Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When does a produced work has to be share-alike?
On 29/03/15 16:43, Lars-Daniel Weber wrote: Sure, I have to release the SVG file or the workflow under share-alike, that's fine so far. But when I press export to PDF, will this be an intermidiate database, which also has to be share-alike? This simply wouldn't be possible pecause of the use of non-free data. In my eyes, the only solution could be to find a printers' shop, which directly printers from Illustrator to T-Shirts... I'm not sure if a PDF counts as a database; probably only if accurate spatial data can be derived from it. But in any case, you only have to release a derivative database if it is published. If all you're doing with it is sending it to a printer, who is working for you, and who will not make the file available to anyone else, then that's not a publicly used database, so the share-alike requirement doesn't apply. Jonathan. -- Dr Jonathan Harley SpiffyMap Ltd j...@spiffymap.net 0845 3138457www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution
+1 I know of a few sites who have not responded to my email. what is the next step? Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 30/04/2014 00:34, Simon Poole wrote: Just a reminder, this thread started of with a discussion of attribution, or rather lack of such. I don't think there is very much doubt about what the licence requires even given all the complexity of the ODbL, for a produced work it is: However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Our suggested attribution text is already very minimal. It is not clear to me what reasonable objections exist against simply attributing OSM as we require. Simon ___ 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] Attribution
I couldn't agree more. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 28/04/2014 19:42, Steve Coast wrote: http://stevecoast.com/2014/04/28/attribution-is-it-time-to-name-and-shame/ -- OpenStreetMap http://osm.org/ is the global, open and free map dataset that anyone can use. It is created by a huge community of volunteers who pour their time and energy in to the project. It's also fun, beautiful and cool. So it's sad that people don't want to respect the license. It asks two very simple things: 1. Please say you're using OSM. This is very simple http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright. 2. If you change the map, please give the changes back. This is called share-alike. Compared to paying a lot of money for incredibly license-restricted data, you'd think people would be ok with these requirements. Sadly, this isn't the case. There are those who are now willfully disregarding our tiny little requirements. It's being framed as some gigantic and unreasonable proposition, asking to say where the data came from or giving data back when you fix things. As if it's completely bananas to ask such a thing. As if Linux or Wikipedia should be disaster ghost towns while asking for exactly the same thing of their users. This is just baloney. The real comparison should be; if you don't like the license you're free to use expensive and complicatedly-license data. That's your option. Those guys are just a phone call away, and will be happy to sell you data. You'd probably find that they have very strong attribution requirements, just like OSM does. It is the ultimate disrespect to the volunteers who built the data to not even attribute their contributions. It's even worse that there are some who're trying to also own OSM for themselves by taking away the share-alike requirement. Is the license perfect? I'm afraid not. Specifically we need more clarification around the technical implementation and use of geocodes, especially in relation to other datasets. It's hard today to technically comply with some of those edge cases. But that's not what we're talking about. We're speaking here about the simple ask, that if you use OSM you please say clearly on the map that it is OSM. You're getting a great dataset, for free, under an open license, that millions of people are contributing to. We're not asking for $100,000 license fees, we're just asking that you say who we are. It's the ultimate human need; I was here. I did this. How could you deny people that? Apparently, easily and willfully. People within the OSM community have been frustrated and trying to fix it for some time. If we were a proprietary map supplier we'd revoke a license or jump to legal options. We are much nicer than that. I propose a four stage plan, organized on OSM's legal mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk and tracked on the wiki: 1. A polite email, linking to our requirements 2. A week later: Another polite email, warning of what's to come. 3. A week later: Another polite email, same as above 4. A week later: Very public naming and shaming on OSMs various social media channels and blogs Most people who miss our requirements are making a simple error. This is a process that gives three opportunities and an entire month to correct the mistake. This is not a brand new idea or process. The FSF and others have named shamed (and have even went further http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/12/11/1745254/fsf-files-suit-against-cisco-for-gpl-violations) for GPL violations in the past. 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. ___ 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] Using Google Street View to perform virtual survey
This is obviously a legal grey area and until it ends up in court I suspect it will remain a grey area. However, I feel what IS black and white is that if we were to officially use Google StreetView or any non-open source to build our data then we should expect a lawsuit from Google or any other owner of said service/medium/technology. Also, we should remember that their legal budget will be much bigger than ours. In my opinion, we can only have one stance and that is such services are not available for us to use as a source for our database. We should, however, approach Google et al and ask them if they prohibit such use, I'm sure they'll say that we can't use it, but at least we'll know. To use any such service without express permission risks EVERYTHING, we would be leaving a door open for Google et al to file against us in the future and OSM could just descend into a legal black hole. Google would love that! We MUST be whiter than white. The Open in OpenStreetMap is a responsibility as well as a right and to protect that right we must act responsibly. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 05/04/2014 16:50, Paulo Carvalho wrote: Dear fellow mappers, Let me present myself to you. I'm a OSM mapper from the Brazil community and a question rose there which caused a split in the group regarding Google Street View to perform virtual surveys, such as taking notes of house numbers and plotting them in the maps. After reading http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#2a._Can_I_trace_data_from_Google_Maps.2FNokia_Maps.2F3F , I was pondering about the impossibility of copyright and licenses apply to facts and reality (not regarding philosophical aspects). Google Street View photos depict reality or facts, thus I could use them to observe reality and derive interpretations which would be genuine creative work. It would be illegal to use the images in Mapillary, for instance, but the facts depicted by the images are not property of Google. Your thoughts, please Paulo Carvalho ___ 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Improper Map Use
Hi, How does one challenge OSM use that breaks the license? Go here: http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/reserves/trench-wood-nature-reserve Scroll down and you'll see a Google Map/Image, if you change the layer to OSM the Google imprint and terms and conditions link remains :-( Jonathan -- http://bigfatfrog67.me ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements
On 10/01/14 12:01, Simon Poole wrote: Am 10.01.2014 07:15, schrieb Clifford Snow: I like the Mapbox solution the author mentions of putting a box on the map to take you to another page. I realize that unless the user clicks on the link, they will never discover that OSM contributed to this product. Since OSM may be only one of many contributors this make sense considering that there is only so much screen real estate available. Clifford, to make this very short: this is NOT acceptable. See the last board minutes. The last board minutes say we expect people to follow what is in our Legal FAQ and states that the board will complain if attribution is not given. The FAQ says the credit should typically appear in the corner. And I'm very tired of people trying to weasel around the absolute minimal requirements we pose on reuse of OSM data. It seems a bit strong to say that MapBox are weasels given that the OSM attribution is given equal prominence with their own Terms and their imagery attribution. (By the way, Alex and Eric from MapBox are members of this mailing list.) Surely should be given equal prominence with the map copyright holder's own attribution would be a better principle than put it in the corner. Personally I agree with Clifford - I like MapBox's approach and agree that it would seem appropriate for a map with a longer list of attributions. What would happen if every data source started mandating that our attribution must be in the corner? Jonathan. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License review request: Sardinia ad-hoc authorization
