Re: [OSM-legal-talk] share-alike on generalized data?

[Rob Myers]

On 06/02/16 11:32 AM, Tobias Wendorff wrote:
> 
> Sure, I understand that. But I thought the main concept behind share-alike
> is to make data better by foreign "investitions".

In general the idea of share-alike is to make sure that downstream users
of data have the same ability to work with the data as upstream users.

So it's about the users continuing to be able to use the data rather
than improving it, although that may be a side effect in some cases.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using a WMS imagery with CC-BY4.0

[Rob Myers]

On 28/12/15 01:23 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> 
> Perhaps continued copyleft fragmentation is even in the (near term
> anyway) interest of OSM in order to encourage all others to use
> maximally permissive licenses.

This wouldn't help OSM due to the contributor agreement.

- Rob.


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

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

[Rob Myers]

On 2015-10-09 11:56, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Mr. Stace D Maples
 wrote:


One other question, and I’m just curious, not trying to start a
flame war. Isn’t some of the data in OSM from public domain
datasets? If so, what is the OSM rationale for placing a more
restrictive licensing model on that data?


[...]

On the other hand, a share-alike license aims to be a more sustainable
model. It restricts the immediate user on only one aspect: the right
to make a share-alike content/data/IP proprietary is explicitly
disallowed. This ensures that any improvements are shared back to the
community, unlike with the BSD-style licensing.


It also (and I would argue first) ensures that the freedom to use the 
work travels with it rather than simply being a prize to be captured by 
the first upstream mover. Wherever you encounter an OSM map in the wild, 
you have the freedom to use it. PD can't do that, so it's not a matter 
of "restricting" anything other than the ability to restrict it.


How one feels about this is a good ideological litmus test. :-)

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work

[Rob Myers]

I don't understand this objection. If a company accidentally publishes 
something that's a problem with their procedures, not any license (free or 
proprietary).

On 23 September 2015 15:32:06 GMT-07:00, Alex Barth  wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>
>> it might actually force
>> such a service provider to differentiate between geo-coding for
>public
>> vs in-house use.
>>
>
>This suggestion has come up before and I'd like to flag that this is
>impractical. No organization would and should take the risk that a
>potential future (accidental) publication of a private OpenStreetMap
>based
>work could jeopardize sensitive data. The risk is significant as even
>the
>publication of a Produced Work can bring the share alike stipulations
>of
>the ODbL to bear.
>
>
>
>
>___
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

[Rob Myers]

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


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


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


Calling something "geocoding" is a distraction.

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


- Rob.


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

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

[Rob Myers]

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

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

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


It's that time again! :-)


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


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


- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 02/11/14 02:11 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
> 
> We have no significant third party ODbL data releases due to OSM 
> share alike to show for,

Then clearly OMS should have stuck with BY-SA for the database, as
that did gain third party data releases.

> but clear reasons and examples of people walking away from the 
> project because of share alike.

If switching to a license that is more amenable to proprietary use
hasn't stopped increasing numbers of people "walking away" then,
again, the project should have stuck with BY-SA.

So the stronger share-alike license got more of the positive results
that you are blaming the weaker license for not achieving, and caused
less of the alleged harm you are attributing to it.

That sounds like an argument for stronger copyleft, not weaker.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUVtFBAAoJECciMUAZd2dZ3SoIAJ0NApsIcSEMUSiqnhvnY3fF
u3vY3n5MU5gNrJV9WxSwLObyV2imyMPfbZhlF2OPQCXp8D4uN6Mot+9/cD7F7nan
pjb0YIeHC0oruQrShoRTXFaHVCHBK7N4zOfhT+aI+gbavToYcGgcU4y38kM+DLml
M7HA246sFny7NjckGJqmyDoOp/U0Nhw3YHFII1ZfG7j1yohYSrVE40WE2/D0oPs/
pExMVktZija/rG9moXwyQyd/vdAMizcFlbpfPEAWDyYDpKOn0+l+WWK6Oiw2626r
ekKYAq+YDNf8lWl3o5SzmJS0uLLlzG/mSOK1+OUL7oq69t4HpGCQ471PvMHorRc=
=NhmN
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 30/10/14 12:51 PM, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> 
> Share Alike is the expression for fear of abuse.

Share-Alike is a weaker description of copyleft.

Copyleft is a strategy used to ensure the freedom of all users of a
resource, rather than simply the first to grab it.

> In my mind there cant be any abuse of OSM data.

There can however be a failure to respect that freedom.

> I want the OSM Data to be available everywhere and anyone.

That requires copyleft, as otherwise people can make that data part of
a system that denies other people the freedom they exercised in making it.

> And it needs to be a no brainer which it isnt right now.

It already was with BY-SA. It was made even more of a no brainer with
the switch from BY-SA to OSM.

> For corporations its most of the time easier to spend 500K€ on a 
> commercial dataset than to spend 5k€ on a Lawyer analyzing a
> licensing issue.

If we add up the cost of all the time company representatives have
spent trying to get OSM to change its licensing *a second time*, it
would have been a lot cheaper for them to get together and just hire a
lawyer who knew what they were doing.

> ANY restriction is a problem for adoption as one can see e.g. from 
> the discussion about geocoding data.

There is no problem with geocoding, the quantitative part of the ODbL
covers this and there is no need for any qualitative redefinitions.

There is however a very obvious potential problem with people
extracting substantial parts of the database via "geocoding" and then
saying they aren't covered by the derivatives part of the license
because "geocoding".

- - Rob.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUUp/wAAoJECciMUAZd2dZX98IALGlSY5On5Bmc80Iq83UFOcG
+JvNSs3yMB9fmllGAHifRcOBKUc+3mQzCPBthL2T2AoHrn+PgY4c93eKVuapxpG2
kYv0j+le/yXu9NhlUCaoB8o+0HzoabCIS0z8MlGik1CkOCeJ/Kt1pB9I2JDq+cCQ
fdBBTdtU0PxKjbGu8rrRmytr33GitTq5Om9kVrUUJkJCoiiEJGiUTf5h/O45v/w3
C8R3YZT+PwBcJaTHmBdraeVRoZ9+HDKHzoQOSDOyhzIAY+hmbxk+vgyQ86M745aa
344/S6yy8lZ/4IwHD8AC3ZMyhI71CZD+8pisp1s4ofF6ULNBZaMCBn+E3qkus7Y=
=hpnW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 29/10/14 04:32 AM, SomeoneElse wrote:
> On 29/10/2014 09:05, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>> It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper ...
> 
> What I read was "MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin to write a
> paper supporting their commercial point of view re the licensing
> of OpenStreetMap data".
> 
> Does it really deserve any more attention than that?

"Uncertainty" is simply a term of art that means "obvious impediments
to my sense of entitlement".

Likewise, "lack of clarity" means "haven't read the contributor terms".

- - Rob.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUUP19AAoJECciMUAZd2dZJXMIAJLhG+9jU8qf82oxH2b3T5XU
jgCGd7ZovjUZmANZTZ9yjhjm4Um5Ch4iv6rAG2SftF4wEadzV4fVVbY4dE/QbEUr
8Z7hNW48Qs888ifXR7jrekbtKFox1jTKAWmQcZAUW9zMsKPzyVPk/dLTd1gBg+d0
vVNSAmdexOUZAbCksrHUTp4fdJhm8l+qwPlb43hVm4bLxp3WpIv32Mlb7PoWPgt8
/LIn+roW1R7ryFjcTaSZEseKNIX3rpo78p6UxbBFyRTdrufI7+YT4Zbf/M2tk+UX
ePwEcjuTpWhoNOKA7Gng51T2zTBhfDY+Fw6EhzfowbDZ9162yod8vg98/qv61XE=
=nOHH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 29/10/14 07:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature
> that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share
> alike licenses is to "infect" other stuff that gets in contact with
> the share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself.

It's "congenital", not "viral". It propagates by inheritance, not
contagion.

;-)

- - Rob.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUUPtbAAoJECciMUAZd2dZ91cH/1jbALOpOXN2kjNmTI1WkpuO
nk4HYxHMkuuGhJTjQ9FYFAAhDMw89DJ7AUMCP6AdjPCxQzlysgiOCyE5I/398MJi
qo3QWDlaWoV7MMiUzZuICwzbH3+LJAqFx886LLr/GSaH0pLkI0FsS0jZ1oMg+yaC
g7vu44F0KG4EPXZlfeJNp5ameCQTl4FqTBH6aB8ru35+Tu4w2TMbbbFDS/+XQg1A
Wc7uhOzUUA8ktTqZFPdH9dlbHE5Y9an9y140K+MoBXYvId9UEaLhV6PeOA/kYOA7
luYbUePtjX9EALbqtipslaAXVGQdfmtaJd159AHKEdRGX8wX4tOWCWSmxl6C2V4=
=ejQk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 20/08/14 01:58 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 
> It would be great if people would help fill in the blanks, or
> correct me where I might have misrepresented the discussion.

The page asserts:

"Geocodes are a Produced Work by the definition of the ODbL (section 1.):
“Produced Work” – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material,
text, or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part
of the Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a
Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database."

The rest of the page then silently slips from the idea that individual
"geocodes" (a term of art for co-ordinates Extracted from the
Database) are Produced Works (rather than individually not being
Substantial Extracts) to the idea that any number of "geocodes" are
still a Produced Work.

But neither the ODbL nor the page explain why a database of
geographical co-ordinates is more like an image, text or sound rather
than...a database. Or why if that database contains a Substantial
portion of the source Database it is not a Derivative Database.

