[OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of old media / images / maps
Anybody can explain how it can be legal to claim copyright on old material, say 18th or 19th century works? When browsing the web (mostly library pages and catalogues) those institutions often claim full copyright and prohibit reproduction, distribution etc. of the (digitalized/scanned/photographed) works, but I wonder on what basis they do so, given that the authors of those works are all dead for centuries now. Would it be legitimate to derive features (e.g. names or old names) for osm from such sources if the distributing entity claims copyright on the material? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements
Am 14/gen/2014 um 10:54 schrieb Simon Poole si...@poole.ch: a IMHO good example of what we want http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/contact/spaces/ no mention of ODbL and the attribution three screens after the map (on mobile, maybe this looks different on a desktop)? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Corine Land Cover?
2014/1/14 pmsg pmsg2...@yahoo.com can we use Corine Land Cover data? I think not, but I would be grateful to be tought something different. I think it depends on the country, AFAIK this is not one big dataset but several datasets, with different licensing according to the contributing country. Cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Corine Land Cover?
2014/1/13 pmsg pmsg2...@yahoo.com Thank you for your opinions, pmsg legal issues aside my concern is that Corine Data is not suitable technically for OSM: the resolution is too low and not compatible with the rest of our data. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements
Am 10/gen/2014 um 13:01 schrieb Simon Poole si...@poole.ch: And I'm very tired of people trying to weasel around the absolute minimal requirements we pose on reuse of OSM data. like APPL? ;-) cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements
2014/1/12 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch Apple does not, as far as we know, use OSM data ODbL licensed by the foundation. yes, they are supposedly ignoring former requirements (still valid for older data). cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about mixing OSM with licensed data -- eg: mapquest
2013/11/2 Abhishek cheerful...@gmail.com I'm confused about what the rules are for downstream commercial users of OSM data to merge OSM data with other sources. Apple seems have done this with their Maps product. You can't really see Apple as a reference, because of two reasons: 1. they use old data (different license, cc-by-sa2.0 instead of the now current ODbL) 2. they do it wrong (IMHO, IANAL, TINLA) as they don't say which parts are from OSM, from when exactly they are, so you cc-by-sa cannot come to execution and they don't say the data is cc-by-sa and they omit the © icon they use for other data providers (it is IMHO unclear from their credits page if there is copyright on OSM data and what is the license). I think License Working Groups is still working on this to get the attribution right in this case, even if the last few LWG minutes don't seem to trace this issue any more. /rant/ Apparently, if you are big enough and not interested in playing nice, there don't seem to be limits for commercial users to do whatever with osm data - you have to fear nothing (apparently), at least as long as you use cc-by-sa data. (Of course every single contributor might bring you to court, but that is a different story and not very likely neither if you are big enough). /rant off/ cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question on publication of slides with Google and Bing screenshots
2013/9/10 Martin Feuersaenger m...@feuersaenger.de So my question is: Is my conclusion right, can I publish under less restrictive terms, or do I need to remove the shots in order to publish at all? You should ask Google and Bing about this, it is not related to OSM ;-) cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
2013/8/29 Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com Their is clear and full understanding by USG that data digitized into OSM is made available under the ODbL, which allows commercial use. This is stated on their website at https://hiu.state.gov/ittc/ittc.aspx(Description tab). Data cc-by-sa by OpenStreetMap ;-) Maybe you could drop them a hint, as they seem to be pulling tiles from osmf servers that should be (c) osm contributors cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed
2013/8/25 Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de The license text says: “ The party receiving the data cannot share the imagery or LIDP with a third party without express permission from the USG. At no time should this imagery or LIDP be used for other than USG-related purposes and must not be used for commercial gain. The copyright information should be maintained at all times. Your acceptance of these license terms is implied by your use.” Later it's suggested: In other words, you may only use NextView imagery linked from this site for digitizing OpenStreetMap data for humanitarian purposes. doesn't look as if data from this source can be in the same database as OSM data and be published (not compatible with ODbL) . cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Attribution and licensing problems at diverse main map providers