On 26/11/13 21:25, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: Jonathan Harley jon@... writes: On 23/11/13 10:45, Simone Cortesi wrote: On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Paul Norman penorman@... wrote: The mentions of the OpenStreetMap Foundation in the document are confusing, as to my knowledge no one from the OSMF is involved in or a party to this agreement, but I don't think that alone would prevent the use of data. I asked them to licence the data to OSMF, which is the copyright holder of the eponymous project. It doesn't make a difference to this, but actually, the OSMF is the publisher of the database, not the copyright holder. Copyright of each contributor's contributions remains with that contributor. This is why the requested attribution is © OpenStreetMap contributors and not © OSMF. You probably knew this, and this is just nit-picking, but this is the legal-talk list so we ought to be accurate. I feel that OSMF is more than just a publisher of the database because we all have granted OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sub-license the work through multiple tiers of sub-licensees and to sue for any copyright violation directly connected with OSMF's rights under these terms. To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against OSMF or its licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms Well, you're right, OSMF is much more than just the publisher of the database. It's the promoter, curator, guardian, maintainer and champion too. But the CTs only give the OSMF the right to sue for copyright violation where it is directly connected with OSMF's other rights under the terms. That's because the CTs don't assign the copyright itself. If we just assigned copyright in our contributions to the OSMF, then we wouldn't need to agree to anything else; OSMF would automatically have all the rights. (At least in some jurisdictions.) J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License review request: Sardinia ad-hoc authorization
On 23/11/13 10:45, Simone Cortesi wrote: On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: The mentions of the OpenStreetMap Foundation in the document are confusing, as to my knowledge no one from the OSMF is involved in or a party to this agreement, but I don't think that alone would prevent the use of data. I asked them to licence the data to OSMF, which is the copyright holder of the eponymous project. It doesn't make a difference to this, but actually, the OSMF is the publisher of the database, not the copyright holder. Copyright of each contributor's contributions remains with that contributor. This is why the requested attribution is © OpenStreetMap contributors and not © OSMF. You probably knew this, and this is just nit-picking, but this is the legal-talk list so we ought to be accurate. Jonathan. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License / Copyright - OSM data for commercial use artistic map
On 19/10/13 11:11, Beri Dániel wrote: Dear All, I would like you to have a look at my question I posted in the OSM forum yesterday. It is not an urgent matter, I'm duplicating it here as well because I would like to avoid any mistreatment of the OSM licenses. Below you can read my post from the forum, or just simply have a look at it in the forum itself: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=22948 Thanks in advance! Daniel Hi Dániel, overall your project does sound like what's presented to users would be a produced work and there is no problem with commercial use. AFAIK OpenLayers uses the FreeBSD license which places no limitations on use other than that you must distribute it with its license intact. The only part which would constitute a derivative database is your altered OSM data (point 2). This altered data will clearly be derived from OSM's data and you would need to publish this under ODbL. If you store the data about where your users live (point 5) in a database, and if this data is derived from the OSM map (users drop a pin on your map based on what they see on it, or where the OSM-based search server said they are), then this is also a derivative database and must also be made available under ODbL. Note that a database here just means a data set - the set of data that was derived from OSM. The ODbL license does not extend virally to any other data sets you may happen to store in the same database management system. The derived data is the only thing you must distribute freely (if asked to), and you can retain all rights on your other data, images and published maps. HTH - Jonathan Dear All, This might have been discussed several times, hence sorry for raising this question again, but I really would like to make sure that I'm in compliance with the rules of the OSM license. (Also, I'm not a programmer, so, sorry for formulating the details of my envisaged project with lack/inproper use of the programming jargon.) So, here is the list of things I am planning to do: I would like to create an artistic map 1) *based on OSM data* - I would need a world map, with territories of countries and potentially subdivisions as well 2) *I would alter the OSM data* by defining new, custom subdivisions in certain areas, like cutting half a country (or continent, like Antarctica) not along any currently available line, but according to my wish 3) I would like to *put copyrighted images* onto these subdivisions (with OpenLayers) 4) I would *remove uneccessary detail by not rendering some types of features*, ie. I don't want any other data to be displayed on the map, but the original and custom-made subdivision borders and the images 5) however, *in the background I would like to still use the OSM data*, so that users could search, eg. the address of their home, then the map would display the place where they live, but covered with the image I defined to cover that particular place with (ie. not displaying any roads etc.) 6) I would expect volume of use too high to be supportable by OSM's tile servers, therefore I *would have my own tile server* 7) Also, because of point 6, I *would create separate, own search server* as well, not to overwhelm Nominatim's servers (btw, I would really appreciate if you could help me with auto-complete search, is there any advanced solution already?) So the end-result would look like this world map of flags, with the exception that I would make it available online as a dynamic map and in print as well: 500px-Flag-map_of_the_world.svg.png So, my questions are: 1) does this project qualify to be a *produced work* as defined in use case 2 of the license? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lice … thing_else http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases#Case_2:_I_want_to_publish_something_based_on_OSM_and_nothing_else 2) if not, then *which use case is the applicable here*? 3) in either case, what are the *consequences of the license to my rights over parts of the project* (database, separate copyrighted images and the overall look of the map)? what should be shared freely? Can I reserve the right to the overall image of the map to be sold eg. as a printed poster? 4) Also, does *OpenLayers' license* (in which I would define the new layer of images) interfere with this idea to be used for commercial use and reserve the rights for the end product? Sorry if the questions should be super-obvious based on the wikis/forum etc., they aren't really self-explanatory for me! smile Thank you very much in advance! Best regards, underclover ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ
[OSM-legal-talk] UK Open Gov License
Can someone advise me on whether the UK Open Government License allows for us to use it as a source in OSM? http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ Thanks Jonathan -- http://bigfatfrog67.me ___ 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
On 02/10/13 18:59, Rob Myers wrote: 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. Agreed. CC-BY is probably compatible but CC-BY-SA definitely isn't as it restricts the license for produced works more than ODbL does (to ones that are like BY-SA). 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. Which is exactly why BY-SA data can't be imported or used in OSM. HTH, Jonathan -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ 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
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. J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger
On 22/07/13 11:46, Paul Norman wrote: From: John Bazik [mailto:jba...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger What consitutes substantial? I've read many threads on this, but I find myself no more able to determine what that might be. If there's ambiguity about the term substantial, it's coming from the relevant laws. The ODbL is just echoing the database directive. Insubstantial is much like fair use. The license should not attempt to define these terms. I don't see substantial as relevant for most use-cases discussed on the list, they have been substantial in quantity. I agree that most use-cases discussed here have been obviously substantial, and I agree that the license shouldn't attempt to fix a definition of substantial in stone. But given that this is such a FAQ, clearly we should have some guidance available. [...] I fear the definition of a derivative work is akin to Justice Potter's famous construction, I know it when I see it. Last time this issue was discussed on this list, last autumn, many people seemed to be in agreement that the current community guideline on substantial at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline was too example-based and that what's needed was a statement of principle instead. Michael Collinson proposed the following wording: OpenStreetMap considers Open Data to be a usefully collected set of intelligently or machine-made physical observations only. Purely algorithmic augmentation of data and re-casting of data to use, store or transmit it in different manners is not part of the data IP. Share Alike may however apply to physical observations inside the augmented or re-cast data; in this case the physical observations must be provided to the public in a commonly used or documented open format as per ODbL clause 4.6b. This makes it clear that share-alike isn't triggered just by associating information (such as user accounts) with the map, but by the addition of observed physical features (routes being taken by users, perhaps?) A bunch of people expressed agreement with this at the time, but nobody has updated the wiki. Should I JFDI? Would anyone object? Jonathan. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
On 14/06/13 07:09, Michal Palenik wrote: On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 03:58:22PM +0200, Olov McKie wrote: Geocoding and license implications Manual geocoding of an entity that a person has prior local knowledge of, is the same process as adding a new entity to the OSM, and as such the person geocoding the entity retains their full copyright over the geocoded entity. All other geocoding results in a Produced Work, as that term is defined in the ODbL. Section 4.5 provides that a Produced Work is not subject to the share-alike provisions of Section 4.4 of the ODbL. as was pointed out before, these implications are wrong: after adding a poi based on underlaying map data, i do not have full copyright because it is partially based on underlaying map (if i added it solely based on GPS coordinates, without any use of map, it would be a different story) Produced Works is still a (derivative) database. it is both. Late to this discussion, sorry, but this is wrong. The Definitions section of ODbL explicitly says that Conveying does not include... creating and Using a Produced Work, and Using this database... to create a Produced Work does not create a Derivative Database. very similar to LGPL. share-alike definetly applies to the data (or we should have the discussion if the result is collective or derivative DB) michal -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ 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
On 04/03/13 11:53, Pieren wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not worried about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any case, Technically, it is possible to export in a format where accuracy is 100% preserved, e.g. any vectorized format like PDF or SVG. If you export all tags in a concatenated text string, your map is maybe not readable for humans but you could in this way rebuild the full database under a new license... That was touched on last time round, yes. Giving someone a vector-format image might count as conveying a database. I think it's ambiguous. The ODbL essentially treats images and databases as though one thing can never be both. It's another thing that could usefully be clarified in a future version, IMO. J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] produced work vs. derivative db
On 04/03/13 16:53, Michal Palenik wrote: after reading all the documents/wiki/mailinglist I am still confused: what forces producers to publish a derivative database and not just produced work? Clause 4.6 of the ODbL, which says if you publish a produced work you must make the database it was produced from available. usecase: a user takes a substantial part of osm db, hand modifies it (eg changes name of a street to correct one, make a new hiking route ...) and then publishes it as an online tilemap/printed map. claiming it to be a produced work under a commercial licence. is it a produced work? The online tilemap and printed map are a produced work. is it also a derivative database? (if so, which odbl clause kicks in to state this?) The database is a derivative database as defined in the definitions section. Correcting names and adding hiking routes which connect with OSM's data is exactly the sort of data the share-alike clause is intended to capture. thanks michal HTH! Jonathan. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ 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
to OSM, you are fine to collect data and keep it to yourself - as long as you keep it separate from any other database (see further comments below). You can render the data you've collected as a layer on top of an OSM map or anyone else's map if you like. As long as it's derived from a produced work rather than a database, and remains separate from anything else, OSM's database share-alike doesn't reach it. OSM's produced work requirement to credit OSM does of course reach it and anything you use it for. (Because something based on a produced work is itself a produced work). 4. If we present several places (all data about the place including coordinates originates from other sources than OSM) on an OSM map to help find duplicates, and then lets the user click on two places marked on the map, to merge them into one, would the resulting database be considered a derived database? I can not see this as anything but OK. A mapping application would solve this use-case with or without a map as a background layer, just visualizing the places on the coordinate grid with a scale present would immediately show duplicates so the OSM layer is only a nice visual touch and I can not see how it would be considered copying of OSM data. But if anyone has a different view please speak up. If you agree with my reasoning, on this or any of the other use-cases, please speak up as well. Again, if your database remains independent of OSM, you don't have to share-alike. But this use case sounds more like you want to merge your user-derived data back into a geodatabase based on OSM, removing duplicates (and perhaps adding metadata in your earlier use cases?) If you modify OSM, or if you derive your own database which is partly OSM data and partly user-sourced data - for example with an OSM feature removed in favour of a user-sourced feature - then that's a Derivative Database and must be made available under ODbL. So - *must* you make your database of user-sourced geodata available to the OSM community? I answer no, so long as it resulted from a produced work and you keep it separate afterwards. Anything you use it for is just another produced work. *Should* you make your user-sourced data available to OSM? You don't say what it is, but if it's about real-world features (and it sounds like it is - particularly the identifying of duplicates) then yes you should. If OSM is useful to you, and you're collecting information which might be useful to other users of OSM, then why would you not share it with us? HTH - Jonathan -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ 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
On 28/02/13 08:04, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: On 02/28/2013 05:54 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote: I'm a little confused. The way I interpret your comment, merely storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share alike. But on the use cases wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says: 'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or together in the same database software, whether that is a RDBMS, NOSQL, filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't derived from OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a Derivative Database.' In other words, storing ODbL and non-ODbL data together does not trigger share alike. What I understand is that the difference between Derivative Database and Collective Database is whether or not the data is published under a common namespace. What storage is used does not matter. What publication techniques you use are as irrelevant to database share-alike as what storage techniques you use. A set of data forms a Derivative Database if it's derived from OSM (modified, arranged, adapted etc); and if not - if it's just stored next to it or retrieved together with it - it's a Collective Database. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3d._If_I_use_your_data_together_with_someone_else.27s_data.2C_do_I_have_to_apply_your_license_to_their_data_too.3F says this in slightly different words: If the two datasets are independent ... this is a *Collective Database*. If you adapt them to work together (for example, by taking footpaths from the OSM data, roads from the third-party data, and connecting them for routing), this is a Derivative Database. J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] (c) statement on openstreetmap.org slippy map?