The biggest blank on the page is therefore any explanation of why a
derivative database becomes a produced work if we call the queries
used to produce it "geocoding" rather than Extraction. :-/

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT9iF/AAoJECciMUAZd2dZrAoH/279WkdDxayizW3HTlxTeu1P
EdwVdGE3wt/j5hMnPw3aJvHUl3AYNyOlmPlAhwJDHJTw+C3m9q9YldMU2fmx+kkr
ZjYntIUfZsnZ1EHFl/Wj8Vx8EUaJjU/qhc1C0PYNpZXS1I9Xeb54BXmLGqwnp988
I1cyq3P1PgoDlzFU2eio6m61lOKPVqXxQCuegpbrkBqcCzCbHmwd/Km39iV4vfu8
icoEzwpgtl4v67HhFZkXtgeQY06xcHjH6641+hVZCYE16ozAsVFevW8a+urUbmkn
B921qizR2SsB0yi/O74RRQNehgCTGrcToKzLP5oEKfjopBI2w1p9dM+Uc7ydd1s=
=F2f1
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 30/07/14 08:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> Il giorno 30/lug/2014, alle ore 16:44, Alex Barth  > ha scritto:
> 
>> your lawyers did really say according to their understanding a 
>> pair of coordinates is similar to an image or a video, hence a 
>> "work"?
>> 
>> Yeah, there's no definition of 'work' in the ODbL, just a 
>> non-exclusive list of examples in the definition of Produced
>> Work.

The examples have a certain flavour though.

> yes, but there is also a definition of derivative database, into
> which geocoding results seem to fit perfectly.

In particular a database of geocoding results.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT2eVAAAoJECciMUAZd2dZV/8IAMkuDERtaSP1BwC0j2N/UMog
8ndzRQ3YHpNsLv/eFrd/5jx/T/S+iAv2kbCe4dEDql1Gagu4Ex5lSZpiPGeicDwF
NJ3qS96kQv6Ns4rfHh1tBBLOMLNJTLmjgs5XragDaJ319va4xXoo0oTkamZw5yNn
4aEHeLYcx0VtuySTMZ3oiBwRdn0JvasvHY1m9Lt0DJr+qDQgt5F1D+VmPV6OZ1TJ
5Z14q9r+Tz3G3f9neNUWHJdmDq8BN1mL0Fz14fzuOD6BnDR86RFw7U31/0e2Og4L
MhqPz2J7OcSG5xTEtQ1QkrXBjshb69m1BWjS7Y0JOu2mZpYPymIkoVvinzUy6uo=
=LPte
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 25/07/14 04:38 PM, Jake Wasserman wrote:
> 
> I agree that geocoded private data must be allowed to stay
> private.

The ODbL goes to great lengths to explain that it only covers publicly
released data.

> At a minimum, we need to find a way to say actively reverse
> engineering the database can trigger share alike, but the ability
> to reverse engineer it does not.

OK. But we also need to find a way of saying that if that ability
leads to that result then there isn't a defence of being surprised.

> A lot of the responses here just say to not cross the Substantial 
> threshold. That feels like a total cop out - an argument saying OSM
> and its users should remain small and insubstantial... which
> doesn't seem to align with our goals.

That's something of a conceptual slippage. OSM and its users should
become large and substantial (as it were...). Non-free exploitation of
the resulting data should not.

> The fact that we’re scaring away well-intentioned users is sad.

Well-intentioned users don't want to circumvent the license in order
to recreate substantial sections of it for non-free use.

By definition.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT00kHAAoJECciMUAZd2dZRncH/1R2YvZg8/N+6mCBtEW6HJvw
znnCYeYgaK88fRVAvqpZ7bdXQBb9yN0Tbx/Xewoop6dZEp4XSMO4EezciM4kS341
e3mm6XuUiJy+3zYL+qBxjSE/zPmMI/fINM0wR3Tc3w3yT/cU61stSd6ux2bwFNJJ
Aa7C0kgkXfV2ItSbBBH6GN0PWkMC4+1fkVe4fEnbgWrT6tF3KlSF4+cKmIALuMc3
ACEyVJUgKCiy4UXXXPF6oRn031gF5GgkXIMnLChLE5HL4DlCWTlLCNPvLIz2N9T6
WKKIp+4hsEs1J5a7Rv5Akl6aE7QVHeA1+YzCYB/dAXe13o0hBa+HY3tPzNaTMzA=
=Nqb5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 14/07/14 06:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
> 
> Taking a step back here. What do we want? From conversations
> around dropping share alike my impression was that there was a
> consensus around unlocking geocoding - even among share-alike
> advocates.
> 
> Just like how CC-BY-SA created a grey area around the SA
> implications for the rendered map which wasn't good for OSM,

Which grey area was that?

> ODbL does the same with permanent geocoding. To make OSM viable for
> geocoding we can't have its ODbL infecting the datasets it's used
> on.

Contrary to Microsoft's lovely old FUD, copyleft isn't infectious:
it's heritable. ;-)

The ODbL represents a major shift away from full-stack copyleft in
order to address precisely the concerns that are being raised yet
again here. I suspect this is a classic example of a good compromise
being something that displeases everyone equally.

Luis mentioned that there's case law for the concept of "substantial".
There's no mention of this on the current Wiki page. I think it would
be productive to seek that out next.

- - Rob.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTxHL7AAoJECciMUAZd2dZ31UIAK7vPZ5B5j9NVkbgVwYvA8h8
mYPt2l1+7/+sqYMpa8TLYubYaURWa096MLk+FQUcnteUWLy0mKDbVODydhU0WBhL
t1sUehJjI0cHYZqE4TG54u8x1O/ADUGnCSJJwsTbuW3njXC2cMcRzkQf680zpBon
pJkpoUWkwDE2M8dbbx9vmdoJMR3w847UD57bTINGy6azS/YyUFAL3FhqpyHa2gbZ
ExowM2LadTEhQgFFAk5whCuOdzU3HYObfkS6YCKgzoDRMaZmMVCTecxbD4QXtF/C
m2XlyLo/h9D/MrhxpPSAsWWHUdHWjWP2S7HqkSmiCQ7/zy17XdyWvug7SLKReTw=
=/Vhb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial

[Rob Nickerson]

All,

Although I have not read up on any database legal cases (and do not have
the time to), I do have some concerns as to the definition of "substantial".

My assumption is that insubstantial use means that the ODBL does not apply
(and therefore attribution and share-alike does not apply). If this is not
the case then additional information may help.

As for the term "substantial", the comparison I have always drawn is with
copyright of text:

>"In the Infopaq case, the European Court of Justice reviewed the
Information Society Directive (2001/29) and determined that the
reproduction of 11 consecutive words from a newspaper article may
constitute an infringement of copyright in the article, provided that the
extract contains elements which are the expression of the intellectual
creation of the author."
>
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=464fb6fb-335b-4286-bb67-f84c4be0747a

As such I've always treated the word "substantial" to basically mean
anything useful. So for example, if you are using OSM data with the aim of
producing a village map, then extracting OSM data for that village would,
in my opinion, constitute a substantial use.

To me an insubstantial use would be a partial extract for the purpose of
demonstrating a proof of concept (e.g. a few features from the village to
demonstrate the potential of using OSM data), or for the purpose of
critiquing something in OSM.

An OSM contributor may have spent a significant amount of time micro
mapping a village. By attempting to define "substantial" we are setting a
level that basically says, if you don't contribute more than this level,
your work in insubstantial. :-( Worse still we are weakening our case if
this ever gets challenged in court. If someone wants to use OSM data and
believes their case is insubstantial then they should be willing to follow
it through the legal system. If they're not willing to do this, then use
our data as per the ODBL instructs.

So to conclude, in my view we should concentrate our efforts on the other
areas. Supporting those who want to create a village map by clearly
explaining how to attribute OSM and when share alike kicks in would go a
long way to helping out. Simon's diary entry helped me to understand this a
lot better: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/21225

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 04/05/14 11:50 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> 
> The licence is substantially more restrictive in what it effects
> (original OSM data and derivatives of it) than you are portraying it. In
> particular it explicitly allows combination with other data without
> effecting the legal status of such. IF the ODbL had the effect you
> attribute to it, then we would really have a problem (and likely OSM
> usage would go through the floor).

You are absolutely right. I apologize for overstating the license's reach.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 05/05/14 09:16 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
> 
> We have raised the question of Dynamic Data in a dedicated guideline
> given that a number of things are not so clear and even while, using the
> example from the guideline, the occupancy of a parking lot is an
> observable fact it is questionable if we would want to require that
> anybody that creates such or similar application has to provide a real
> time feed of the data on ODbL terms.

If a loophole for this case is inserted, expect to see a sudden increase
in realtime (and "realtime") generation of data. ;-)

If we change realtime to ephemeral, mapping data is ephemeral in
geological time. If we stick with Dynamic, well, SQL queries and views
are dynamic aren't they?

If I want to e.g. combine parking data with littering data for a study
or translate it into audio so I can consult it safely while driving,
access to the data is useful. This may not amount to a moral imperative,
but the debate is currently framed in terms of utility...

Deciding which data is and isn't useful (to users, not OSM) has two
problems:

1. It requires an Oracle. We cannot know which data is and isn't useful.
For example the locations of taxis in London may not seem all that
useful after the fact, but:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Merchandise&oldid=1838

2. People will always push to avoid the license, and any exception will
be abused. That isn't a reason to not add an exception or clarification,
but it is a reason to be wary of pressure for them.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 03/05/14 08:51 AM, Michael Collinson wrote:
> 
> Geocoding: So I have to share a patient's medical record because it is
> geocoded against OSM?

Who with?

> Dynamic Data: So if I use OpenStreetMap car park location data, I have
> to share the real-time occupancy data?

Who with?

> Algorithmic transformations: So I thought of this clever idea to
> pre-format OSM data for fast loading into my game. Now I have to share
> my that or my algorithm?

Who with?

> General maps: I want to use OSM to show locations of restaurants on my
> restaurant review site. Now I have to share the reviews?

Who with?

> *And share-alike only applies to what we collect.*

But the license doesn't exist to collect data for OSM.

