Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adding OSM-ids to an external database and publish in CC-BY
This seems similar to the problem discussed here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Metadata_Layers_-_Guideline The doctrine proposed by Richard Fairhurst (and discussed on that page) strikes me as reasonable. It's hard for me to see how OSM IDs could qualify as a substantial part of the database when used in isolation, in this manner. They're algorithmically generated and, by themselves, contain no information about the world that OSM describes. In a broader sense, it seems like it would be very counterproductive for an open project to embrace policies that make it difficult for people to even *refer* to useful parts of it, which is what a hyperlink amounts to. On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 1:57 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > In Italy we have been discussing this situation: a member of the community > wants to add links to OSM objects into a list of specific shops (those that > are open during the covid-19 pandemia). > > The list will be published here: https://www.covid19italia.help/opendata/ > with an CC-BY-4.0 license. > > The links will be of the kind > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1834818 > > Question is, will it be possible to publish such a list, containing > OSM-ids (or links to OSM objects) with a CC-BY-4.0 license? > > Thank you for your replies. > > Cheers > Martin > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data
> I was aware of this and just wanted to get a consensus by the data creators: the users. This is an admirable impulse, but it is worth emphasizing that those of us who participate on OSM listservs are a small and unrepresentative fraction of the project's 5.9 million registered users. Lists like this one are a great way to find the slice of users who are most interested and passionate about a particular issue, and who consequently can be expected to have well-informed (and often strongly held) opinions that reflect the gamut of possible answers. But if you are seeking consensus, the closest thing available is the text of the license itself and guidelines that have been approved by elected members of the OSMF board. Usually when there is broad agreement on an issue, the answer is memorialized in a wiki page that people find before they wind up here :-) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question
> if the way you use the data is more in a database-like fashion or more in the form of a finished product ready for human consumption This raises more questions, doesn't it? I think everyone agrees that a map contained by a PNG file is a produced work. But such a file is merely a collection of pixels that may be programmatically queried or rendered for human consumption by purpose-built software. If you replace "pixels" with "triangles", the exact same thing can be said of the 3D objects being rendered here for use by the Flight Gear simulator. The official guideline on this question can be found here: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Produced_Work_-_Guideline -- here is the relevant portion: > The published result of your project is either a Produced Worked or a Derivative Database within the meaning of the ODbL. If the published result of your project is intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work. However, if you publish a produced work, the underlying database has to be published as well (or alternations to the original database as is the case of derived databases), according to section 4.6 of ODbL. In this case it does not seem as though the intended use of generated files is extraction of the original data, so I'm inclined to agree with those arguing that this sounds like a produced work. On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:34 PM Christoph Hormann wrote: > > To avoid you drawing the wrong conclusions based on the (rather > abstract) explanations made by others - based on a quick look at the > documentation on > > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Osm2city.py > https://osm2city.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ > > that tool seems mainly a geometry data conversion program for OSM data - > not unlike tools used routinely for cartographic applications like > osm2pgsql etc. The output of this tool is in most cases likely a > derivative database or a collective database depending on how much > intermingling of OSM data with other data is happening. If for example > extruded building geometries based on OSM polygons are textured with > texture images from other sources that is quite clearly a collective > database. If you generate guessed building geometries based on non-OSM > landuse data as explained on: > > > https://osm2city.readthedocs.io/en/latest/how_it_works.html#chapter-howto-generate-would-be-buildings-label > > (which is an interesting feature by the way) and combine this with OSM > based buildings that would be a derivative database. > > For distinguishing between a produced work and a derivative database a > useful approach is to see if the way you use the data is more in a > database-like fashion or more in the form of a finished product ready > for human consumption. The scene geometry for a 3d rendering is quite > clearly more database-like in its use. > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM for training ML machines
I'll defer to others on the finer points of how downstream or intermediate ML products fit into the licensing picture, but this did catch my eye: > If you need an example: Take a translator for geographic names trained > using OSM data. This translator in practical use will spit out names > or name components identical to those from the OSM database (if it does > not it'd be pretty useless). These names - in sufficient volume - > evidently form a derivative database IMO - even if they are not the > result of a literal copy but result from 'knowledge' encoded in a > neural network. I have sometimes sene similar arguments about intellectual property brought up in engineering-focused conversations, which propose elaborate technical mechanisms by which data might be transformed, then recreated, and in the process its intellectual property rights somehow purged. There are already several community guidelines explaining why this isn't acceptable. Beyond that, my own sense is that this is at odds with how the legal system approaches these questions (and confusion about what "transformative use" means). If a party has custody of proprietary data, feeds it through a black box that a judge and jury don't really understand, and the original data comes out the other side--well, you can see why it's a hard argument to win. I think the risk of recreating OSM data via ML trickery is pretty low: it's an elaborate approach that offer dubious legal advantages. If the question is whether OSM could claim rights over a fictional but plausible map-like output from an OSM-trained ML model, I'd say the question is more open. But I suspect this is a less worrisome scenario for most. On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:12 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Wednesday 10 April 2019, althio wrote: > > > > You may have skipped parts of my message, so excuse me if I repeat a > > few lines. You quoted only two sentences and I slightly wonder if you > > genuinely read the whole. > > I am sorry if i left the impression that i was specifically criticizing > your ideas - i was more referring to the general course of the > discussion towards a rather mechanical exegesis of the ODbL based on a > simplistic view of how algorithms work as a mechanical process > converting well defined input data into well defined output data. > > > [...] > > I don't think my original message can be read as "sweepingly declare > > any output of algorithms as having no copyright connection". > > I did not mean to imply that - but since your line of reasoning only > covers this case it is to be expected that people assume this is the > only relevant case. > > > [...] > > > > My final two cents: > > Take the Geocoding guideline, replace "Geocoding" by "Machine > > Learning" and this is, in my humble opinion, an acceptable first > > draft for discussion. > > But as far as i understand you, you up-front want to declare > the "database" behind the Machine Learning, i.e. the adaptive part of > the algorithms that gets modified through training, to be a produced > work and therefore not subject to share-alike. > > If not i don't see the practical usefulness in applying the geocoding > guideline to this in analogy because while for geocoding the individual > result is a frequent practical use case Machine Learning and similar > algorithms are mostly used to produce bulk results which are usually > substantial in terms of database law. > > As far as the Horizontal Layers guideline and the concept of produced > works in general is concerned - the only consistent view of these > concepts is IMO to consider them to be limited exclusively to cases > when you are talking about things produced for and used only for direct > human consumption. > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