On 17/01/13 10:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/1/17 Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org mailto:j...@gwhat.org from http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright: For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner of the map. For example: below there is this paragraph: Finding out more Read more about using our data, and how to credit us, at theLegal FAQ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ. On that page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3a._I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F where to put it : For a *browsable electronic map* (e.g. embedded in a web page or mobile phone application), the credit should appear in the corner of the map, as commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps, or an about box/page. cheers, Martin The Copyright page used to match the Legal FAQ, but was changed a month or two ago without prior discussion on this list. There has been some subsequent discussion of it on this list and also last week on the IRC channel. I (and others) don't think it's reasonable to demand that the credit is in the corner in all circumstances. On mobile devices there may not be room. It may obscure the map. It may not be easily readable; it would usually look better and be more readable on a plain, non-map background. If the map provider doesn't put their own credit in the corner of the map, why should OSM's be there? The ODbL just says the credit should be prominent - so if there are any other credits, I think it would be reasonable for us to mandate that the OSM credit has the same prominence as those. We don't require OSM-derived maps to be rectangular. Let's not limit ourselves to just doing whatever Google do. I think someone with the editing rights to do so should put the Copyright page back into line with the FAQ. Having them disagree just says OSM is confused about this. For the same reason, I agree that the mobile version of OSM should have a reference to the copyright message somewhere, like the web version does. Jonathan. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Regarding The New OSM License
Hi Rob, some comments below: On 16/01/13 22:11, Rob wrote: 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. Whether you charge or not isn't relevant to your responsibilities under OSM's license. The only relevant question for share-alike is, will you be storing data that's derived from ours in any way? If so, that's a derivative database and must be shared back to us. ... 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. 1,3,4 sound like produced works and would require that you show the OSM copyright message. 2 would be a derivative database if your users are placing POIs in a certain place *because of features that appear in OSM*. For instance, if your tiles show a road in OSM and the user places a POI next to it, then the POI's location is derived from OSM and must be made freely available if someone asks. After all, if you used a different base map with the road in a different place (since all maps have errors in), the POI would have been in a different place. There is a wiki page which lists some more use cases at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases if there are any cases you're interested in that aren't covered there, could you let us know? Then we'll be able to improve it. Thanks, Jonathan -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright and license page, how to do the details
On 05/12/12 13:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Looking at the licensing page there is still the explicit requirement to credit osm in the corner of the map and in the meantime the FAQ has been amended with the same requirement. Some time ago this wasn't required explicitly, that's why I ask when this was introduced and by whom? (the old requirement was that it should be stated somewhere that (c) is osm contributors). The Legal FAQ wiki page still says ...in the corner of the map... or an about box/page. I agree with Tobias that for apps on mobile devices which use a lot of different data from different sources this is somehow impractical, as it would clutter the screen (fortunately there is no minimum font size requirement ;-) ). +1. In the corner is overly restrictive, especially for maps with multiple sources. The copyright page should say the same thing as the wiki page does. J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Data consumer use cases
Hi all, just a note to say that I've updated the Use Cases wiki page based on the comments below from Igor and others who replied to me earlier in the month. Michael - everyone who's commented about your redrafted guideline has agreed with it - maybe it's time to go ahead and replace what's there now. Jonathan. On 05/11/12 19:46, Igor Brejc wrote: On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net mailto:j...@spiffymap.net wrote: Michael's reply to you about the trivial transformation guideline of 30 October agrees with this - in his terms it provides no new physical observations and the intent of the license is to capture those for share-alike, not to extend share-alike to any technique used for storing or transmitting the data. Anyone disagree? +1 What are the other examples you had in mind? Real-world examples are exactly what we need for this. Some more: * Various forms of algorithm-driven generalizations: simplifications of roads and polygons, merging of polygons with same or similar landuse, elimination of polygons that are too small for given map scale (like buildings), amalgamation... * Transformation of multipolygons (polygons with holes) into weakly simple polygons (certain platforms don't know how to render polygons with holes). * Algorithm-driven automated label and icon placement. * Other applications of geometric and graph algorithms on OSM data (Voronoi diagrams, traveling distances etc.) if they are driven by OSM data only. Best regards, Igor ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Data consumer use cases
Goal-oriented wiki page, first draft: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases Some points deliberately simplified for readability. CC welcome. As I was going through all the ways one might make a derivative database, it struck me that there's an obvious way of dodging this - to put whatever information you want to display into OSM first. I found the bulk import guidelines, but nothing really on what kinds of business data might be desirable/undesirable in OSM. Is there anything anywhere that gives examples of things we wouldn't want - like marketing slogans and product descriptions in place names, for example? Jonathan. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ 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
