map features. I do
not think geo-database contributions include blog posts.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[GITNE]

Hello Kathleen,

thank you for your clarifications.

On 09/23/2020 at 02:42 PM Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:

GITNE,
I don't know what distinction you are drawing between opinion and legal
assessment. I cannot give you legal advice as I am not your lawyer, but my legal
opinion, based on the terms of the Contributor Agreement, is that changeset
comments are part of OSM's geo-database.


What I meant by legal assessment is that I would like to know what OSMF's layers
think of this. I would assume that the OSMF has some sort of legal department,
like the people who have drafted some of the fundamental legal documents (like
Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Contributor Terms, ODbL etc) regulating some
aspects of OSMF's operations.


Note that the terms say: "OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your 
Contents as part of a database and only
under the terms of one or more of the following licences:.." So if changeset
comments did not count as part of the geo-database, OSM would not have rights to
use them, which would be contrary to the purposes of the Contributor Terms.


I read it that OSMF will only ever use or sub-license content as a database (or
part of). In other words, it is about the way or how OSM uses, handles, or
redistributes (sub-licenses) content. Specifically, in a database. Sub-licensing
means here that only specific licenses will be chosen, like the ODbL 1.0, DbCL
1.0, or CC-BY-SA 2.0, when redistributing content as a database. This provision
does not qualify content. The first sentence of 1.2.4 does. Aside from that, I
do not think you can assume or reason sort of backwards: Because the definition
missed out on something we will reason from the application of the definition to
what the definition was supposed to include.

So, it is absolutely feasible that the Contributor Terms may lack something.
Legal documents, laws, and regulations are not perfect. Nothing is. And, it is
nothing to be ashamed of if anyone spots a loophole or gap in a legal document
or regulation. It is an opportunity for improvement. The Contributor Terms have
been drafted when OpenStreetMap was developing and was accepting not much more
than map data contributions. So, it was sufficient to handle geo-database
contributions only. Since then, OpenStreetMap has grown, new functionality and
tools have been added. Perhaps OpenStreetMap's progress has outpaced its legal
framework? Or maybe the legal framework did not keep up with OpenStreetMap's
progress? I do not know. What I do know, is that “Content” is limited in scope
to geo-database contributions in the Contributor Terms.

Regards
GITNE


On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 5:34 AM Eugene Alvin Villar mailto:sea...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 6:19 PM Andy Townsend mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>> wrote:

For those unfamiliar with it, the OSM US' Slack instance has a
"feed-changeset-comments" channel which shows new changeset discussion
comments shortly after they are added.  There are lots of other ways of
getting at that data as well of course - including on osm.org
 itself.


To provide some context, this Slack channel is simply forwarding the
contents of an Atom feed generated by Pascal Neis here:
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions?c=United States

IANAL, but from an intellectual property point of view, I think Pascal
creating RSS/Atom feeds of changeset comments per country falls under fair
use/fair dealing. And there is a whole ecosystem of tools that process and
consume RSS/Atom feeds, one of which is an integration in Slack was setup by
someone so that comments on changesets in the United States are more visible
to the people who are in the OSM US Slack.

~Eugene


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[GITNE]

Hello Christoph,

On 09/23/2020 at 01:27 PM Christoph Hormann wrote:

On Wednesday 23 September 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


GITNE's point was not about changeset data, it was about changeset
discussions. I agree there is no doubt that changesets are part of
the geodatabase (at least for me), but for changeset comments it
seems the situation isn't so clear, it could be seen as an edge case
(either way could be defended by arguments), athough I agree that
through linking it to the changeset_id it is within the geodatabase.


I see - yes, that is slightly different in nature - though i think all
of the arguments i gave in principle still apply (including in
particular that the OSMF publishes the changeset discussions under ODbL
as well).


Thank you for sharing your point of view, or interpretation of the Contributor
Terms.


The main difference i think is that contributions to changeset
discussions have a higher likeliness to in themselves be subject to
copyright (and not just database protection).