It exists to ensure that all the users (or in the terms of the license,
all its recipients if you Use it Publicly) of that data, in combination
with whichever other data and in whatever form and wherever they
encounter it, are free to use it.

If that leads to patients having better access to their medical data,
people being able to find somewhere to park, players of games being able
to maintain and modify them creatively to build communities around them
and drive sales, and people being able to check the actual rankings of
the restaurants they're being directed to that's definitely a win for
Open Data.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 30/04/14 02:35 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> 
> I think there is quite a bit of data that will, with high likelihood,
> never be of use to anyone. That's especially true for byproducts of the
> creation of a "produced work".

It's been of use to at least one person. The person who created the
produced work.

But if the license can encourage more cost effective and environmentally
friendly computation that's an unexpected benefit. ;-)

> But your argument about also shows that there are mappers who ask for a
> lot more than just "giving data back when you fix things".

It shows that the intent of the license is for *all* users of the data
to be free to use it however they encounter it.

If that requires more than bug fixes then so be it. The license doesn't
exist to protect corporations from having to pay for proprietary data
(or to drum up contributions for OSM), it exists to protect the freedom
of every user of the data.

> Thus it would
> be foolish for a data consumer to assume they only have to follow that
> spirit, as much as I wish that was enough.

If the data isn't used to produce the work, it doesn't have to be provided.

Trying to work around this isn't foolish, it's malicious.

Where there is legitimate uncertainty it should be cleared up if
possible. But always to favour *all* users of the data.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 30/04/14 03:18 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> 
> But we have to judge a license based on its actual effects, not the
> original intention. What annoys me, for example, is when we require
> people to publish data that we wouldn't even want if they offered it.

The users of the data may want it. The license exists to benefit them,
not (just) OSM.

If the actual effects worked against this then yes there would be a problem.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 29/04/14 12:37 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> 
> Company X would like to build a tool that combines mapping data +
> third-party data of some sort. Company X is perfectly happy to use OSM
> as the mapping layer and contribute fixes/changes/improvements back to
> OSM under ODBL - that is consistent with their ethics, business model, etc.
> 
> However, Company X interprets ODBL to mean that they can't use OSM with
> that third-party data without putting the third-party data under ODBL.
> And since they don't own/can't license the third-party data under ODBL,
> they use some other mapping source instead of OSM.

Company X wishes to be free to use OSM to make something that the users
will not be free to use in kind.

So no.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 28/04/14 11:42 AM, Steve Coast wrote:
> 
> In a narrow way, this all a good thing. It shows the growth and maturity
> of the project, that there are those out there that want to own it or
> take all the advantages without even saying where the data came from.
> But in the end, we have to defend ourselves for what little, tiny things
> we ask.

Excellent.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OpenData attributes from closed vector data

[Rob Nickerson]

I have since been provided a third data source that does not include any
component of the national mapping agency's data. As such this particular
instance is now irrelevant. However it is a common one, so I encourage
users to engage with their national mapping agencies to enable more use of
potentially derived data.

Regards,
Rob


On 7 March 2014 22:40, Rob Nickerson  wrote:

> Hi list,
>
> I have been provided (i) original vector data and (ii) a printed map
> leaflet both of which include attribute data about roads - for example,
> whether the road is lit.
>
> The owner of the attribute data (whether the road is lit) has explicitly
> stated that their data is available as OpenData and are happy for it to be
> added to OSM. However, I know that the underlying vector data is most
> likely derived from a closed source (national mapping agency).
>
> Given that I am only interested in the attribute data (we already have our
> own version of the road vector data) can I go ahead and add it to OSM using
> (i), (ii) or both?
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] OpenData attributes from closed vector data

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi list,

I have been provided (i) original vector data and (ii) a printed map
leaflet both of which include attribute data about roads - for example,
whether the road is lit.

The owner of the attribute data (whether the road is lit) has explicitly
stated that their data is available as OpenData and are happy for it to be
added to OSM. However, I know that the underlying vector data is most
likely derived from a closed source (national mapping agency).

Given that I am only interested in the attribute data (we already have our
own version of the road vector data) can I go ahead and add it to OSM using
(i), (ii) or both?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

[Rob Myers]

On 17/02/14 11:33 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> 
> Many of the companies failing to meet attribution requirements are using
> OpenStreetMap data for the majority of their map data, and sometimes have
> no attribution at all. The OpenStreetMap requirements are less onerous than
> alternative commercial sources, and our attribution requirements are the
> same as or less onerous than most open data from governments.

And attribution for data is not vanity. It tells users that they are
free to use the data and how to access it.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] About CC-4.0 and ODbl

[Rob Myers]

On 03/10/13 10:06 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
> On 03/10/13 17:21, Rob Myers wrote:
>> On 03/10/13 04:32 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
>>> On 02/10/13 18:59, Rob Myers wrote:
>>>> Is it possible to have a BY-SA 4.0 Produced Work?
>>> It's possible to give a produced work derived from OSM any license you
>>> like (if that's what you mean?) so long as it retains OSM's attribution.
>>> Including "all rights reserved".
>> But doesn't BY-SA claim to cover the database rights? Doesn't that clash
>> with the ODbL?
>>
> 
> A produced work isn't a database, so BY-SA 4's (proposed) protection of
> database rights can't be relevant to it, surely.

I'm very happy if this is the case.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] About CC-4.0 and ODbl

[Rob Myers]

On 04/10/13 12:53 PM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
> Rob Myers  writes:
> 
>>
>> On 03/10/13 04:32 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
>>> On 02/10/13 18:59, Rob Myers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible to have a BY-SA 4.0 Produced Work?
>>>
>>> It's possible to give a produced work derived from OSM any license you
>>> like (if that's what you mean?) so long as it retains OSM's attribution.
>>> Including "all rights reserved".
>>
>> But doesn't BY-SA claim to cover the database rights? Doesn't that clash
>> with the ODbL?
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Pekka was asking about initial import if the source vector data is published
> as CC-BY-4.0. Do you have opinions about that?

BY also covers database rights. So for that reason I'd be quite wary of it.

This is a lawyer question though IMHO. :-)


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] About CC-4.0 and ODbl

[Rob Myers]

On 03/10/13 04:32 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
> On 02/10/13 18:59, Rob Myers wrote:
>>
>> Is it possible to have a BY-SA 4.0 Produced Work?
> 
> It's possible to give a produced work derived from OSM any license you
> like (if that's what you mean?) so long as it retains OSM's attribution.
> Including "all rights reserved".

But doesn't BY-SA claim to cover the database rights? Doesn't that clash
with the ODbL?


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] About CC-4.0 and ODbl

[Rob Myers]

On 01/10/13 03:48 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:
> On 01/10/13 06:01, Stephan Knauss wrote:
>> On 01.10.2013 06:28, Pekka Sarkola wrote:
>>> Questions: Is CC-BY-4.0 compatible with OSM current license (ODbl)? If
>>> data is released under CC-BY-4.0: can we import it to OSM?
>>
>> To my understanding not even ODbL would be suitable for import into OSM.
>>
>> To be suitable for OSM it must conform with the contributor terms
>> which allow a future license change.
> 
> That applies to data added by individual contributors, but the OSMF can
> allow imports under other terms.
> 
> See the preamble to
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms
> 
> I imagine there would probably be no "clash with our principles" in the
> case of CC-BY so long as the copyright owner was happy with our system
> for attribution.

BY-SA 4.0 looks like it clashes with the ODbl due to its coverage of
"Copyright-like Rights".

Is it possible to have a BY-SA 4.0 Produced Work?


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

[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: [cc-community] a legal framework of open (geo)data

[Rob Myers]

 Original Message 
Subject: [cc-community] a legal framework of open (geo)data
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:22:53 +0200
From: Simone Aliprandi 
Reply-To: cc-commun...@lists.ibiblio.org
To: cc-community 

A legal framework of open (geo)data.
A research document by Simone Aliprandi and Carlo Piana for
FreeGIS.net Project:
http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2013/06/freegis-D51-opendata-legal-framework.html
.
Comments and sharing are welcome.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:51:18 -0500, Alex Barth wrote:

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Rob Myers  wrote:


despite the economic irrationality of this


It _is_ economically rational to contribute to OSM even if there
wasn't a share alike license.


It's economically rational to keep costs down until VC funding is 
available.



This is the point of the matter and where we miss each other.

It's economically more than rational to contribute to a
non-share-alike OSM (or other open source/data projects). On the flip
side share-alike introduces complexities that clearly disincentivize
contributing.


But as I stated, contributing is not the point.

Using what is contributed is.

Corporate moral panics don't change this.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:53:44 +0100 (CET), Olov McKie wrote:


As I understand our license change, it can be described as this:
(Please correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit 
history

where someone not willing to change the license (decliner) had edited
anything was reverted back in history until no edits by any decliner
where left, thereby creating a clean database. All cleaning 
operations

where based on data history in the database.


Yes. This was to ensure there was no possible legal conflict, and no 
possible emotional upset.



Now imagine this:
A decliner adds street names on two streets Street A and Street B,
they have an intersection. Then I by "Local knowledge" know that 
there

is a shop in the intersection of Street A and Street B add that shop
(Shop A) to the map. Someone else adds another shop (Shop B) to the
right of the shop I added (Shop A) based on the fact that Shop B is
right of Shop A. Now the license change happened and the street names
where removed, but as far as I know the shops where left as they had
no direct history in the database related to the decliners edits. The
positions of Shop A is directly deducted from the decliners
copyrighted information about what the streets are called. The
position of Shop B is then based on the position of Shop A, therefor
indirectly deducted from the copyrighted information of the decliner.


Which part of the data from the decliner's edit sets is incorporated in 
your additions?


- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:36:48 -0500, Alex Barth wrote:

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:


The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then
distribute it as some kind of “OSM but better” without

releasing

the proprietary data is a feature of share-alike licenses, not a
bug.