On 01/11/12 04:20, James Livingston wrote: On 30 October 2012 20:46, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org wrote: On 10/30/12 08:19, Igor Brejc wrote: Some then say that these in-memory data structures are also Derivative Databases. In what form can you then offer such a Database to someone that requests it? I don't think there's a way how one could require the making available of such a transient structure without making OSM data processing totally impractical. I'm pretty sure I was the one who mentioned that issue last time the question came up, or at least one of the few who did. The main issue is that there isn't really a clear line between a permanent database and a transient structure. Consider some scenarios: The license says you must either give people the derivative database, or the method of making it. If you can't give away the derivative database (because it was transient), then you must surely give the method (source code). [snip] Also important is that as someone who receives a copy of the Produced Work, you can't tell how it's produced. What is to stop someone doing (1) and then when you ask for the database just saying it was all done in-memory, there's no database? The risks if they were found out, perhaps? (Bad PR, losing their job, going to jail for fraud etc.) Turning it the another way, say you had OSM data and another database, which you had separately rendered to images. I'm pretty sure that you could then overlay one image on another and serve the combined one to people (provided you satisfy the attribution requirements for the OSM data). If on the other hand you combined the two databases and then rendered the images, you would have a Derived Database you need to release. That depends on the way you did the combination. If the second data set remained independent of the OSM data then you would have a Collective, not Derivative Database. How is anyone else supposed to tell the difference? If they ask you to release the combined database and you replied They were rendered separately and then combined, I don't have to release it, is there anything to do? That's a question of license enforcement, isn't it? I don't have an answer, but in the case where people are going to break the license and lie about doing so, it probably doesn't matter what the license says. J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ 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
On 30/10/12 13:47, Michael Collinson wrote: On 30/10/2012 13:07, Jonathan Harley wrote: [snip] One thing that's confusing me, is that http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright does not say what license applies to the contents. ODbL specifically says that it only applies to the database and a separate license is required for the contents. It suggests that a notice should be inserted prominently in all relevant locations which surely includes the copyright wiki page. I remember earlier discussions on this list about using ODcL for the contents. Was this what was agreed on? LWG, anyone? Hi Jonathan, The short answer is the the contributor terms control content and that the relevant wording there is heavily modelled on ODcL. As a low priority TODO, I'll trace back the exact mechanism to see if we can be more obvious about the relationships on the copyright page without using tortuous language. It has been a while. I really think it does need to be more obvious. The copyright page is the obvious place for prospective consumers of OSM data to find out what they can do with it. It doesn't currently mention the CTs, nor would a consumer who is not an OSM contributor think of looking at the CTs. ODbL itself recommends that we give a clear statement about what license applies to the database contents, and we're not doing that. Also, thanks for your clarification yesterday about copyright. It strikes me that the Community Guidelines pages are not structured in a way that's very easy for a prospective data consumer to use, and that what we need is something more goal-oriented; perhaps broken down by use-cases, if you want to do this... your legal requirements are this. 1) does something like that exist and I've missed it? 2) if no, has the LWG considered doing something like that? 3) if no, should I have a stab at a draft for OSM-legal-talk to comment on? J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ 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
(After a hiatus - I've been discussing this off-list with Anthony and others.) On 22/10/12 23:13, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/10/22 Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net: Anyway, the ODbL is explicit that an image is an example of a produced work, so for anyone creating them, their responsibility is clear: include the notice required for produced works. It's also explicit that a produced work is not a derivative database (4.5b), so it follows that a map image does not have to be licensed using ODbL. So, the hypothetical person wishing to publish on a stock art website only has to decide whether they wish to impose ODbL or some other restriction on their work, or not. Not imposing any restrictions on an image is clearly allowed. (In which case a database derived from the image would not be bound by ODbL.) Then this is clearly a loophole. You could render (with a dedicated style) the whole world in a very high zoom level (even as raster, if you're in doubt whether vectors might fall under ODbL), apply image recognition on it (would be simple if you used one rendered layer per feature) and reassemble the whole database. I am simplifying this process, but it is clearly possible. This (both Jonathan's comment and your response) confuses copyright law. Yes, you don't have to release a Produced Work under ODbL. But if you don't have a license on the Produced Work, then all rights are reserved. Only *if* copyright is there at all. What is in question is whether a substantial amount of material that is OSM's copyright is present in a map I make using OSM's data. If it isn't, then it follows that OSM cannot reserve any rights in my work, explicitly or otherwise. To recap, OSM does not assert database rights on a produced work such as a map image, so only copyright is in question. One thing that's confusing me, is that http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright does not say what license applies to the contents. ODbL specifically says that it only applies to the database and a separate license is required for the contents. It suggests that a notice should be inserted prominently in all relevant locations which surely includes the copyright wiki page. I remember earlier discussions on this list about using ODcL for the contents. Was this what was agreed on? LWG, anyone? J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ 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
On 22/10/12 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2012/10/22 Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net: You have an obligation to make your derivative database available, if you made one. or describe the details and release the code, how you did it, in this case you don't have to release the data. Oops, yes, I over-simplified. But you don't have to describe the details AND release the code, you can do either/or. Unless, and I'm assuming you don't intend this, it was accurate enough to be used as data - for example, if you labelled the lat/long of the bounding box accurately and included high enough resolution vector data. I think you won't have to judge on how high the resolution would have to be, neither must the image be georeferenced: with any translation/modification/alteration a database would still remain a derivative database under the ODbL. Frederik wrote some time ago he believes it might depend on the intent with which you use the work. According to this you might probably use the same work as work and as database, and according to your use, different terms would apply. What is important here is that the recipient of the work gets notice of the obligations in case he would reuse the work as a database. So actually the license with which you release your produced work is not comparable to having the full copyright. I'm not quite sure what you mean by full copyright, copyright is a right which you get from creating something (at least in English law) and it definitely applies to maps. I suppose you mean the case where you're the sole original author and aren't bound by the license conditions of some database you used. Anyway, the ODbL is explicit that an image is an example of a produced work, so for anyone creating them, their responsibility is clear: include the notice required for produced works. It's also explicit that a produced work is not a derivative database (4.5b), so it follows that a map image does not have to be licensed using ODbL. So, the hypothetical person wishing to publish on a stock