I wonder if we have a strategy how to deal with companies who use our data but don't attribute in the right way or don't adhere to the license terms. In the past we had Apple (still unsolved, at least since April 2012) and Microsoft (using military areas from OSM to blur their imagery), now there is the biggest German map editor (MairDumont) who is not mentioning the license of the used data, nor linking to OSM or spelling out the name (OpenStreetMap). See here: http://www.kompass.de/online-karte.html By rough analysis it seems as if they are using April 2012 data (cc-by-sa) outside German speaking countries, while they use a different (proprietary) source in Germany, Austria and maybe other countries. Their Attribution is unclear in several ways: 1. They don't mention the license (cc-by-sa or odbl), if you click on the license link you get to a page on their website that encourages you to enquire about the costs for a print license, but no mention of any openness. 2. The terms of use-link goes to google (from whom they use the API). - IMHO misleading As far as I have found until now on their map and website there is no link or mention of OSM other than the attribution (c) 2013 Falk, OSM Contributors, (c) 2013 KOMPASS Karten GmbH (DTK600 10). --- OK, I missed the i-link, there is additional attribution, even more confusing: Diese Anwendung baut auf dem Interaktiven Karten-Framework ecMAPS *) auf. Details dazu unter http://hubermedia.de Kontaktieren Sie uns, falls Sie Fragen oder Anregungen haben: supp...@hubermedia.de *Technologie-Partner ...* © 2013 ecMAPS® ONLINE - hubermedia.de/ecmaps-online © 2013 ecMAPS® MOBIL - hubermedia.de/ecmaps-mobil © 2013 eT4® META - hubermedia.de/et4-meta © 2013 eT4® Redaktionssystem - hubermedia.de/et4 © 2013 Google © 2013 CloudMade - Map data CCBYSA 2009 ___ IMHO this is misleading, as you can't tell whether the data comes from Google or Cloudmade or any other of the mentioned companies (and if it was cloudmade, still 2009 would not be the correct date, and Cloudmade isn't OSM- still missing attribution). I followed the link to hubermedia and clicked on ecmaps-online, also there is no link to OSM nor the name spelled out. What are the concatenation (?) requirements for attribution? Is it OK to generally quote a lot of different map data providers without specifying which part of the map is from whom, and if yes, how could one exercise his right to share if you don't know to which part it applies? And: are we generally willing to try to enforce the license? What are the measures foreseen if someone refuses to do so? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Place name translations
On 16/giu/2013, at 03:47, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: While I agree with Richard, it might be interesting to know that Wikidata (a Wikimedia.de project) is licensed CC-0, and they copy data wholesale from Wikipedia. that's indeed interesting, how can they throw the original viral licenses of Wikipedia overboard? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Place name translations
On 16/giu/2013, at 12:14, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: that's indeed interesting, how can they throw the original viral licenses of Wikipedia overboard? Based on what I've seen, what they are copying from Wikipedia are data and facts. In the US, facts are not copyrightable as facts do not originate from creative authorship and there are no database rights in the US either. but the wikipedia terms of use require you to attribute, for instance. If the terms wouldn't apply in this case, couldn't we start to copy facts from other maps just as well? cheers, Martin___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
On 13/giu/2013, at 15:58, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote: All other geocoding results in a Produced Work, IMHO it results in a Derivative Database, as long as the amount of data geocoded is not too small. Cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
2013/6/7 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com 2. The ODbL is too vague in the definition of its terms, requiring additional clarifications by licensor. This is most importantly the case around the terms derivative database and what constitutes a substantial extraction of data [3]. At least for the substantial part of your question I believe if a professional geo service provider like map box would decide to use OSM to satisfy its geocoding needs, it is obvious that this use would be substantial, or you could use it only very few and for very short time ;-) cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Permissibility of incorporating parts of an address from a business' website
2013/4/25 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es The answer to this might be different if your jurisdiction doesn't apply the european database directive. But which is the relevant jurisdiction, the one the mapper is in, or the one the database is in (i.e. where you perform the actual action)? Cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Permissibility of incorporating parts of an address from a business' website
2013/4/25 Pieren pier...@gmail.com I'm not sure it has to do with non-substantial amounts of data. But business websites publishing their own address or list of addresses is reallly intended to be shared and republished everywhere. I'd also see it like this, it is quite unlikely that they will sue your for helping their marketing department spread the word. On the other hand from a strictly legal point of view I have hardly seen a business website that didn't claim full copyright on all contents. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [GIS-Kosova] OSM road network for Kosova
Am 07/mar/2013 um 16:21 schrieb Bekim Kajtazi bekim.kajt...@gmail.com: Whatever case it is...the data is gone!!! Generally it is your responsibility to keep your contact information up to date. I sent 2 times around 100-200 emails to the major contributors to OSM on the Italian grounds which had not decided on the CTs by the time and many of them didn't reach the mapper because he didn't care or forgot to update his email. Btw.: You have had to be a really hardcore (main page sidebars, wiki, mailing list, twitter, blog, forum) ignorer if despite being active in OSM you missed the license change. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] (c) statement on openstreetmap.org slippy map?