Not every feature is a good feature, just like in software. There are
features that are just a bad idea. In this case, the share alike
feature protects us from something that just won't hurt OSM anyway, 
in

fact it would help OSM.


But OSM doesn't exist to gobble up data.

It exists to ensure that everyone is free to use its data.

Please note that by "use" I mean "interact with", not "prevent other 
people from using". If you want to lock people out of access to OSM data 
in your application, you are preventing use of that data.



Someone goes mixes OSM with proprietary data, sells the result?
Awesome! This is exactly what's going on today with tiles, no? If the
individual, company or organization who sells improved OSM data does
not give back into the OSM ecosystem by creating better tools or
contributing unencumbered data, they're just plain dumb.


No, they are smart because they are giving their shareholders value 
rather than leaking it to third parties.



Open source or open data is not something you're forced to do, you're
doing it because you're smart.


But where you do it, you should actually do it.

And where the condition of being free to use that data is that others 
should be free to use it, that is not unreasonable.



There is further a false premise that most potential data users who
have to weigh opening non-OSM data they're mixing in somehow have a
choice. They more likely don't and hence we lose them as contributors
entirely.


You are arguing that users of OSM data should not be free to use OSM 
data just in case someone decides to gift back some data to OSM (despite 
the economic irrationality of this) so that people can benefit 
fromnot being free to use it.


That...doesn't work.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 28/02/13 23:45, Tobias Knerr wrote:


It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative
databases.


That doesn't prohibit anything. You can make derivative databases. You 
just can't prohibit people from using them freely.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 27/02/13 21:19, Rob wrote:


Rather than share-alike I would like to share-what-I-like but that is
not an option.


And I'd like you to make me a sandwich.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 27/02/13 20:24, Marc Regan wrote:

I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid
term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at
hand.

+1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the
cloud of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data is
pretty terrifying.


-1 This is obvious nonsense.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 28/02/13 00:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:


As I said in my opening paragraph, the share-alike license never
prohibits you from doing something with the data; it just prohibits you
from prohibiting stuff!


<3

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob]

>> It would appear that any and all data associated with a 
>> website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used.

> What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is
> trivially disprovable.

Where is the line in the sand?

For example I have a website which is driven by several databases whichinclude 
everything from website members info t

I then integrate OSM into the website by including interactive map tiles, 
address searches (geocoding), POI placement / inclusion, routing, etc...

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 27, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> WhereAmI wrote:
>> It would appear that any and all data associated with a 
>> website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM 
>> data is used.
> 
> What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is
> trivially disprovable.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html
> Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Regarding The New OSM License

[Rob]

Hello.

Would like to ask / discuss with you the new license for OSM if you do not mind.

I have a website that I would like to integrate/include OSM map tiles into.

What I would like to clarify is if I would be required to share the data which 
is / has been collected through the website.

I would like to build a tile server based on OSM data for serving map tiles for 
use in a commercial website project that will be accessed by the general public 
at no charge.

The website currently stores and retrieves data from a non OSM sql db 
containing information regarding various points of interest ( POI ) .  
Information such as addresses, points of contacts, photos, etc... are stored in 
the non OSM sql db.

I would like to be able to places maps ( static / slippery ) generated by the 
tile server on various web pages throughout the website and then display a push 
pin(s), flag(s) or marker(s) in a separate layer above the map to highlight the 
location of the POI.

A few examples of how users would interact with the website.

1.  Users would enter an address.  Search would be made in non OSM sql db for 
any corresponding POI.  A call would be made to the tile server.  Map tile 
would be displayed associated with that address.  If there is a associated POI 
a flag/marker would be displayed in a layer above the map tile marking its 
location.

2.  Users would add a POI through a web interface for inclusion into the non 
OSM sql db.

3.  Users would supply GPS coordinates to the website.  A call would be made to 
the tile server. A corresponding map tile would be displayed.

4.  Users would supply GPS coordinates. Search would be made in sql db for any 
corresponding POI.  Map tile would be displayed associated with that GPS 
coordinate. If there is a associated POI a flag/marker would be displayed in a 
layer above the map tile marking its location.

What I would like to know is if I would be required to share/supply the non OSM 
sql db with OSM or anyone that would ask?

I look forward to being able to contribute to OSM but I need to be able to 
control what is shared with OSM.

Thanks for your time,
Rob___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining Creative Commons Licensed Data with ODbL and Redistributing

[Rob Myers]

On 28/11/12 12:37, Kate Chapman wrote:

I don't believe that would apply to a derivative work, I think that
just applies to the work itself.

I'm interested to hear other interpretations though.


It's not particularly coherent given the obvious intent of the licence, 
but I think the anti-TPM clause applies to the work as used in adaptations.


I don't remember a definitive answer from CC on this, though, and it's 
not in the FAQ.


- Rob.

___
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

[Rob Myers]

On 10/31/2012 09:20 PM, James Livingston wrote:


there isn't really a clear line between a permanent database and a
transient structure.


Other than that the former can be made available and the latter cannot 
(practically speaking).


- Rob.


___
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

[Rob Myers]

On 10/30/2012 07:19 AM, Igor Brejc wrote:


Some then say that these in-memory data structures are also Derivative
Databases.


They also cannot request RAM dumps of the routers and switches that ODbL 
data is transmitted over as they download it.


- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] importing ODBl data

[Rob Myers]

On 09/20/2012 08:46 PM, Mike Dupont wrote:

that sounds more like my conclusion, it is the end of the road for
share alike and sharing for osm.

>

basically it is turning into a dead end road.


What in the hoof are you talking about?

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible

[Rob Myers]

On 08/10/2012 07:25 AM, Mike Dupont wrote:


Also since we are on the topic, I think that many people who are in
the USA cannot legally sign the CT anyway because the would have to
ask the employeer for permission. If you have signed a NDA you might
be affected, some companies claim all employees copyright. see the
discussion on the CC list.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2012-August/007283.html


If that's true, then their employers already have a claim on their work 
in OSM. That is a problem that the CTs can prevent.


An FSF-style employer waiver scheme would allow US employees to 
contribute without the threat of this problem.


- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL "Produced Work"

[Rob Myers]

On 07/24/2012 10:01 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote:

Hello,


doesn't order him to attribute OSM, he uses my product). And then
another one will use this last map to retrace the whole area into his
CC-By-SA map. Where is the point of breaking ODbL license?

You have to maintain attribution under BY-SA, so OSM has to be attributed at
each point and no break will occur.

Ok, but how an attribution itself should overcome CC-By-SA's rights?


It doesn't. It just "advertises" the database.


I mean if the last-in-the-chain user sees "OSM", and even looks at the
ODbL license, how could he assume the ODbL license applies to him
instead of CC-By-SA, and in which case? What determines which actions
are permitted, and which are not, and which license's rights are
stronger?


Each license covers the material that it covers.

If the user uses the database, or a substantial part of it, the 
attribution ensures that they know the requirements for using the database.



CC-By-SA's points 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b doesn't seem to leave place for
another copyrights "inside", and from my point of view they don't have
to as (in my NAL-opinion) ODbL doesn't try to impose on Produced Work
any rights other than attribution (point 4.3: Notice for using
output).


Sure, this is about retaining the freedom to work with the data that has 
been used to produce the produced work.



If ODbL should apply to a database retraced from CC-By-SA tiles (let's
rememeber they also contain someone else's work, like those trails and
mountain tops - so it's not just 'tiles from and ODbL map'), it would
have to create ODbL's Derivative Database, which conflicts with
CC-By-SA imposing CC-By-SA on an Adaptation. And as the product _is_
CC-By-SA, you can't say it does not apply...


BY-SA doesn't cover databases though (any potential changes in 4.0 
notwithstanding).


ODbL is still a comparatively new license and it is reasonable to have 
questions about it. I would recommend going to the people who wrote it 
and asking them directly, which you can do on the odc-dicuss list:


http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL "Produced Work"

[Rob Myers]

On 07/24/2012 08:19 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote:

Hello,


ODbL has an attribution requirement. This lets you know where the 
original database is from, and your responsibilities should you recreate 
part of it.


Should you recreate part of the original database, you know your 
responsibilities due to the link to the license from the attribution.


There's no magic, the ODbL just follows its data using attribution.

(Also, "viral" is a misnomer. Copyleft is inherited from a parent rather 
than caught from a neighbor.)


- Rob.

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Ordnance Survey OpenData Licence - request to OS required

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi Mike,

[posted to legal-talk and talk-gb; responses to legal-talk or personal
email please]

I understand that you have had previous correspondence with Ornance Survey
and on requesting use of the OpenData you received the response that they
have "no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being
released under the Open Database License 1.0." [1]

Since this request, several other UK public bodies have started to release
geo data on their own websites using the OS OpenData Licence. Examples
include:

* Hampshire County Council - Public Rights of Way [2]
* Communities.gov.uk - Public Assets [3]

Oddly not all releases of geo data use the OS OpenData licence (Natural
England's recent release is under the Open Government Licence).

The problem with the OS OpenData Licence is two-fold. Firstly, it clearly
states that the data is hosted on OS's website. This is not the case for
the examples above. Secondly, it may be incompatible with ODbL v1.0 (hence
the need to request use of the OpenData). Unfortunately, Ordnance Survey's
response gives clearance for only their OpenData TM data sets. Can you
kindly contact OS and ask what can be done about this. Does their legal
team feel that the permission above can be extended to "no objections to
geodata derived in part from OS OpenData LICENCED DATA being used under the
Open Database Licence 1.0 irrespective of its origin"? If not then can I
suggest that OS create a v2 of their OS OpenData Licence that both dilutes
the statement that the data is hosted on their website and gives explicit
clearance for use with ODbL 1.0?

Can this be done soon before more public bodies release data under said
licence.