art website only has to decide whether they wish to impose ODbL or some other restriction on their work, or not. Not imposing any restrictions on an image is clearly allowed. (In which case a database derived from the image would not be bound by ODbL.) What's muddy is whether a vector image is, or might in some circumstances be, a database. In the absence of a clear definition, my guess is that it depends how much usable geodata is in there. That's surely more measurable than intent. So my answer to the question about can I publish an OSM-derived map as SVG is yes, but make sure no OSM XML tags get carried over into the SVG XML, then there will be no doubt that it's a produced work not a derivative database. At least this is what I hope ;-) . I am not sure if legally there is maybe the requirement for an explicit restriction to not re-engineer / re-construct the database from produced works in order to prohibit it, in this case this would be a loophole. I think it's clear that creating a new database from a produced work (that isn't a database) is not prohibited by ODbL. But I don't think it's really worth worrying about; reverse engineering an image, or an SVG file that doesn't include the original lat/lons would result in such an inaccurate database that I can't imagine anyone would want it. You only have to look at what trouble Apple have been getting into with their various not-quite-matching datasets. (Aside: I went to SotM Scotland this weekend, and Apple Maps advised me to abandon my car on Waverley Bridge and continue by foot into Princes St Gardens, as that is where Apple believes Edinburgh is located for the purposes of driving directions!) J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CouchDB: Software Licenses under ODbL
On 25/07/12 14:33, ScubbX wrote: Hello! While writing my master-thesis, I stumbled upon an interesting problem: When I save a set of OSM data to a CouchDB, a database is created. Now, I add a couchapp ( http://couchapp.org/page/index) to this database. Since the used files are stored in the same database as database-content, I would have to check whether the Apache 2.0 license (couchapp), the FreeBDS license (OpenLayers) and the MIT-license (jQuery) are compatible with the ODbL. A bizarre situation. Am I right? Hi Markus - no. For legal purposes, a database is just a collection of data. What you mean by stored in the same database means stored in a given storage instance of some database software. In IT we call that a database but it's not the same meaning as the legal usage, and shouldn't be confused. In other words - storing some data in the same instance of a database as some OSM data doesn't automatically extend your ODbL responsibilities to that data. If there are no interdependencies, there's no problem. Jonathan. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best-Practise to use OSM data in games
On 10/05/12 14:01, Frederik Ramm wrote: I am re-posting this from http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/12656/best-practise-to-use-osm-data-in-games. The original author is dertom95. --- Is there really a way to use osm-data in games that comply the odbl? My replies below relate only to ODbL. (Under the current CC-BY-SA, the game itself would probably have to be distributed as CC-BY-SA.) I will try to play this through using the example of a virtual game:Simcity OSM and Mark questions with Qn: Let's say the game should use only street,river and rail-data and the task of the game would be to build up a new city based on the given osm-data. Workflow: 1) I build a converter that takes osm-data and produces the reduced data (filtering streets,rails,rivers and mapping to my own coordinate-system). Since this already is a derivate this data is under odbl again. There seems to be two options: a)provide the data as data-files b)provide the converter that produces the filtered data in readable-form (e.g. xml) Q1) Is that right understood? If choosing b) The game itself can use a proprietary version of that data? Yes. It doesn't even have to be human-readable, like XML; ODbL says machine readable. Binary is fine as long as there is information on how a machine can read it. 2) The game reads the data as created by the converter, meaning that I have something like a live-version of my new odbl derivate. When I now build a house at coordinate x/y I would have changed the database-again, meaning this need to be provided somehow!? Q2) Creating this live fantasy-data still creates a derivate, right? So would a live-export-function be ok, sufficent or even not necessary? (Actually it sounds like a quite cool idea :D) I think you're right that the live data, including fantasy data created by the user, is a derivative database, assuming the new fantasy items are placed in locations that are influenced by the locations of OSM features. But it's not necessary to provide a way of accessing it, if that player's data is not published to anyone else. Q3) If there would be this live-data option, would be providing the converter still be necessary? I think you would have to provide either the converter or the derived database, because you're publishing it to players; but you can't reasonably require someone to sign up as a player just to get your derivative database. You have to make it available to anyone who asks, player or not. If one player's data is published to other players, ie if it's a multi-player game, then you would have to make that data available along with your starting database. 3) Of course inside the game it is mentioned (in the credits!?) that the data is a derivate of osm. Yes, and make it clear that it's available under ODbL. Conclusion: To be honest, while writing this, I don't see a problem anymore, as there wouldn't be a problem for me to provide something like live-views of the data. But it would be nice to hear some comments if I'm right, about the way to handle the data!? Hope this helps. (I have some PHP programming that I'm avoiding, so it was a welcome diversion to write this commentary.) Jonathan. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
On 07/03/12 08:16, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 03/07/12 04:06, Steve Bennett wrote: Given that many people are now actively remapping, is there any prospect of pushing back the cutover deadline? If there really are people actively remapping and our rushing through the license change would sabotage their work and alienate them then yes, we should postpone for a month or two. Sadly, here in Germany many people are of the opposite opinion and they say let's wait until after the license change, and then see what's missing and fix it. I would much prefer people to remap now but it seems that remapping is not for everyone. The current graphs - http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html - point steadily downwards but if you extrapolate you'll see that they are unlikely to reach zero before autumn. Is there any reason not to? ... If we wait another month then 5% more data can be remapped is not a solid reason, and neither is I'm sure Foursquare would be unhappy to lose a few roads in the US. These reasons are especially bad because they an be repeated month after month and thus could make the process drag on endlessly. I agree. Another reason not to is that the looming deadline is actually motivating people to stop waiting for CT-undecideds to respond and do remapping - I know it's motivating me and other people I've talked to. Take away the deadline and you demotivate remappers, while also putting off the contribution from the wait-and-sees as Frederik says. I suspect that we'll see the highest rates of remapping work in the few weeks immediately before and after the deadline. For that, we need the deadline. Jonathan. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ 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?