2013/1/17 Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org from http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright: For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner of the map. For example: below there is this paragraph: Finding out more Read more about using our data, and how to credit us, at the Legal FAQhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ . On that page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3a._I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F where to put it : For a *browsable electronic map* (e.g. embedded in a web page or mobile phone application), the credit should appear in the corner of the map, as commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps, or an about box/page. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright and license page, how to do the details
Looking at the licensing page there is still the explicit requirement to credit osm in the corner of the map and in the meantime the FAQ has been amended with the same requirement. Some time ago this wasn't required explicitly, that's why I ask when this was introduced and by whom? (the old requirement was that it should be stated somewhere that (c) is osm contributors). I agree with Tobias that for apps on mobile devices which use a lot of different data from different sources this is somehow impractical, as it would clutter the screen (fortunately there is no minimum font size requirement ;-) ). There is also a whole lot of osm-based websites and services around, which don't do attribution in this google-tos-style (some of them credit osm somewhere on the map, but it isn't in the corner, others link to a dedicated sources-page with sometimes detailed information about osm and the licensing terms). cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
2012/10/30 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: See also: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#What_sort_of_access_to_Derivative_Databases_is_required.3F The page is quite old; the green boxes represent legal advice that we have received at the time. It is also acceptable to provide a copy, diff or instructions for the latest version of the derivative database - it isn't necessary to retain old versions of the database. You are not required to provide regular dumps - the only requirement is that you provide them on request. What if you make a derivative database and render from this. Every time you have rendered a feature, you remove the rendered feature from the database. Your latest derivative database will be empty ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
deliberately Offlist 2012/10/30 Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz: No loop hole. Unless I am missing something earlier in the thread, this is covering very old ground. This is the LWG understanding: The buzz phrase is layered copyright. Using an open licensed photo of a MacDonald's restaurant does not give one the right to use MacDonald's logo. In our world, the classic case is the SVG file. The publisher can publish it as a Produced Work if the intent is to show a pretty picture but if someone then comes along and tries to extract and re-constitute OSM data from it, then OSM copyright applies to them. deliberately Offlist Mike, thank you for this statement I am glad to read this and I really hope it is like this. The intentions should be associated to the use and not to the producer of the work (i.e. like you wrote above and not like I read it here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline ). Someone could produce a SVG with the intent to show a pretty picture (i.e. not intended for the extraction of data and thus clearly a produced work), but who then comes along and uses it with different intentions (data extraction) must not do it, because in this case the same work turned automagically into a database. (That's why it is important that every produced work has strings attached, (c) for the data OSM contributors, ODbL1.0, which fortunately is part of the current guidelines) Part of my worries rise from the fact, that it seems there once was an anti-reengineering clause in the ODbL which was then removed to obtain compatibility with cc-by-sa and other share-alike licenses. Isn't this an indication that re-engineering is allowed? I mean, why else would it have been removed? (argueing from an offenders point of view). cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Copyright and license page, how to do the details
I am reading the new copyright and license page, but don't find it very clear to understand. http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright How to credit OpenStreetMap We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”. You must also make it clear that the data is available under the Open Database License, and if using our map tiles, that the cartography is licensed as CC-BY-SA. You may do this by linking to this copyright page. Alternatively, and as a requirement if you are distributing OSM in a data form, you can name and link directly to the license(s)... For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner of the map. To whom applies the requirement to credit in the corner of the map, just to users of the datatiles or to all users of OSM data presenting it in some form of browsable electronic map? Where does this requirement come from? Or am I misinterpreting this, and should is not a requirement but a recommendation? Crosschecking with the legal FAQ it seems that an about-box/page would be fine as well: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3a._I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F For a browsable electronic map (e.g. embedded in a web page or mobile phone application), the credit should appear in the corner of the map, as commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps, or an about box/page.. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] CTs, procedure to change of the license