Kind Regards,
RobJN

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.region.gb/6516
[2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-May/013298.html
[3] http://publicassets.communities.gov.uk/
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Follow up : Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi Nick, All,

Has any contact been made with either Ordnance Survey or Hampshire CC to
get clarity on the use of the Hampshire "OS OpenData"?


Recap of the Issue:
* Hampshire CC : "The data has been published as Open Data under the
Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence". Here the use of "Open Data" seems to be
an internal term that Hants CC use [1]. To me this appears to suggest that
they have contacted Ordnance Survey to check that they can release the data
and OS came back with the suggestion that they use the OS Open Data Licence
(it is clear that the rights of way are not derived from OS OpenData as the
resolution is too high - i.e. very zoomed in)
* The OS OpenData licence [2] states that it governs access to the data on
OS's website. The Hampshire data is not on the OS website. This wording
therefore looks "bad" but does it, in itself, prevent use of the data in
OSM?
* Ordnance Survey: Have stated that they have "no objections to geodata
derived in part from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database
License 1.0."

Thus:
If we take the Ordnance Surveys response to mean they have 'no objections
to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData LICENSED DATA being released
under the Open Database License 1.0.' then we are okay. But, it this one
step too far?

Alternatively, we go back to Hampshire and get them to confirm that we can
add this to OSM. We can use OS's quote as supporting evidence.

Regards,
RobJN

[1] http://www3.hants.gov.uk/opendata.htm
[2]
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Confirmirmation on Natural England OGL data required

[rob . j . nickerson]

Hi All,

Can someone please confirm that I am able to make use of the Natural  
England data released under the Open Government Licence. I was under the  
impression that this licence is compatible with OSMs CTs and ODBL licence,  
however the line about attribution has left me unsure. I am currently  
exploring how best to use this data (so far the quality looks good - as if  
boundaries have been determined from 1:1 or better Ordnance Survey  
maps), and am discussing this on talk-gb.


https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bVnhYbHNaVVVnWWM

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/data/gidatasetsfeature.aspx

Thanks,
RobJN
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-Alike requirements for other data sources?

[Rob]

Hola Jaime,

Thanks so much for your email(s).

I just love the internet and how it can connect people and build relationships 
with people around the world.

> You should read the actual licenses, but the spirit of the licenses,
> as I understand them (IANAL), is:

Very easy to get lost in the labyrinth of links associated with the OSM license.

Is the link below the license I should go by or is it somewhere else? 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright 

Once again thank you for your time and your reply.

Rob




2012/4/18 Rob :
> Greetings & Salutations,
> 
> Thank you in advance for taking the time read and respond to this message.
> 
> After reading numerous  webpages regarding the OSM license I am still
> unclear regarding Share-Alike implications.

Please be aware that you are mixing the (by the way, non-official)
interpretations of the CC-BY-SA and the ODBL. We are transitioning
from one to the other right now.

You should read the actual licenses, but the spirit of the licenses,
as I understand them (IANAL), is:

* Both require attribution
* CC-BY-SA requires share-alike for the published, derivative work.
Nothing is said about other rights, such as data or database.
* ODBL requires share-alike for the database (by publishing
modifications or method to obtain them), not for derivative works. All
rights are covered.

This is an oversimplification and not legal advice, again please read
the licenses or consult a lawyer if in doubt.

--
Jaime Crespo

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


On Apr 18, 2012, at 7:20 PM, Jaime Crespo wrote:

>> * ODBL requires share-alike for the database (by publishing
>> modifications or method to obtain them), not for derivative works. All
>> rights are covered.
> 
> Sorry, I meant "produced works", not derivative works.
> 
> -- 
> Jaime Crespo
> 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Share-Alike requirements for other data sources?

[Rob]

Greetings & Salutations,

Thank you in advance for taking the time read and respond to this message.

After reading numerous  webpages regarding the OSM license I am still unclear 
regarding Share-Alike implications. 

I would like to confirm that I would not be required to license my sql db as 
Share-Alike.

Regarding OSM it is my goal to build a tile server based on OSM for serving map 
tiles for use in a commercial website project that will be accessed by the 
general public at no charge.

The website currently stores and retrieves data from a sql db containing 
information regarding various points of interest ( POI ) 

I would like to be able to places maps ( static / slippery ) generated by the 
tile server on various web pages throughout the website and then display a push 
pin(s), flag(s) or marker(s) in a separate layer above the map to highlight the 
location of the POI . 

Would it be required to share the data from the sql db containing the various 
points of interest or data which the general public has entered regarding those 
POI ?

It is not that I do not want to contribute to OSM it is that I need to be able 
to control, for various reasons, what is contributed to OSM from this project.  

From the following pages it appears that I would NOT be required to license my 
sql db as Share-Alike. 

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License

If you have a website using OSM-derived map tiles, Share-Alike applies to the 
map tiles. If you then put separate and distinct data layers on top, such as 
icons showing specialists points of interest or routes, track logs and the 
like, then Share-Alike does not apply to these elements as long as they do not 
interact with the map underneath.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases

Use Cases using OSM data and also other data sources
==
On-line map service using OSM data together with other data sources

The User wishes to combine OpenStreetMap data with other data sources to use on 
a web based service. The additional data could be one of nasa height data, 
public transport schedules, census data or many others. They may not wish, or 
may not be allowed to release the other data source as ODbL; it may for example 
be only available under '(C) all rights reserved' or on a 'non-commercial' 
license etc. The user does not improve or modify the OSM data, but does convert 
it into a suitable format for their application.

OK - Collective DB, but still requires the notice. 


Overlaying OSM maps with information without need to contribute back

A group of 8 year old kids spend a day in a local park mapping out locations 
where they find butterflies. They map this information using an OSM map and 
stick a copy on their local park's noticeboard. They do not wish to be expected 
to contribute this information back to OSM.

• For the purposes of this use-case would rubbish bins be a better 
example than butterflies? User:80n

OK - Collective DB. Maybe not Substantial, but still needs the notice.


Thank you once again for your time.

Best Regards,
Rob___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] OSM for a commercial non CC licensed web site?

[Rob]

Hello,

Is it permitted to use the OSM data to create a map server to server tiles for 
a commercial non CC licensed web site?

If it is permitted would the commercial web site then be required to be 
licensed under CC-By-Sa or some other Creative Commons license or would only 
the map tile generated be under a CC license?

Currently the commercial web site has a db of addresses, businesses and points 
of interest.  If these address were overlaid or placed via some type of marker 
/ pin or layer superimposed on top of the generated map tiles would that then 
require the current db of addresss and points of interest to be re-licensed 
under some type of Creative Commons license.

This is not a matter of not wanting to contribute something back to OSM it is a 
matter of being able to control what is contributed. 

Thanks for your time.
Rob
The Newbie
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)

[Rob Myers]

On 04/07/2012 07:14 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 04/07/2012 07:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote:

It looks like with the release of CC 4.0 there may be two share-alike
licenses suitable for data with different copyleft provisions. CC with a
stronger copyleft and ODbL with a weaker one that allows produced works
under a non-free license.


I don't think it is as simple as that; the requirement to share the
derivative database that stands behind a produced work seems to be
"stronger" than what CC does.


But CC 4.0 also *appears* to allow intermixing unlicensed work in a way 
that either 3.0 didn't or didn't make obvious (the 4.0 licences are much 
easier to read...).


I intend to discuss this on cc-licenses.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)

[Rob Myers]

On 04/04/2012 01:33 PM, Ed Avis wrote:

I guess the number 1 requirement for CC4, from an OSM point of view,
is that it be interoperable with the ODbL.


I recommend that people define "compatible" and "interoperable" 
thoroughly when discussing them, as they can mean different things in 
different contexts. GNU GPL compatibility, for example, basically means 
derivatives of the work can be covered by the GPL.


Having read the current 4.0 draft (and IANAL), I think SA 4's proposed 
database right copyleft clashes with the ODbL's:


http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0_Drafts
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/c/cc/4point0_draft_1.txt

"Section 2 – License.

(a)  Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, 
Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive 
license to:

[...]
(3)	where the Licensed Work is a database, in addition to the above, 
extract and reuse contents of the Licensed Work,


[...]

Section 3 - License Conditions.  The rights granted in Section 2(a) of 
this Public License are expressly made subject to and limited by the 
following conditions:

[...]
(c) ShareAlike.  If you Share an Adaptation,

(1) You must release it under the terms of one of the following:

(i) this Public License,
[...]"

I will raise this on odc-discuss.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Rob Myers]

On 09/03/12 22:36, LM_1 wrote:
> Why not make this rule general (outside Poland) "any data published
> under free and open licence (whatever it is) can be verified by OSM
> data".
> This brings no risk, that anyony "big and evil" (whatever that is)
> will use it to overrun OSM...
> LM_1

What is verification?

If it is altering data to recreate OSM data, we are using "verification"
to excuse copying.

If it is looking at the map, we are using "verification" to damn reading
a map.

So I'm not sure verification is a useful term. Describing the boring
mechanical actions that are being performed is probably more useful, as
these are easier to consider against the actions permitted by the licence.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Rob Myers]

On 09/03/12 10:59, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> 
> I can't see who would have a problem with this.

Hi. ;-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Post-Changeover Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 06/03/12 20:30, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> 
>> I also recommend using the *word* "copyright" rather than (c), as it is
>> my understanding that the English word has international legal weight
>> but the copyright symbol or its ASCII equivalent doesn't.
> 
> That's the oddest thing I've read today. Really?

Para 7 here, I may have been wrong about the copyright symbol:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

Grepping Berne for the word "English" doesn't immediately show anything
germane to this however.