Right, this is what I am concerned about too. Because this goes beyond changeset
discussions. It applies to map notes and blog posts too. And personally, imho
there are good reasons to not license other types of contributions than map data
contributions under the ODbL. For example, take citations or excerpts from
scientific works, patents, or government documents in comments, notes, or blog
posts. Sure, contributors are primarily responsible for lawfully publishing
content on the OSM website/service but on the other hand the OSMF has to protect
itself too. The OSMF should not automatically “re-license” content it has no
direct control over or knowledge of. Map content is far more limited in scope
than free-form text, so it is fair and relatively easier to express and enforce
the ODbL on this type of content.

So, to sum things up, imho there are two ends of the story to this issue. One
end of the story is that OSMF's non-geo-database content “acquisition” does not
seem be covered by any contributor agreement (this the end you disagree with me
over). The other end is that non-geo-database content cannot be simply
re-licensed by the OSMF to ODbL terms. In other words, the question is what
license terms apply to consumers of non-geo-database content? Furthermore, is
the ODbL simply by its nature even applicable to non-geo-database (or
non-database per se) content at all?

Regards
GITNE

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:49 AM GITNE  wrote:

> On 09/23/2020 at 02:19 AM Clifford Snow wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:43 PM GITNE mailto:gi...@gmx.de>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello OSMF Legal Team,
> >
> > due to a quite troubling revelation by @SomeoneElse that changeset
> comments are
> > automatically republished by the third party private company Slack,
> I would
> > appreciate if you could share your legal assessment of this
> situation. More
> > specifically, what is the copyright status of changeset comments and
> which OSMF
> > document or agreement covers changeset comments?
> >
> >
> > Can you be more specific? Where is the data being republished?
>
> Unfortunately, no. I do not use Slack. So, I cannot provide a specific
> link or
> something. What I know is that @SomeoneElse reported that Slack has an
> automated
> feed which pulls changesets comments from OSM and republishes them on one
> of
> their channels.
>

I'm a regular user of Slack. I haven't seen such a feed. But more to the
point, Slack, the application by itself doesn't pull information from other
sources. It's up to the users to pull feeds in. For example there is a new
user feed which has a link to the users account and a link to their first
edit.
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

>
>
> why not remove “geo-database of the”? If someone added the geo-database,
> maybe they wanted to exclude other databases or parts of the project? Are
> there terms for diary posts? Are diary posts distributed under the ODbL?
>
> Well, updating the Contributor Terms would be an enormous project to be
carried out only if absolutely necessary (though I would not be in
principle opposed to the phrasing you suggest, if we were starting from
scratch).
But no, I don't think these terms are for the diary posts, and I don't
think the diary posts are distributed under ODbL, and I'm not aware of OSMF
redistributing them. I would say that diary posts are covered by
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#VII._Additional_terms
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Sep 2020, at 14:43, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk 
>  wrote:
> So if changeset comments did not count as part of the geo-database, OSM would 
> not have rights to use them, which would be contrary to the purposes of the 
> Contributor Terms.


looking at the terms, to my layman’s view it seems unnecessary to qualify the 
term “contents of the OpenStreetMap project” with the limitation to 
geo-database. The whole sentence reads:
“ Thank you for your interest in contributing data and/or any other content 
(collectively, “Contents”) to the geo-database of the OpenStreetMap project 
(the “Project”).”

why not remove “geo-database of the”? If someone added the geo-database, maybe 
they wanted to exclude other databases or parts of the project? Are there terms 
for diary posts? Are diary posts distributed under the ODbL?

Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 22/09/2020 17.43, GITNE wrote:
As far as I can tell no document covers changeset comments either 
explicitly nor implicitly. The Contributor Terms state that

“…contributing data and/or any other content (collectively,
“Contents”) to the geo-database of the OpenStreetMap project (the
“Project”)” is explicitly limited to contributions to the
geo-database (map database). As far as I can tell changeset comments
 are not part of the OSM's geo-database. Changeset comments
themselves do not contain any geo-data, they merely reference a
changeset. The changeset contains geo-data and is what actually
becomes part of the geo-database. Thus naturally changesets are 
covered by the Contributor Terms but not changeset comments. 
Consequently, it should be fair to assume that the copyright to

changeset comments remains with their respective authors. However,
since changeset comments are apparently neither explicitly nor
implicitly covered by any agreement or license, it should be also
fair to assume that by the act of creating comments on OSM's website 
commentators do grant copyright to the OSMF, though limited in scope.


I'm pretty sure there is no *copyright* granted to OSM. Likewise...


It is fair to assume that the scope is limited to the production or
quality assurance of the map. I think that given this situation it
should be very difficult to argue that commentators implicitly grant
copyright to any other party than the OSMF, publish comments into the
public domain, or for any extended purpose.

Anyhow, imho either way it would not be wise—today's more fashionable
 word here would be “smart”—for the OSMF to grant changeset comment
copyright to others.


I am ***almost certain*** that OSM does not grant *copyright* to other 
parties.


I'm pretty sure the term you want is *license*. This may sound pedantic, 
but this is an area where getting your terminology correct can matter, 
and there is a ***huge*** difference between granting "copyright" 
(assigning *total ownership and all rights* to another party) and 
granting "license" (extending *limited* rights to another party while 
retaining ownership).


As far as I know (and can tell from 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms), 
contribution to OSM are *not* subject to copyright assignment.


--
Matthew

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Sep 23, 2020, 15:16 by gi...@gmx.de:

> On 09/23/2020 at 01:16 PM Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23.09.20 12:34, GITNE wrote:
>>
>>> (for profit) which presumably is not covered either by the ODbL
>>>
>>
>> Assuming that the data is covered by ODbL, then "These rights explicitly
>> include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour."
>> (section 3.0)
>>
>
> Right, assuming. ;-) Please, do not get me wrong, I am okay with profit.
> However, only as long as it is legal.
>
Fortunately, it is :)

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[GITNE]

Hello Frederik,

On 09/23/2020 at 01:16 PM Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 23.09.20 12:34, GITNE wrote:

The issue is not availability of the data but Slack *republishing*
content


Surely Slack is doing that not out of their own decision, but because
someone has instructed them (or their web service) to do so?


*Irony Warning*
Wait, so you are saying that things can happen just like that on their service
and they are not responsible, not even partially, for what is happening? I did
not know this could be a viable defense strategy. Okay, next time I screw up I
am going to defend myself by blaming orders I had to follow.
*End of Irony*
Or, did I get something wrong?


(for profit) which presumably is not covered either by the ODbL


Assuming that the data is covered by ODbL, then "These rights explicitly
include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour."
(section 3.0)


Right, assuming. ;-) Please, do not get me wrong, I am okay with profit.
However, only as long as it is legal.

Regards
GITNE

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

 GITNE,
I don't know what distinction you are drawing between opinion and legal
assessment. I cannot give you legal advice as I am not your lawyer, but my
legal opinion, based on the terms of the Contributor Agreement, is that
changeset comments are part of OSM's geo-database. Note that the terms say:
"OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a
database and only under the terms of one or more of the following
licences:.." So if changeset comments did not count as part of the
geo-database, OSM would not have rights to use them, which would be
contrary to the purposes of the Contributor Terms.
-Kathleen

