Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?
Dear Kathleen, thanks for your response. > Even assuming the polygons are from a Derivative Database, I don't see a > reason for the data to be released under > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline The process doesn't seem to be trivial, since the edges of many polygons go across areas, where no OSM elements could have been used as a reference. So OSM dataset has either been changed or augmented using 3rd party reference (knowledge, imagery, data etc.) to create the product. Those changes are share-alike by ODbL. The Derivative Database cleary has to be under OdbL. While the creation method might be trivial, the amount of data used for the creation is neither trivial in terms of investment or nor quantity: They've used millions of OSM nodes (ways, areas etc.) in Germany to create it. > Why would the polygons, which appear to be simply algorithmically combined > OSM data, be of interest? I don't think the ODbL cares what's in interest of OSM (the "O" in ODbL is not "OSM"). This is just an additional "wish" by the OSM community. Also, the addition polgons, which I have mentioned, might be in interesting of OSM, since they might show a change in landuse, which isn't part of OSM now. Sincerely, Lars-Daniel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?
Hi there, https://www.wohnlagenkarte.de/ displays location quality of residential areas. Those residential areas haven been produced using OSM data; the polygon area results from at least three surrounding paths and streets. Since the polygons are derived from OSM data and released in public, I've asked the owner to release the database OR the method to create the database according to ODbL v1.0, section 4.6 - of course without the values of location quality. He denied. He doesn't see a reason to release the data, which the Produced Work is based on. In my opinion, they've created a Derivative Database using their polygons and they're publishing a Produced Work (the tiles) in public. So section 4.6 applies here - doesn't it? Sincerely, Lars-Daniel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles
From: "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk" > So if what is extracted is solely what was in the database, then the > extraction is not > material that the tile license covered (the tile license cannot actually > change the license of the data, which is ODbL, as that would be > impermissible under ODbL). Yeah, that's why I assumed, too. > Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of > simplified OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL. Actually, it's like 40% OSM borders (hard borders, like roads, rivers, topography and administrative stuff) and 60% own borders, which don't appear in OSM. BUt those borders wouldn't make OSM any better, since they're specific for the current task. > Now, it sounds like you're not tracing very much, so it's possible that > you have traced fewer than 100 features in which case your tracing is > insubstantial > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline Actually, I've traced more than 100 features, but the "extraction is non-systematic and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria" - okay, not on my one, but on the one who draw the overlay with the pen. But what does this result in? Sorry for asking... it's a real life problem, not a constructed one. And please remember the other question I've asked. I haven't found an answer on the web or the OSM boards. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