>> For offline works, CC recommend this text (sorry for the url):
>>
>> https://creativecommons.org/choose/non-web-popup?q_1=2&q_1=1&field_commercial=y&field_derivatives=sa&field_jurisdiction=&field_format=&field_worktitle=&field_attribute_to_name=&field_attribute_to_url=&field_sourceurl=&field_morepermissionsurl=&lang=en_GB&n_questions=3
> 
> Nobody has ever sent a request for a copy of a license via post,
> AFAIK. :)

Oh I'm disappointed now. :-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Post-Changeover Attribution

[Rob Myers]

On 06/03/12 18:07, Michael Collinson wrote:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ/ODbL3a. I would like to use
> OpenStreetMap maps. How should I credit you?

I recommend "Map tiles copyright OpenStreetMap, licenced CC-BY-SA", as
that works better with BY-SA's requirement of a copyright notice.
Spelling out "Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike v3.0" and adding
years to each notice wouldn't hurt either.

I also recommend using the *word* "copyright" rather than (c), as it is
my understanding that the English word has international legal weight
but the copyright symbol or its ASCII equivalent doesn't.

For offline works, CC recommend this text (sorry for the url):

https://creativecommons.org/choose/non-web-popup?q_1=2&q_1=1&field_commercial=y&field_derivatives=sa&field_jurisdiction=&field_format=&field_worktitle=&field_attribute_to_name=&field_attribute_to_url=&field_sourceurl=&field_morepermissionsurl=&lang=en_GB&n_questions=3

Other than that, the FAQ is excellent but I do obviously recommend
getting someone who IAL to take a look at it. I know that adding endless
boilerplate legal text is bad, but more legal text is better than more
misunderstanding.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is the license change easily reversible?

[Rob Myers]

On 19/02/12 11:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 
> But, even after the switch to ODbL, OSMF could go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0
> at any time - and would, as far as I can see, only need a simple
> majority board decision for that.

Yep. And 2.0 could then be upgraded to a higher version with the next
planet dump. This might be desirable if, for example, 4.0 has
irresistibly wonderful database right handling.

Everyone is following the CC 4.0 drafting process and providing input,
right? :-)

> This puts OSMF in a position of quite some power.

[inserts quote about power and responsibility.]

> Could we - could OSMF - in such a situation simply say: "Know what, Mr
> big guy? Either you play nice and release that data, or we'll simply go
> back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 next month."

Yep. Although they could continue to use the existing data. Which might
make delicensing feel less of a(n immediate) threat.

> I don't assume that we would really *want* to go back but it wouldn't
> exactly kill us, and depending on what is at stake (I assume it could
> easily be a multi million dollar thing) we (the project) would lose much
> less than those we'd be up against. We wouldn't really want to but we
> *could*, and the fact that the big guy would only have to piss off the
> wrong four people at OSMF to ruin his product could balance one thing or
> the other in our favour.

Protecting the freedom of individuals to use the data that OSM gathers
and distributes isn't about pissing people off, etc., but yes there is
apparently a nuclear option there.

The collateral damage would be eye-watering though, in terms of burnt
karma, lost trust, and punishment of innocent actors.

> 1. Is my reasoning correct?

I believe so.

> 2. Are we happy with OSMF board wielding this power - should we (the
> OSMF membership) perhaps curtail OSMF board's powers by creating a rule
> that says that any decision regarding the license under which the data
> is published must be taken by the whole membership and not just the board?

Do you mean the foundation membership or active contributors to OSM?

> 3. If the CTs were changed post-license-change to omit CC-BY-SA 2.0 from
> the list of available licenses, then the above scenario would become
> impractical - we could then not simply go back to CC-BY-SA 2.0 without
> losing data from new contributors (unless going through the 2/3 rule).

The CTs could then be changed back, and data contributed prior to the
initial change could be licenced back down.

> Such a change in the CTs would create more security for anyone investing
> in a product based on our data by taking away the bargaining chip I have
> written about. Does the power to change the CTs currently sit with the
> board alone, and are we happy with that?

 Pass.

> The power to modify the CTs carries with it the power to entrench the
> current license practically forever; someone with liberty to change the
> CT as they see fit could, for example, simply strike out the "future
> license change possible with 2/3 of active contributors" clause and
> therefore create a situation in which no future OSMF can change the
> license without going through what we go through now. Of course the CTs
> cannot be changed retroactively but doing so for new signups is
> effective enough.

And this is part of the problem with listing specific licences. The CTs
should explain the idea, not fossilize the expression. Yes, this will
impose large social and time costs on future decisions by requiring
interminable debate about whether any change fits the spirit and the
letter of what is intended. But that is better than not being able to do
so, or having to change the CTs in order to allow it by fiat. Changing
the CTs doesn't exactly seem to make people feel loved.

- Rob.

___
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

[Rob Myers]

On 29/01/12 23:11, Mike Dupont wrote:
> 
> My understanding of copyleft is the idea that people who own the
> rights to their own work license it freely.

They do so in free recognition that their contingent power should not
constrain the fundamental freedom of others. That is, they recognise the
persuasive moral case for doing so.

> This is my understanding. all of my edits belong to me, 

Only under state granted monopolies with varying justifications.

> they are my
> contributions that I then willingly share with others. If I did not
> own them, how could I contribute them?

Copyleft is a general neutralization of copyright (rather than a local
neutralization, like permissive licences). Nothing more.

If we believe that copyleft is a good thing (and I certainly do) then
this involves a suspension of the privileges of romantic authorship as
embodied in the law. Despite our self interest in our authorship, our
general self interest is better server by deprecating our self interest
in our authorship.

It is reasonable to object to the ODbL on the grounds of principle as it
is not a full-stack copyleft, rather a database copyleft. But this is
because of how it affects the class of individuals that use resources
placed under it (which includes its authors...). Not because of its
treatment of our investment in our individual authorship of elements in
work under it.

This may read as polemic. That's only because it is. ;-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data

[Rob Myers]

On 19/01/12 09:51, Mike Dupont wrote:
> Same here, the OSM is pressuring me to accept the CT which would
> amount to prejury

If you cannot accept the CTs please don't. Nobody wants you to make a
false representation.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing the license

[Rob Myers]

On 12/12/11 16:08, Michael Collinson wrote:
> We have had a request for another big open organisation to re-use our
> contributor terms [1] and summary [2] .
> 
> Both the terms and the summary are by default already published under
> CC-BY-SA 2.0.  However, my initial thought it that it is more practical
> to (also) offer them under a license that does not require attribution.
> Legal pages get confusing when they contain text not completely to the
> point, particularly to non-native language readers. PD0 springs to
> mind.  Does anyone think this is a bad idea and if so why?

It's a very good idea. CC0 might go too far (I don't know), possibly
something like "you can copy and modify as you wish but don't claim it's
the original" would be better.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material

[Rob Myers]

On 26/11/11 23:43, Nic Roets wrote:
> Rob, I'm not sure what you mean.
> 
> So I'm going to give a simple example. Suppose someone has a table with
> museums and their capabilities. He then combines it with OSM to create a
> map. If the capabilities is something opaque like "type1" and "type2",
> then the resultant map can be useless to us. (Reverse engineering is not
> reliable).
> 
> It's possible that an exact definition of "type1" and "type2" exist, but
> requiring the person to publish it may be too intrusive. For example it
> could involve some statistical scoring process like Page Rank (which
> involves processing every web page on the Internet).

If the only way the database can function is with data not included in
it, then the database is incomplete and not the source of the produced work.

(IMO.)

> It's also possible that "type1" can be completely subjective e.g. the
> person thinks that the paintings in the museum are beautiful.

That's a definition right there. :-)

> So I really can't see how "useful source data" can have a water tight,
> yet practical definition.

It can however state that obfuscation or "don't wanna" aren't sufficient
reasons for something not being a derivative database. :-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data

[Rob Myers]

> Eugene Alvin Villar  writes:
>
> The European definition of a database is "a collection of independent
> works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical
> way and individually accessible by electronic or other means".

Which really, really should be the end of this.

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. Likewise if I autotrace it to SVG
before printing it. There is a single work, arbitrarily encoded. No
database right.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material

[Rob Myers]

On 25/11/11 11:07, Nic Roets wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Richard Fairhurst
> mailto:rich...@systemed.net>> wrote:
> 
> 3. CC-BY-SA indeed does not require that you publish the useful
> source data.
> (ODbL does.)
> 
> I honestly doubt that ODbL will achieve this. For example, if someone
> decides to use some convoluted tagging system without publishing a
> specification, his data will mean very little to the community.

If it's that complex it's part of the data... :-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright status of OSM map data - initial results

[Rob Myers]

On 09/09/11 22:33, Ed Avis wrote:
> Rob Myers  writes:
> 
>>> In the US, the two lawyers found that the OSM map data is
>>> copyrightable.  They mentioned the explicit inclusion of maps in
>>> copyright law 
>>
>> But geodata is not a map, and the copyright on the database is not the
>> copyright on its contents.
> 
> As I understood it, the precedents they found showed that copyright does cover
> the geodata contained in the database, and is not dependent on having a paper
> map or the difference between database and contents.  However I didn't have
> time to go over these matters in depth.
> 
> If the written report doesn't address your concern, would you like to join in
> a conference call with the legal team so you can put it to them directly?
> I expect I could arrange this.

Oh cool. No, if the precedents cover it that addresses my comment above.

Thanks.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

[Rob Myers]

On 15/08/11 22:16, Florian Lohoff wrote:


I have contributed a lot for nearly 3 years and now i am blocked out
so i am not contributing anymore and i ceased all my OSM work already.


Since your contributions are PD and therefore CT compatible I don't 
understand what the problem is.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

[Rob Myers]

On 14/08/11 18:14, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:


If the sysadmins block your account


The sysadmins have not blocked your account.

The system has been changed to implement the licence changeover plan.

You may not like the plan, but neither its form nor the effects of its 
implementation are actions that "the sysadmins" have initiated against you.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back

[Rob Myers]

On 11/08/11 16:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:


I see no difference in re-publishing text, as in our email lists
and the database, properly citing Google as source.