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 5:34 AM Eugene Alvin Villar 
wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 6:19 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
>> For those unfamiliar with it, the OSM US' Slack instance has a
>> "feed-changeset-comments" channel which shows new changeset discussion
>> comments shortly after they are added.  There are lots of other ways of
>> getting at that data as well of course - including on osm.org itself.
>>
>
> To provide some context, this Slack channel is simply forwarding the
> contents of an Atom feed generated by Pascal Neis here:
> http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions?c=United States
>
> IANAL, but from an intellectual property point of view, I think Pascal
> creating RSS/Atom feeds of changeset comments per country falls under fair
> use/fair dealing. And there is a whole ecosystem of tools that process and
> consume RSS/Atom feeds, one of which is an integration in Slack was setup
> by someone so that comments on changesets in the United States are more
> visible to the people who are in the OSM US Slack.
>
> ~Eugene
> ___
> 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] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 6:19 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:

> For those unfamiliar with it, the OSM US' Slack instance has a
> "feed-changeset-comments" channel which shows new changeset discussion
> comments shortly after they are added.  There are lots of other ways of
> getting at that data as well of course - including on osm.org itself.
>

To provide some context, this Slack channel is simply forwarding the
contents of an Atom feed generated by Pascal Neis here:
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions?c=United States

IANAL, but from an intellectual property point of view, I think Pascal
creating RSS/Atom feeds of changeset comments per country falls under fair
use/fair dealing. And there is a whole ecosystem of tools that process and
consume RSS/Atom feeds, one of which is an integration in Slack was setup
by someone so that comments on changesets in the United States are more
visible to the people who are in the OSM US Slack.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk]

Sep 23, 2020, 12:18 by ajt1...@gmail.com:

> On 23/09/2020 08:49, GITNE wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, no. I do not use Slack. So, I cannot provide a specific link 
>> or
>> something. What I know is that @SomeoneElse reported that Slack has an 
>> automated
>> feed which pulls changesets comments from OSM and republishes them on one of
>> their channels.
>>
> For completeness, this discussion spun out of one at > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90157565>  which in turn spun off 
> from > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90174987>  .
>
GITNE, I am not sure what you were trying to achieve - but you certainly 
managed to
make comments  that you should not make* are far more visible that they would 
be 
otherwise.

Simply please stop making such comments.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect


*
"Again, stop doing this shit!",

"Hurray, you have found the Wiki and started reading it! Well, I guess after 
all you
have successfully made progress."

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi GITNE,

if you feel that you have let your manners slip in changeset comments in
the past, then just adding an apology (instead of starting a discussion
about whether it is legal to republish your disrespectful comments) is
always an option!

http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=1836535
is another site that has all your writing nicely listed.

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] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 23 September 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> GITNE's point was not about changeset data, it was about changeset
> discussions. I agree there is no doubt that changesets are part of
> the geodatabase (at least for me), but for changeset comments it
> seems the situation isn't so clear, it could be seen as an edge case
> (either way could be defended by arguments), athough I agree that
> through linking it to the changeset_id it is within the geodatabase.

I see - yes, that is slightly different in nature - though i think all
of the arguments i gave in principle still apply (including in
particular that the OSMF publishes the changeset discussions under ODbL
as well).

The main difference i think is that contributions to changeset
discussions have a higher likeliness to in themselves be subject to
copyright (and not just database protection).

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 23.09.20 12:34, GITNE wrote:
> The issue is not availability of the data but Slack *republishing*
> content

Surely Slack is doing that not out of their own decision, but because
someone has instructed them (or their web service) to do so?

> (for profit) which presumably is not covered either by the ODbL

Assuming that the data is covered by ODbL, then "These rights explicitly
include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour."
(section 3.0)

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] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 23. Sept. 2020 um 12:25 Uhr schrieb GITNE :

> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/5/58/OSM_DB_Schema_2016-12-13.svg
>
Martin, please correct me if I am wrong but the database represented by the
> schema you have pointed to is not what is actually publicly available,
> that is
> what is licensed under the ODbL. In other words, the ODbL licensed
> database is a
> subset of OSMF's database (or an export so to speak) because it contains
> amongst
> other things e-mail addresses and password hashes which are not supposed
> to be
> published.



that's how I see it as well. The whole db has privacy related content,
redaction related information (copyright violations) etc. and the published
database is only part of this.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[GITNE]

On 09/23/2020 at 12:18 PM Andy Townsend wrote:

On 23/09/2020 08:49, GITNE wrote:

Unfortunately, no. I do not use Slack. So, I cannot provide a specific link or
something. What I know is that @SomeoneElse reported that Slack has an automated
feed which pulls changesets comments from OSM and republishes them on one of
their channels.