During the license change from cc-by-sa to ODbL the issue was raised that 3 weeks for an active contributor to respond to a voting for a license change was not sufficient and IIRR the response was that this would be dealt with later. What is the view on this? How can this detail be changed, and what would be a reasonable time span for an active contributor to respond? My suggestion would be 2 months or 60 days. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs, procedure to change of the license
I found the thread: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CT-time-period-for-reply-to-a-new-license-change-active-contributor-td5270119.html basically what Michael Collinson wrote makes sense: - In the case of a major license change, there would be a run up of at least several months of publicity and discussion before the final formal vote announcement. - Our general objective in the CTs is to leave future generations as much flexibility as possible while preserving overall project goals. - The CTs do not stop such a formal announcement and vote opening to be made much earlier. I certainly agree that 6-8 weeks is reasonable should we ever go through a big change again. - There may be ocassions when a small but vital change needs to be made if a problem/loop-hole is found with the current license. Hence three weeks ... two weeks for someone to be on holiday and one week for them to get organised and vote. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
2012/10/24 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com: As has been noted in the Public Domain subset thread, the contributors can make license statement that they like, but the OSMF can still enforce the database rights. So a statement by the contributors (e.g. on OSM wiki) that is not confirmed by the OSMF is not very helpful to the end user. what the end user could do: approach the contributor that made the PD declaration and ask them to give them the data they contributed under PD conditions ;-). Not sure but I guess this might be only possible if the user had stored a local copy of the data. If the original contributor got his (own) data from the OSMF-servers it would probably be under ODbL even if he himself had contributed it and given only a non-exclusive license to OSMF. From a practical point of view I think it would be difficult to determine whether the data was copied from the OSMF servers of from a local copy though. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
2012/10/22 Igor Brejc igor.br...@gmail.com: Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? there are 2 ways to put graphics into a PDF: those with vectors embedded and those with a raster inside. The first is to treat like a SVG and the second like a PNG (always asuming you didn't password protect the PDF). cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Is there a PD part in OSM?
I wonder if data you download now or did so in the past from OSM servers can be used as PD data. There are some users who have publicly declared that they consider their contributions to OSM to be in the public domain. For simplicity I'd like to restrict this question to users who have either made this declaration in their user description or have linked their wiki account from their user description (i.e. it is clear, which OSM username the declaration was made for and that the user was the owner of this account). Is it possible to download this data from OSM servers (or mirrors/extracts/elaborations from this) under a cc-by-sa or ODbL license and still consider it PD due to the dual licensing, the user has expressed he wishes his data to be under? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] CT compatibility with attribution only licenses
Reading the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines#Make_sure_data_license_is_OK quote What we certainly cannot do is require end-users of our data/renderings to give credit to the particular data donor. With this in mind, our attribution may not be sufficient legally speaking and might actually be considered unsatisfactory by the original authors of the data. it seems to me, that also data which requires attribution only may not be imported into OSM as long as there is not an explicit statement from the original author/rights holder that crediting in the OSM system (e.g. changeset comments, wiki, source-tags on objects which might be later removed, credits in the description of a deducated import account, etc.) is sufficient and it is OK for him that the attribution to his particular data donation might be removed later by following users of the data? Or what is the general interpretation of the meaning of CT/ODbL regarding attribution only licenses? I am refering for instance to the Italian Open Data License, which explicitly states that it is compatible with cc-by-sa 3.0 and ODbL: http://www.formez.it/iodl/ but requires to (it:indicare la fonte delle Informazioni e il nome del Licenziante, includendo, se possibile, una copia di questa licenza o un collegamento (link) ad essa;) ~cite the source of the information and the name of the licensor, including if possible a copy of this license or a link to it (informal translation). cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Wiki fotos with Unkunown license
What does Unknown license mean for fotos in the wiki? Isn't there a requirement for them to be at least available under cc-by-sa? An example is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Ballroom.jpg cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council
2012/6/11 Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk: In answer to the queries below, the data is free to use as is the OS open data on their website. ... So in short, we believe the RoW data can be incorporated into OpenStreetmap as long as acknowledgement and copyright is shown from where it came and how can be used So in summary it appears that the OS gave HCC specific permission to use this, and I'm guessing it's OK to use in OSM, but I am not in any sense of the word a legal expert so, what are people's opinions on this? I am not a legal expert either, but their statements above seem clear to me: if OS data is compatible with CT/ODBL also the HCC data should be compatible. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] WAS Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?