You are correct. Both are breaches of copyright where it applies.

There are two important differences though.

Firstly custom and fair use are on the side of quoting emails in 
conversations.


Secondly, Google haven't taken all your maps and incorporated them but 
you have quoted many other people's emails.



You will probably say then that Google's license prohibits that use
-even when attributing- and then I come back to my (much earlier)
statement that licenses are there to restrict free use of data, not to
allow.


To the extent that databases are covered by rights or contracts that is 
false.



Anyway, if default IP right allows for citing when attributing, why
do our users need to agree to a ODBL license ?


Allow or require?


Is there anything more that we like them to comply with ?


To pass on the freedom they receive.

But if you want data to be PD, make it PD and then someone else can 
incorporate it into the database under the CTs.


I really don't see what the problem is.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA

[Rob Myers]

On 27/07/11 16:43, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> 
> And why the hurry?

If this is a hurry I'd hate to see stalling. :-)

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA

[Rob Myers]

On 24/07/11 11:17, Ed Avis wrote:


I have commissioned a law firm in the UK, and one in the US, to investigate the
extent to which this may be the case.  I have asked them to look at whether
the OSM map data falls under copyright, and additionally whether the contract-
law provisions in the ODbL add anything to enforceability.  The objective is
to get analysis which can be shared with the whole community, rather than
privileged legal advice which must remain confidential.  This includes
disclosing how the law firm was chosen and the questions asked.


Thank you for doing this!

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Rob Myers]

On 08/07/11 13:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
> 
> And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about 
> the location or presence of a road that makes it "motorway" or 
> "tertiary". That is only because it is designated as such. That 
> designation can change anytime, but by doing so you don't change the 
> geography of the place.

One bit of earth or tarmac is pretty much the same as another.

What makes them a "road"?

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Rob Myers]

On 08/07/11 10:31, Maarten Deen wrote:
> 
> IMHO that's stretching the "geographic" bit very far. Sure, the fact
> that there is a sign is a geographic fact, but the fact that that
> signifies something for the road or object that's there is just convention.
> And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about
> the location or presence of a road that makes it "motorway" or
> "tertiary". That is only because it is designated as such. That
> designation can change anytime, but by doing so you don't change the
> geography of the place.

Now define "road". ;-)

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Rob Myers]

On 07/07/11 20:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:

+1


/2

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file

[Rob Myers]

On 01/07/11 10:51, Jonathan Harley wrote:
> 
> I think anyone who thought ODbL satisfies this case would be being
> naive. It's so easy to dodge really giving anything back in many
> different ways, including (off the top of my head): combining OSM with
> "additional contents" in the form of already rendered map data, with
> poor accuracy and no metadata, which would make it virtually impossible
> for things like a road network to be extracted; and/or publishing the
> derived database under a license that's compatible with ODbL but
> incompatible with the CTs.

OSM is not the presumed beneficiary of this kind of thing. The
downstream users of the easy dodges are.

> I can't see any point. At least you don't have to publish your
> database/method unless someone requests it. But we have to assume that
> sooner or later, some busy-body is going to go around doing exactly that.

That sounds like a *very* good idea. ;-)

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file

[Rob Myers]

On 01/07/11 09:43, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> 
> The only motivation for data SA I can somewhat understand is to open up
> data that can be contributed back to OSM.

Sharealike is meant to guarantee that the individual users of the
produced work have the same freedom to work with the data as the person
who produced it did.

Any gifts to the *project* that result from this freedom are a side-effect.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License compatibility clarification

[Rob Myers]

On 24/06/11 20:35, Jonas Häggqvist wrote:

Is the CT/ODbL compatible with CC-BY-SA?


No. Notably, the ODbL isn't.


Say if an organization releases some data under CC-BY-SA, could we use
it (in the CT/ODbL future)?


No, as it's incompatible with the ODbL.


For extra credit, explain why/why not.


BY-SA and the ODbl are incompatible copylefts.

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] section 4.6 of ODbL was [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

[Rob Myers]

On 19/06/11 22:15, David Groom wrote:


 From reading section 4.6 of ODbL[1] my understanding is no. There is no
mention of it only applying if you change the data, the requirement
seems to hold whenever
"You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a
Derivative Database,"

However, the more I think about it, the more insane the above seems to
be, so I'm sure it cant be true, and someone will point out something
which overrides section 4.6


No, it's been raised on odc-discuss but not addressed.

This is the equivalent of being required to provide source if you 
distribute a binary under the GPL, I think.


The scale is a bit different though...

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

[Rob Myers]

On 17/06/11 14:07, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:
> 
> Shortly after I wrote these words, a respected community member
> attacked me as being "blinded by ideology".

This anonymous but respected community member, during a lengthy debate
regarding your concerns about the CTs, wrote:

"""I mean, you can be for or against anything right now, but if you are
not blinded by ideology of any sort then you will have to accept that
times change, and that *anything* you try to enshrine for eternity will
hurt the project."""

Which is not an attack, it is an argument.

They then wrote:

"""This is not about people in groups, about ideology, about a fork, or
about who owns what.

What we do is a huge, collective work. As part of your commitment to
this project, you have to accept that you cannot always have it your
way; and that you will occasionally have to follow what a large majority
wants. Either you take part in the project or you don't.

You say you want to be "asked".

I think it is simply an illusion to believe that you could take part in
this but have a veto. If the technical team decides to switch to Oracle
you won't have a veto. If the majority of mappers decide they want to
change everything from "highway=" to "road=" you won't have a veto. If
they decide to rename the project "Whuzzit" instead of "OpenStreetMap"
you won't have a veto. In all these case you will not only not have a
veto, you will not have a legal basis to disallow that the project
continues to use what you have once contributed.

You say you want to retain "control".

It is not normal for the individual in this project to have any kind of
control. We have had cases where somebody contributed data and later
changed his mind, leaving the project and removing his data. The data
was then promptly re-instated by others. Is that what you would call
"having control"?

If you participate in OSM, you are adding water to an ocean. It does not
make sense to want to hold on to "your" bit of water. If this is
important to you, then I think you should think twice about
participating in a project like this."""

I quote this at such length to show that your objections to the CTs were
seriously engaged with when you raised them and that the reason why the
CTs should not be changed in response to them was explained in detail.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations.

[Rob Myers]

On 09/06/11 18:18, Nakor Osm wrote:


This is wrong: remove the CTs and leave the database licensed as it is
today and no data needs to be removed.


The license today has problems. Both the license and the way that the 
license is chosen need to change.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

[Rob Myers]

On 08/06/11 17:59, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote:

the claim that
everyone who likes the Share-Alike-principle is a fanatic.


I'm certainly a copyleft fanatic, but I'm sure there are some entirely 
reasonable copyleft proponents as well.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

[Rob Myers]

On 07/06/11 12:37, Ed Avis wrote:
> Matt Amos  writes:
> 
>> i've heard the 'CC-BY-SA doesn't protect
>> the data' argument coming not only from lawyers, but also from
>> Creative Commons itself!
> 
> I would be interested to read that.

Science Commons certainly used to say that the licences *shouldn't* be
used for data.

> My understanding is that Creative Commons have affirmed what has demonstrably
> been the case all along - that CC-BY-SA certainly can be used for data, as
> OSM is doing now.

They are going to look at improving use of the licences for data in the
next revision.

BY-SA can indeed be used for data(base) copyright to the extent that you
can claim copyright on data(bases).

And that's the problem. Copyright in this area is uneven
internationally, irregular even within jurisdictions like the US, and
not the only restriction on the use of data(bases).

> They noted that it would not magically extend copyright to things not covered
> by copyright. 

Such as data(bases), depending on where you live and which cases you
look at.

> That is quite true, but it does not mean that map data is not
> covered by copyright.

Nor does it mean that it is, for the reasons I have given.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means

[Rob Myers]

On 06/06/11 14:52, Maarten Deen wrote:
> 
> But the current action is: "accept or lose the ability to map". That is
> close to coercion and not a valid base to claim that 2/3's agree to this.

It is not anywhere near coercion. OSM is not the state, and you can map
wherever else you like.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means

[Rob Myers]

On 06/06/11 14:23, Maarten Deen wrote:
>
> Why is that 2/3 majority not sought for the current license move?

Because there is no single rightsholder who could act on such a vote.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license for "Wiki Loves Monuments"

[Rob Myers]

On 05/14/2011 06:01 PM, Mike Dupont wrote:

Funny, based on my last question, the OSM will not be able to use
cc-by-sa data in the future.


Hence the question, I imagine. :-)

PDDL/CC0 for the data would avoid this question, or dual-licencing 
ODbL/BY-SA might be good.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

[Rob Myers]

On 19/04/11 11:18, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
> 
> Instead he original phrase sounds hostile to me... what about you ?

The rights need to be granted in that way so they can be passed on to users.

So, no, it doesn't sound hostile. It sounds like it makes the operation
of OSMF in-keeping with its charter possible.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

[Rob Myers]

On 18/04/11 22:41, Simon Ward wrote:
> 
> The only “restriction” I have seen is that some software developers
> perceive reciprocal licences as a hindrance because the reciprocal
> licenses prevent them from removing freedoms from the end user.

Yes they never seem to work out that they are users as well.

> The GPL doesn’t explicitly mention “commercial” distribution (except for
> when providing an offer of source code), but does say that charging for
> the software is not excluded.  I think that is far less ambiguous.

The CTs are more similar to the FSD than the GPL. The FSD states:

"“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” A free program must be
available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial
distribution. "

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

[Rob Myers]

On 04/18/2011 10:06 PM, Simon Ward wrote:

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:34:57AM +0200, andrzej zaborowski wrote:


Commercial use needs to be allowed for the data to even be considered
"open knowledge" according to http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ .
Since this is often a deciding factor for authors/users/courts, it's
probably good that this is mentioned explicitly.