For completeness, this discussion spun out of one at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90157565 which in turn spun off from
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90174987 .


If I may add that this discussion did not exactly spin out of any of these
changesets but rather Slack's practice has been brought to my attention in a
discussion on changeset 90157565.


For those unfamiliar with it, the OSM US' Slack instance has a
"feed-changeset-comments" channel which shows new changeset discussion comments
shortly after they are added.  There are lots of other ways of getting at that
data as well of course - including on osm.org itself.


The issue is not availability of the data but Slack *republishing* content (for
profit) which presumably is not covered either by the ODbL nor the Contributor
Terms.

Regards
GITNE

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[GITNE]

On 09/23/2020 at 11:22 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Am Mi., 23. Sept. 2020 um 11:02 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann
mailto:chris_horm...@gmx.de>>:

...  That changeset data
is distributed separately from other parts of our database is not an
argument against it being covered by the contributor terms.  Frequent
discussion in the OSM community that certain information (like source
tags) make more sense to be recorded in changeset tags than in
individual features (and accordingly that they can still be connected
to the features when recorded in that form) OTOH supports the view that
changeset tags are covered by the constributor terms and that the
mapper community regards them as such.

In any case - the OSMF is distributing changeset data under the ODbL...



GITNE's point was not about changeset data, it was about changeset discussions.
I agree there is no doubt that changesets are part of the geodatabase (at least
for me), but for changeset comments it seems the situation isn't so clear, it
could be seen as an edge case (either way could be defended by arguments),
athough I agree that through linking it to the changeset_id it is within the
geodatabase.


Right, the issue are not changesets since they are an integral part of the
modifying processes of the geo-database and thus constitute a contribution to
the geo-database. So, it also okay for the OSMF to distribute these either
separately or inclusively under the ODbL license. The issue is about chageset
comments or rather Changeset Discussions
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Changeset_Discussions). Please
pardon my ignorance on the proper term.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/5/58/OSM_DB_Schema_2016-12-13.svg


Changeset Discussions merely reference a changeset id. This is like linking to a
web page or referencing a book in an article. If it were otherwise we would
quickly get into trouble with all sorts of works referencing other works.
Martin, please correct me if I am wrong but the database represented by the
schema you have pointed to is not what is actually publicly available, that is
what is licensed under the ODbL. In other words, the ODbL licensed database is a
subset of OSMF's database (or an export so to speak) because it contains amongst
other things e-mail addresses and password hashes which are not supposed to be
published.

Regards
GITNE

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/09/2020 08:49, GITNE wrote:
Unfortunately, no. I do not use Slack. So, I cannot provide a specific 
link or
something. What I know is that @SomeoneElse reported that Slack has an 
automated
feed which pulls changesets comments from OSM and republishes them on 
one of

their channels.

For completeness, this discussion spun out of one at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90157565 which in turn spun off 
from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90174987 .


For those unfamiliar with it, the OSM US' Slack instance has a 
"feed-changeset-comments" channel which shows new changeset discussion 
comments shortly after they are added.  There are lots of other ways of 
getting at that data as well of course - including on osm.org itself.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 23. Sept. 2020 um 11:02 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann <
chris_horm...@gmx.de>:

> ...  That changeset data
> is distributed separately from other parts of our database is not an
> argument against it being covered by the contributor terms.  Frequent
> discussion in the OSM community that certain information (like source
> tags) make more sense to be recorded in changeset tags than in
> individual features (and accordingly that they can still be connected
> to the features when recorded in that form) OTOH supports the view that
> changeset tags are covered by the constributor terms and that the
> mapper community regards them as such.
>
> In any case - the OSMF is distributing changeset data under the ODbL...