Am 11. April 2012 00:06 schrieb Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com: and this on the copyright of css : http://b0x0rz.deviantart.com/journal/Is-CSS-Copyrightable-214148624 First, a short answer to a question (for the impatient ones): Is CSS Copyrightable? No. Absolutely NOT. (note: This is valid only for the CSS code itself not any images it may reference.) but according to the linked blog post you can protect it with a trademark. Btw.: in the case of maps I find this strange, because the CSS is the part that says what is displayed how, and this is mainly the part of traditional maps, that is copyrighted (the style). cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Am 6. März 2012 17:52 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: On 03/06/2012 02:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data (in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not create a derived database. (The database that contains the results of the analysis might be derived and have to released.) Oops. Tripped over my own negative here. I wanted to say: As long as they just compare stuff and verify, I think it's ok and they won't be affected by viral ODbL-ness. Really? So also this sentence was not intended and you mean the opposite: (The database that contains the results of the analysis might be derived and have to released.)? Isn't this a kind of merge: just compare and verify (above there was also flagging)? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign
2012/2/13 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch: PS: essentially such an import should never get pass the community discussion part in the first place. FYI: In Italy there are currently some imports going on, where the data is licensed cc-by-2.5 and there are also other imports of the past under this license in Italy. cc-by is not a very restrictive license but still it imposes some problems for further license changes. I'm pretty sure an import that is compatible with the current licence (read: OdbL / CT and cc-by-sa2.0 ) will generally pass the community discussion, if the data is nice (up to date, good quality). cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
2012/1/29 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net: demotivated by the data loss. but filling in gaps is really much quicker done than starting from scratch. +1, at least there already are tags for most things, comfortable editors and lots of experienced mappers ;-) cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] whitewashing nodes without tags
I know that some variants of this topic already have been under discussion, but I'd like to add another version to it, where I believe that indeed there will be no copyright left by the declining mapper. Three mappers Ac1, Ac2 (acceptors) and Dec1 (decliner) edit an object: 1. Ac1 creates a highway or any other way (i.e. a way with nodes and tags on the way). 2. Dec1 adds nodes to the highway/way (no tag modification) 3. Ac2 moves the nodes of the way (interesting for us only the ones from Dec1) For all nodes that Ac2 has touched (moved or added tags to them) I would expect that it doesn't matter if Dec1 had created them, because anyway there is no information from him left. This might be interpreted differently if Dec1 would have also created the way, and surely if he added tags, but if he only added nodes, and they are no longer on their original position because Ac2 has moved them, what would be copyrightable from this? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Maxspeed tags in Australia
2012/1/13 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Ok, I've discussed this off-list with Nick and did a test run for 1000 (of roughly a quarter million) ways. Here is one example touched by the script: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4018604 Nice, this will also significantly change the relation between maxspeed:source (mainly John Smith) and the earlier and by presumbaly more different users attached source:maxspeed http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/maxspeed:source#values http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/source:maxspeed#values cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
2011/12/21 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl: I think it's relevant that node changes as suggested should involve stand alone nodes only (such as POI). Once they are part of a structure of say a building or a road, water or any area, the nodes should be considered a composition rather then 4 nodes IMHO rights on this composition can also faint, e.g. years ago a (non-ct) mapper was drawing a rough street with nodes every 300 meters. Now those initial way has five times more nodes then it had in its initial version (most probably the initial way would also be split into different pieces now, due to details like speed limits, turn-restrictions, bus routes, lane-count, ...). I think there must also be a point where nothing from the initial way is actually contained in the current data (often these initial ways don't have much attributes, it is common in here to find ways which only have/had a highway-tag (the value is now often changed, so not even one tag is the same). If you assume that other tags (like the name) would also have been inserted by the following mappers you could extend this to ways which had a name (or some other frequent tag, for which a following mapper guarantees that he would have added it if it were missing). While the underlying structure is a geographic fact, the choice of place nodes and the number to represent the structure is a creative work. +1, but where is the point that this structure is significantly changed? How many nodes do you have to move and insert/delete to be something different? What if someone takes a river, moves it aside and lets it become a track (deletes the river tags and sets highway-tag, changes name). Now he copies this way as a new way (new nodes and way) to the old position of the river and sets tags. Is the track-way now tainted because it consists of old nodes, while the river is OK because it was newly created? Admittedly a rare corner case, but IMHO one that shows that there is a point where there is no more original information in the following versions of a way. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data
2011/11/29 Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org: A PNG doesn't fit this description as its intent is to encode a single complete image and the pixels are not independent. Likewise PNG and SVG. Place them in a systematic or methodical collection and you have a database of images. But this is separate from their contents. If I place a travel photo of mine into a PNG and then print it out, I have not gained a database right. IMHO there is a difference between a travel photo and a map rendering. This is a jpeg: http://www.tnooz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ITA-QR-code-1.jpg cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database
2011/11/23 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: But I think that the specific example under discussion here actually falls short of even this lowered bar. It is quite possible for me to grab a whole Way in JOSM and move it one metre to the left (which makes me the last editor of, potentially, hundreds of untagged nodes). I don't think that this action would nullify the rights of the original contributor of the way, and therefore if the original contributor does not agree to the license change, we should remove this data. Yes, I agree. But if there once were 4 nodes stretching over 30 km (I'm slightly exaggerating), tagged just highway=tertiary, and now these initial 4 nodes became 500 nodes or 5000 nodes, distributed now in 20 different ways with lots of attributes, routes running over them, etc., how much of the initial 4 nodes is still there? Just bad luck for us? Or is there a limit where original rights have fainted? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What should be considered legal?