“commercial” is ambiguous, and while I don’t expect “commercial“ use to
be restricted, I don’t think it needs to be explicitly stated.  Just
allow “any field of endeavour”.  KISS, etc.


Since there are licences that explicitly exclude commercial use that 
used in projects branded "open" (OpenCourseWare being a particularly 
egregious example of this) it is worthwhile mentioning commercial use, 
however vague it is as a concept.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

[Rob Myers]

On 04/17/2011 04:53 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:


And if OSMF (whoever they may be)wants that to be the case, I step out.


That seems a reasonable resolution.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?

[Rob Myers]

On 17/04/11 14:17, Francis Davey wrote:
> 
> Clause 4(b) permits the distribution of the work under certain other
> licences, including "Creative Commons Compatible Licence(s)".
> 
> Its a bafflingly drafted licence (if I may say) since it also says
> "You may not sublicense the Work" (in clause 4(a)) which directly
> contradicts what is said in 4(b). Clearly what is intended is that
> there is a general rule against sublicensing, subject to a specific
> set of permissions under clause 4(b) even though this comes under a
> heading "Restrictions". Re-distribution under a licence is
> sublicensing and cannot be anything else.

Have you bought this up on cc-community?

If not please could you. :-)

Thanks.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

[Rob Myers]

On 17/04/11 09:51, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> 
> But has been a major point of problems in the past. Have a look at
> the GCC issues. Patches will not be submitted because a transfer of 
> copyright is a no go for some.

GCC has hardly been unsuccessful, though.

Apache either.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

[Rob Myers]

On 08/04/11 07:55, Ed Avis wrote:
> I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on
> CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or
> requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF.  Then everyone 
> could
> just keep on mapping.

I'm not sure how much wriggle room there is for addressing OSM's
concerns about BY-SA in the 4.0 revision process as it hasn't actually
been announced yet.

- Rob.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Request for clarification (for German translation) of CTs 1.2.4

[Rob Myers]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 24/03/11 13:13, Simon Poole wrote:
> 
> The issue wrt to the wording is if to use a strong "must not infringe"
> vs. a weak "should not infringe" (in the German translation).

This would be an issue if the document stated that it uses the
definitions provided by RFC 2119 and the words were capitalised.

But this isn't an issue in plain language, where the words are synonyms.

So it isn't an issue.

- - Rob.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNi1mlAAoJEOqcdhxmxssCqIoH/1Go1u3XQB8mqUuHKYgTy9aL
gmpf8tLXvO3ysDYwSoK3DqqbXDRwVCH5ruZ6O1Alzv+zB0WjLagSQ8mdVtdykDz0
2MmmlqozT62jH/MueHQGc6pcZG55VWTWJAAThhH0lcvCLni49FjGNeq2jYdoZQA6
W8U9uz7OMir0u+3RZyQPZ0ZgoTIUCZOF3XwTYyJKiC09LEKrNinYGM9HCiWtidwp
4ODmCSMfiyLSdAE/FtvUNtxTpYiz/id497R1QcRZ3EyEFhVdMVYdYf7YwSch7lpA
/KF9IxjqpY3qIibamo36redO726jnpkB3in4o2lZ++3DFaXjD403WycaWPklD3Y=
=jYJ5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone ought to do something ... dealing with violations of OSM's geodata license

[Rob Myers]

On 03/21/2011 07:07 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:

Francis wrote:

 >I certainly agree that taking legal action should be low on any list.

 >It can be expensive, risky and time consuming.

*+1 *


It should be the nuclear option. It should, however, be on the list.


Should we want to be attributed ?


Yes. It's part of the licence.


To satisfy pedantic ego inside us ?


No. People do argue for this sometimes on the basis of ego, but that is 
not the only reason for doing so and it is not the practical effect.


For the ODbL, attribution serves an important *practical* purpose. It 
directs users of produced works to the source database.


That's not ego, that's supporting the freedom of individuals


Can we never give something to the world without asking back ???


Gift economies presuppose strongly enforcible social norms in exchange 
that do not exist in non-tribal societies.



None of us can enforce any license to any serious player on the market
trying to steal “our” data. Commercial maps are a business of millions
of dollars. Any legal action is wasting (our) lots money, and even worse,
will not lead to any compensations, as we don't make money with our data (so
we can’t lose any either –but for the enforcement-)


The point is not to make money but to protect the freedom of individuals 
who use maps.


Compliance is the objective, not profit.

The effect of compliance is to protect the freedom of users that would 
be removed by non-compliance.



I mean, what will be the net result of such an enforcement,


People will retain access to the data they need to retain their freedom 
to work with maps and other uses of geodata.



as we do
not benefit nor loose from the mere fact that our license/attribution
is being respected or not.


You do, and more to the point the users do.


Enforcing licenses/attributions is a sure way to lose what we do have in
plenty:

-the open and free image


And not enforcing is a way of losing *the reality*.


-sympathy among literally hundreds of thousands


[citation needed]


-information about our world to give to its citizen in wealth and in
disaster


Attribution is a way of letting people know that they have access to 
this data!



The only way to go is making OSM free as in free !


OSM is free as in free. It's an equitable project to promote and protect 
liberty, not a costly gift.



Free OSM effectively stops the big players of making money with geodata
and that is the only way we can actually “enforce” that what we actually
promise on our (wiki)home page:


A gift OSM would precisely enable big players to make money from the 
project without being able to enforce OSM's promise.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

[Rob Myers]

On 02/03/2011 10:13 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote:


In other words, yes, we have a different view of the intent.


BY-SA is not a permissive or gift economy licence, it is a copyleft 
licence. Its intent is precisely to ensure that the freedom to use the 
work is inalienable.



Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements are
free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use OSM.


Except those individuals who would not be free to use the results.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

[Rob Myers]

On 02/02/11 20:02, Peter Miller wrote:


I don't believe that a court would see it that way and it is a very


Courts have seen it that way in the case of Shepher Fairey, Jeff Koons, 
Andy Warhol, Richard Prince, The Beastie Boys, and many other artists 
and musicians.



unhelpful view for the project to take.


The ODbL solves this.


The fact that it is combined makes the resulting combination of the
two works a derivative of both.

See above!


I believe that this is the legal reality of combining two works into a 
single derivative work (or of adding new content to a work to produce a 
derivative work) and how this is regarded by the BY-SA licence.



They are all collages (combinations of visual elements in a single
image) and are therefore all derivative works.

As you will guess by I disagree with this statement as well!


I may be missing some aspect of your argument, and I apologize if I am.

I am however reasonably certain that the examples under discussion are 
not collective works. They are of a different character to the examples 
of collective works that I am aware of.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

[Rob Myers]

On 02/02/2011 06:39 PM, Peter Miller wrote:


So... you are suggesting that you believe that no one will ever be able
to overlay an osm map, or indeed an ccbya image with any image that not
available on an open license even if the context of the two images is
completely different?


The context of the two images is the single derivative image.


For the avoidance of doubt the base map is a
direct clone of standard osm map rendering so is already available for
reuse. It is only the combined image that is not.


The fact that it is combined makes the resulting combination of the two 
works a derivative of both.



Please refer to the specific examples I have posed above to help direct
the discussion. These include a map of the USA overlaid with crime
statistics, a directions map overlaid with a photograph and a map of the
Isle of White overlaid with some illustrations.


They are all collages (combinations of visual elements in a single 
image) and are therefore all derivative works.


Frederik has explained how it can be argued that BY-SA's private use 
exception allows online mash-ups. Printed versions of the same works 
would be distributed/publicly exhibited and so cannot be made under the 
same exception.


(IANAL, TINLA)

- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

[Rob Myers]

On 02/02/2011 06:47 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote:


I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the
license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the
map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data
is open and OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent
people from creating works in which not all elements are free.


The intent of the licence is to protect the freedom of individuals to 
use the map.


Any derivative work must therefore be under the same licence.

Making works where all the elements are not free is precisely what this 
is intended to protect against.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

[Rob Myers]

On 02/02/2011 05:49 PM, Jonathan Harley wrote:


I don't see what print's got to do with it.  Any rendering, whether to
paper or to a screen, changes the bits used; if you take that as the


Where multiple sources of bits are combined to produce a single new 
work, that new work is a derivative of each source.



meaning of modified, then there could be no "unmodified" renderings of
any database, which means in turn that there could be no collective
works, so the conditions about being separate and independent would be
irrelevant.


Combining multiple elements into a new derivative work is not the same 
as mechanically transforming a single element to produce a new 
derivative work.


It is easy to distinguish them conceptually, legally, and in the licence.


But I don't think that "rendered" is a sensible meaning of "modified" in


"Combined and printed" is, though.


this context, any more than changing the font or line length would be
considered modifying a text.


Modifying font or line length might not change a text but it would 
certainly change the typographic arrangement.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

[Rob Myers]

On 02/02/2011 05:13 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:


I think that in those examples, there was the concept of interaction and
co-dependency - the question of "does the overlaid stuff work without
the map". So if you carefully place your photo or illustration at a
certain point in the map, and your photo or illustration would lose its
meaning without the map, then it is clearly a derived work; but if your
photo just sits there and could just as well sit there without the map,
then it could be called a collection. This is not an interpretation I
necessarily share and I'm not sure about the exact wording but it has
something going for it.


Combining image elements (that may or may not embody data) is collage. 
Collage produces derivative works, not collective works:


http://www.google.com/search?q=collage+derivative+work

Individual photos over a map are like individual samples over a backing 
beat (IANAL, TINLA). People haven't had much luck arguing that the 
latter doesn't create a derivative work.



I don't think this interpretation is particularly strict. There have
indeed been several people requesting that my OSM book be fully
CC-BY-SA'ed because it contains OSM illustrations on some pages - *That*
I call a strict reading (and one I clearly don't share).


Wikipedia would agree with you. :-)

- Rob.

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