GITNE's point was not about changeset data, it was about changeset
discussions. I agree there is no doubt that changesets are part of the
geodatabase (at least for me), but for changeset comments it seems the
situation isn't so clear, it could be seen as an edge case (either way
could be defended by arguments), athough I agree that through linking it to
the changeset_id it is within the geodatabase.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/5/58/OSM_DB_Schema_2016-12-13.svg

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 23 September 2020, GITNE wrote:
> [...] However, I am unsure
> whether this your opinion or legal assessment? Because a legal
> assessment is actually what I would like to know.

You will only ever get opinions here (often colored by interests and
what people want to be true) and never a binding legal assessment you
can rely on.

What you wrote so far has not been very convincing.  That changeset data
is distributed separately from other parts of our database is not an
argument against it being covered by the contributor terms.  Frequent
discussion in the OSM community that certain information (like source
tags) make more sense to be recorded in changeset tags than in
individual features (and accordingly that they can still be connected
to the features when recorded in that form) OTOH supports the view that
changeset tags are covered by the constributor terms and that the
mapper community regards them as such.

In any case - the OSMF is distributing changeset data under the ODbL:

https://planet.openstreetmap.org/replication/changesets/

and there are a lot of third party services that use this data in their
services (like various QA tools, for example achavi) so if you have an
issue with that in principle picking out Slack specifically is not
really appropriate.

(that is all under the assumption that Slack is using the data in
compliance with the ODbL - which i don't know)

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[GITNE]

On 09/23/2020 at 03:45 AM Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:

Hi GITNE,
Can you also specify what you think the problem is?


I am not sure if I can be more specific. So, I am just going to reword what I
have written so that perhaps then things become clearer. In my understanding the
Contributor Terms do not cover changeset comments, simply because they are not
part of the geo-database, nor become at any time part of it. The same applies to
user's blog posts or forum posts on OSM's website. They are not covered by the
Contributor Terms either, again simply because they are not part of
OpenStreetMap project's geo-database, or in other words, they are not
contributed *to* the geo-database.


I get the feeling that you have an objection to changeset comments being posted 
in Slack. I'm assuming such
comments appear in the OSMUS slack group which is popular with mappers. Why do
you think this is a bad thing?


I do not object to Slack per se. It is a legitimate business like any other.
However, I do object to the violation of copyright for profit, regardless of the
entity who might be doing it. And, unfortunately this is exactly what Slack
currently seems to be doing.


(To be clear, I think your premise is wrong and that the definition of
"Contents" in the Contributor Terms clearly includes changeset comments.)


I beg to differ. “any other content” is limited in scope, namely by contribution
“to the geo-database”. Besides, it is wise to do so, especially if you consider
blog and forum post copyrights. Legitimate reasons exist for the OSMF to limit
the scope of licensing to only certain types of contributions.

Anyway, thank you Kathleen for your answer. However, I am unsure whether this
your opinion or legal assessment? Because a legal assessment is actually what I
would like to know.

Regards
GITNE

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[GITNE]

On 09/23/2020 at 02:19 AM Clifford Snow wrote:



On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:43 PM GITNE mailto:gi...@gmx.de>> 
wrote:

Hello OSMF Legal Team,

due to a quite troubling revelation by @SomeoneElse that changeset comments 
are
automatically republished by the third party private company Slack, I would
appreciate if you could share your legal assessment of this situation. More
specifically, what is the copyright status of changeset comments and which 
OSMF
document or agreement covers changeset comments?


Can you be more specific? Where is the data being republished?


Unfortunately, no. I do not use Slack. So, I cannot provide a specific link or
something. What I know is that @SomeoneElse reported that Slack has an automated
feed which pulls changesets comments from OSM and republishes them on one of
their channels.

Regards
GITNE

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