Thanks. The reason I asked that was that I frequently forget where the GPS trace was taken - was it a road or a track, which village or whatever else. This usually happens in areas where OSM map is pitch white :) Yahoo maps aren't very helpful there either. well, you can still upload the traces as they are always usefull (also more than one on the same place), especially in white areas, but without further information (road name, road class, physical state, reference number, restrictions etc.) you should tag them as highway=road if you decide to do it (and if it wasn't cross country). Btw: I guess you ment yahoo aerial imagery, as we have no right at all to trace yahoo maps or take information from it. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
2009/9/28 Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi: Mike Collinson m...@... writes: Article 10 Term of protection 1. The right provided for in Article 7 shall run from the date of completion of the making of the database. It shall expire fifteen years from the first of January of the year following the date of completion. Will all contents of OSM year 2009 database be in public domain first of January, 2025? I doubt that OSM db will ever be completed ;-) cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status
2009/9/28 Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com: 2009/9/28 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es Better? :-) :-) does this mean yes? What is the situation with planned Odbl? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: [OSM-talk] copyright problem with data copiedfrom a map
2009/8/17 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com: You may wish to set up a Belgium equivalent for this page to act as a record of such reverts. As you can see we have been having some problems of our own. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log actually I just fwded. the request as noone seems to care in talk, and I thought this might be the right page, so just not to get it overlooked. Isn't there a special squad team to handle this kind of thread? Or should we have global revert page or what? maybe would IMHO be better, yes. Actually I don't know if there is a simple possibility to revert a changeset for simple mappers as I (or probably Michel) are. regards, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: [OSM-talk] copyright problem with data copied from a map
Hi, I forward this question from michel in talk: -- Forwarded message -- From: Renaud MICHEL r.h.michel+...@gmail.com Date: 2009/8/16 Subject: [OSM-talk] copyright problem with data copied from a map To: t...@openstreetmap.org Hello Two weeks ago, I found problem in Dison, Belgium, see here http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.6044lon=5.8522zoom=14 At that moment, the motorway had been shifted north-west by user Neo while adding other roads. I moved it back to correspond to GPS traces and messaged Neo about the problem. He did some more edits, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Neo/edits and that's when I realised that he was actually copying an actual map. He actually put the bounding box of his map http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38566375 He confirmed a week later that he was really copying a map he scanned and loaded in JOSM (not rectifying it, so the shifted roads). He was obviously not aware of the copyright problem as he asked me, in the same message, if he could somehow copy the map from his tomtom. I replied one week ago explaining why he must not do that and asking him to remove all the edits he made based on that map, but had no more answer so far. So now I'm thinking about removing those edits myself, but am not sure what's the best way to do so. I don't know if the changeset can be reverted, as there are many of them, and I also did some edits there (changeset #1997354 #2005715 #2046924 a least) before knowing of the copyright problem. Any advice? I think I'm going to remove all this by hand with JOSM. But the ways will still be present in the DB with the history. Can we do something about this? cheers -- Renaud Michel ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- ___ Martin Koppenhoefer (Dipl-Ing. Arch.) c/o Sebastianelli Via del Santuario Regina degli Apostoli, 18 00145 Roma Italia N41.8739, E12.5141 tel1: +39 06.916508070 tel2: +49 30 868708638 mobil: +39 389 6488991 m...@koppenhoefer.com http://www.koppenhoefer.com Hinweis: Diese Nachricht wurde manuell erstellt. Wir bemühen uns um fehlerfreie Korrespondenz, dennoch kann es in Ausnahmefällen vorkommen, dass bei der manuellen Übertragung von Informationen in elektronische Medien die übertragenen Informationen Fehler aufweisen. Wir bitten Sie, dies zu entschuldigen. Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of koppenhoefer.com unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@koppenhoefer.com Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. Thank You. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Non-existant streets