On 19/02/12 12:50, Rob Myers wrote: 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. ... 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. It really would - and would surely lead to a big, permanent fork of the project. A company with a big investment in something based on ODbL-licensed OSM would undoubtedly go on using it, and would probably invest in attracting people to contribute to it. If people are willing to contribute to sign-all-your-rights-away maps like Google Maps and People's Map, they might well have some success. Certainly any other companies thinking of using OSM would prefer to invest in the ODbL fork than an OSMF license has changed twice and might change again fork. Many ordinary mappers who don't care about licensing might also be inclined to join up with a it's ODbL and we're never going to bother you with changes to CTs again effort. 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? Either would be better than leaving it to the board; I'd be happy with it being the OSMF membership. Jonathan. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL implementation plan - extra phase proposal
On 30/01/12 23:41, LM_1 wrote: ... That said there are other ways to ensure the goal of this suggestion - seamless transition rather than deletions and angry/leaving contributors. One that comes to my mind and does not require any drastic changes would utilise filtering feature of JOSM (and required Potlatch to implement equivalent). Every night/week (depending on how demanding task it would be) each incompatible object would be tagged odbl=incompatible (server side). Editors would then make these objects non-editable/less visible... If API is not changed to serve the cleaned version of data, it would be good to have at least some editor-side tool to revert selected object to the clean state and then repair/edit it as it should be. In my original suggestion I said that this period (remapping what has to be deleted while still serving data under CC-BY-SA) should take a year or two - as long as needed till all the field in http://odbl.poole.ch/ show 99% or more. The time pressure is a false one, there has not really been any argument why it is important to change the licence fast. ... Non-CT-agreers can't make changes any more, right? So the tagging of objects odbl=incompatible would only need to be done once; the number can never go up, only down as editors replace those features. The tag would be visible in editors without any change (but would make it easy for editors to highlight those features and/or warn any user editing them) and it would make it crystal clear to all of us which features would be removed for the ODbL version when it arrives. That seems like a pretty good idea to me. We're coming up towards the 5 year mark on this so nobody can accuse us of moving too fast. Personally I'm feeling demotivated knowing that lots of my work is likely to be removed (although I've mapped other places from scratch, most of my edits around here have been corrections and improvements) and I haven't added anything for months. I know more clarity about exactly what's going to happen to the map would help me. I know we're still hoping that some CT refusers will change their minds, but I think we need a definitive decision at some point about exactly what is going to be done to which features - and that point needs to be BEFORE the license change is implemented - preferably well before. Tagging seems the obvious way to communicate that. Jonathan. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data
On 28/11/11 23:59, James Livingston wrote: On 28 November 2011 21:55, 80n 80n...@gmail.com mailto:80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org wrote: I could render a map from OSM and then render something else on top of it, say a commercially acquired set of hotel POIs. That would clearly be a Produced Work; I could point anyone asking for the source data to the planet file and the rendering rule, and keep the hotel POIs to myself. This is an overlay on top of a Produced Work. Whether it's produced by layers at the browser end or by compositing two separate images doesn't seem to be materially different. I agree. I could also remove all hotels from my OSM copy and add in the commercial hotels instead, then render a map from it. Unless the commercial dataset is missing data, the resulting map could look 100% identical to the map from the first process, but this time I would be required to release the hotel dataset because it is part of the derived database used to create the produced work. Leaving aside the step about removing content for the moment, I don't see how this is materially different from the first example. You've simply overlaid your hotels on top of the OSM data. I don't think the mechanics of how you achieved this are, from a legal perspective, important. Any process can be considered as a series of inputs to a black box and some outputs. If the inputs are the same (an OSM database and a set of POIs) and the output is the same (a map with an overlay of the POIs) then it shouldn't matter whether it was achieved using a complex machine or monkeys with typewriters. Depending on the rendering, it may not be the same. The placements of name text can depend on other data so it's not on top of something else, or POIs can be hidden if there are too many in a given area. In the first case (or combining layers in the browser), the rendering of OSM data cannot depend on the location of your hotels, and the rendering of hotel names can't easily depend on what else is on the map. In the second case (combining data before rendering) collisions can be avoided or the resulting map altered. Yes, but it's only the produced work, the rendering, which is altered. You probably don't need to make changes to the OSM data to acheive this. So the OSM data and other data could remain independent. If they do, then the mechanism for combining (and computer/s on which it happens) is indeed irrelevant. Of course if Frederik did remove hotels from the OSM dataset as he described above, then that's clearly a derivative database which he would have to share. This was discussed on legal-talk a few months ago, and my opinion was that it depended on whether you could produce the same output by merging separately-rendered Produced works. If you can get _identical_ output by merging layers on the browser side, then it's okay to the merging on the server side. However if you can't get identical results by merging the rendered output, then you've obviously combined the databases prior to rendering. Not necessarily. For example, the rendering might depend on what order data is rendered. But the data being rendered would remain independent of each other; it may be only the rendered result which varied. And that's a produced work, not a database. Having two instances of say Postgres and having one program that reads both and renders is still creating a derived database, even if it is only in the memory of the rendering program. It might create a derivative database, or it might not; it would depend on the algorithm. If the OSM data remain unmodified, then it could be creating a collective database, which is explicitly not a derivative database. Jonathan. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data
On 28/11/11 11:55, 80n wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org wrote: Yes, I agree it is difficult. I think that it is entirely possible to arrive at an identical end product through different processes, where one process has different license implications than the other. For example: I could render a map from OSM and then render something else on top of it, say a commercially acquired set of hotel POIs. That would clearly be a Produced Work; I could point anyone asking for the source data to the planet file and the rendering rule, and keep the hotel POIs to myself. This is an overlay on top of a Produced Work. Whether it's produced by layers at the browser end or by compositing two separate images doesn't seem to be materially different. I agree. Either it's separate data or it's not. Another example is by compositing two separate sources of data in a database, which is catered for in ODbL as a Collective Database. Frederik appears to believe that if you put your commercial dataset in the same database as some OSM data, then your commercial data becomes a derivative database and must be released for free. I disagree. If you used your commercial data to modify data that's already in OSM, such as correcting the names and locations of hotels and their access roads, then *that* would clearly be a derivative. Same thing with your reply to my pencil example - depending on how exactly you update your produced work, you might or might not have to release a database. If this were to be possible then it would be a very undesirable flaw. The intent of ODbL was to protect OSMs database and ensure share-alike. If it can be circumvented then it fails one of its main purposes. I'd say it's not so much a flaw, as a limitation of the approach; you can't govern non-database work such as artwork on top of a map with a database license. I think ODbL protects share-alike just fine, to the extent that it's feasible to do so. The intent of ODbL was never to inhibit the use of OSM data in commercial environments by saying it can't be used in conjunction with any dataset which you can't make available for free. The intent, as you say, is to protect OSM (by attribution) and to make sure that any useful modification of OSM's own data is shared back, and I think it achieves this. Jonathan. (IANAL but I have consulted one about ODbL.) -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ 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