2009/8/12 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: One such road went into someone's car port, I don't think we have barrier=car_port :) in this case it will not be a road but a highway=service in Europe and probably access=private (at least for the last few meters), don't know about the australian-tagging-scheme though. I agree with Tobias: map what's there, and if there once was a road, probably there are remnants which tagged as such will explain to the next mapper, what is the situation like. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Non-existant streets
2009/8/12 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Wed, 12/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: yes, don't mark them as normal roads if they are in a degraded state. It's worst than that in a lot of cases, they were gazetted, but never built. there is also a tagging proposal for roads in planning and one for construction-phase AFAIR. Maybe you find something in the Wiki. Actually this is not legal-talk anymore. I think the answer was: separate Layer if you run the servers on your own is OK, but please don't map nonexisting roads from other maps (and maybe with tag easter_egg=foomap) and put them into the main db. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Non-existant streets
2009/8/12 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: We're not trying to put copyrighted information in the database, we're recording an observation, no different then recording the name on a street sign, no, it's not the same. Because you're gonna write that there is nothing. Why there? Why don't you write everywhere, where there is no road, that you observed that there is no road? since we actually go out and see it, what is it? the only question is how to make it as easy as possible for others to know this too. IMHO (IANAL) it will always infringe copyright reporting in a structuralized manner about this proprietary data. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adding UK post box information
2009/7/14 Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net: Royal Mail doesn't know the exact location of all its postboxes. If we find out for them, what are the chances they would sue us? It's flipping useful from their point of view. They could apply proper Travelling Salesman algorithms to them to optimise pick-up routes. you are cutting jobs ;-) Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/6/25 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Yeah, sure, and if I leave the house a brick might fall on my head and I'd be dead. I'm almost sure you wanted to write tile ;-) cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/6/25 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: For example, if we build strong national chapters that, legally, are separate from OSMF, these could easily between themselves set up all the servers required to replace everything OSMF operates. With such a healthy backup network, it would not even make much sense for anybody to try and kill off OSMF. This includes not giving anything to OSMF that has commercial value unless that is absolutely necessary. In the long term, I hope that we'll be able to switch to a distributed server architecture where OSMF operated assets are but one piece of the puzzle, rather than the head of everything. Hallo Frederik, kennst Du couchdb? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CouchDB Ich habe leider selbst keine Ahnung von Datenbanken, aber die bietet wohl eine gute Möglichkeit, auf vielen verschiedenen Servern gleichzeitíg zu laufen. Keine Ahnung wie performant das ist, wo die Probleme liegen,etc. aber beim sie scheint ähnlich wie das OSM-Modell strukturiert zu sein (Key/Value-Paare). Vielleicht ist das Thema ja in Entwicklerkreisen sowieso schon längst bekannt, aber bei Deinem aktuellen Beitrag kam mir wieder der Gedanke und ich dachte, ich schreib Dir mal. Gruß Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/6/25 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: Hallo Frederik oops, sorry, not for the list. Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: incompatibility issues
2009/3/2 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: 80n wrote: I can imagine a scenario where, for example, Google uses Amazon's Mechanical Turk to pay lots of people to use Map Maker to trace from OSM's rendered tiles. Is this a scenario we could try to fight when it happens, instead of complicating things upfront, or would it be too late then? My opinion is that if OSM were non-changing, one could say we need to be cautions because once the data is leaked beyond our control then that's it. But since OSM is changing, and (IMHO) our database is worth little without the steady stream of changes, we can risk such a leak because we always have the power to cut off the updates and thus render the leaked data next to worthless after a short time. this is valid for some portions of our data, while a lot of it will most likely not change but still is quite precious, e.g. housenumbers. Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