On 30/06/11 11:55, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Richard Fairhurst Jonathan Harley wrote: Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4). I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database doesn't reduce the amount of information. The canonical case, often cited by those who say OSM needs a share-alike licence, is to prevent commercial map providers taking the data we have and they don't (e.g. footpaths), adding it to the data they have but we don't (e.g. complete road network), and not giving us anything back. IRMFI, not because I believe it myself. :) 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. That would certainly seem a very good thing. In lots of peoples opinion where you *add* data, then it is good if that data can be shared back to the community. It would seem a good thing and I hope people who use OSM will do it, but I don't believe ODbL enforces it effectively, while placing a heavy burden on anyone who wants to use OSM without combining it with other data. However where you *don't* add data, but merely process the OSM data, either by extracting some sub-set of it, or simply by transforming it from one form of database to another, then what is the point of requiring compliance with ODbL clause 4.6. 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. J. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open Data License/Community Guidelines for temporary file
On 29/06/11 19:56, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, James Livingston wrote: If I use software that builds an in-memory data structure which you believe to be a database in order to make a produced work, how would you suggest that I fulfil my obligation to make such derived database available on request? I have absolutely no idea. It's one of the many things I don't know about how the produced works part of the ODbL will work in practice. Thinking about this more, the problem would only occur if you have a black-box software wich might or might not create a database internally, and the thing that falls out of the black box is a produced work that you will publicly use. Because then, and only then, will you have to share the derived database upon which the produced work is based. If, on the other hand, out of the black box comes a derived database, then you can simply share *that* database and nobody cares what happened in the black box, because you only have to share the last in a chain of derived databases that leads to a produced work, right? I think that's right - that's the only one which you're publicly using. Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4). I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database doesn't reduce the amount of information. When you want to render geodata, it typically involves discarding most of the metadata, getting rid of points from ways, and transforming lat/long to cartesian co-ordinates in a projection. The resulting database is always going to have a lot less information than the original, and be difficult or impossible to translate back into OSM (without the OSM IDs or original lat/long). So what's the point of the huge burden of being required to make it available on request? Who benefits? Jonathan. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ 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
On 02/02/11 18:58, Rob Myers wrote: 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. In other words, yes, we have a different view of the intent. 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. J. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ 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
On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 02/02/11 18:00, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jonathan Harleyj...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Jonathan Harley wrote: Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. For print, yes, that's about the size of it. I don't see what print's got to do with it. Me neither. I don't agree with using javascript and layers to try to subvert the intent of the license. I think Frederick is wrong when he says If the layers are separable then you can have different licenses on each. 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. I'm not sure where you're getting that interpretation from. I'm partly guided by the idea that the ODbL is supposed to provide a better expression of the same intent. I've always understood that the intent of the ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it. The license doesn't even mention data, and attribution is not enough. OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests specifically mentions Map data. The license says that attribution is enough for collective works, in that share-alike does not apply to the other components of a collective work (this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License). Peter's right that 10 amateurs discussing interpretations isn't worth 1 legal professional. Let's just wait until it goes to court, I say. I'll be interested to see who is so incensed about OSM's data being combined with non-SA third-party data, and how they claim they are suffering losses by the third-party data not being made available to them under CC-BY-SA. Jonathan. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ 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
On 03/02/11 10:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Jonathan Harley wrote: 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. That's as may be, but to restate the point made by Frederik, you can't simply wish away what the licence _actually_ _says_, simply because you disagree with it. Like I said, my interpretation of the license - like everyone's - is guided by what we think the intent of it is. J. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ 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
On 02/02/11 17:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Jonathan Harley wrote: Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. For print, yes, that's about the size of it. 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 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. But I don't think that rendered is a sensible meaning of modified in this context, any more than changing the font or line length would be considered modifying a text. Jonathan. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) 2009: London, 28th March 2009
~~ Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) 2009 ~~ * where: Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, UCL, London, UK * when: 28th March 2009, 1030-1830 * home: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/ * programme: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/programme * register: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/register/ * call for proposals: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/cfp/ * last year: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/2008/ The Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) is back for its fourth installment bringing together individuals and groups from across the open knowledge spectrum for a day of talks, discussions and workshops. This year the event will feature dedicated sessions on 'open knowledge and development' and 'open data and the semantic web'. In addition we are reserving a substantial part of the event for the 'Open Space'- sessions, workshops and discussions proposed either via the call for proposals or on the day. Interested in giving a paper? Have a project to talk about? Want to run a workshop or session? Please see the call for proposals: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/cfp/ Want to get involved in putting the event together or otherwise helping out? Contact us at info [at] okfn [dot] org or add your name to the OKCon wiki page: http://okfn.org/wiki/okcon/2009/ Last but not least: we encourage early registration as space is limited: http://www.okfn.org/okcon/register/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD vs SA: The eternal battle
Rob Myers wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:49 AM, Joseph Gentle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] And the map wins. It gets more visibillity. The promise that someone will hold you in higher esteem if you abandon your principles rarely works out. I don't think this issue is anything to do with esteem, but what principle here are you asserting we would be abandoning? The principle that if commercial companies use OSM data, they must be forced to give away their proprietary data as well? If so, that's not a principle I share. Less time and effort goes to proprietry maps. More people have a vested interest in making the mapping data accurate. There's a difference between people coming to expect that you will do work for them for free and people learning that they can contribute to the project. I find it hard to believe that commercial enterprises would be comfortable with the obvious risk of depending on an unpaid community to work for them, *especially* if they weren't contributing to it. Any commercial user of OSM will have a vested interest not only in contributing to its accuracy, but in being *seen* to contribute. [...] Community projects should not serve as random acts of kindness or distributed potlatch for corporations and local government. They should serve the community. I disagree, community projects (like everyone else) *should* practice random acts of kindness. And I believe the OSM community would be better served by being more business-friendly. If only half of the commercial users of OSM choose to contribute back, we'll still be better off for their contributions. Which we won't get if we scare them away with if you use OSM, we can force you to give away stuff you paid for. Jonathan. -- . Dr Jonathan Harley . . Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zac Parkplatz Ltd . Office Telephone: 024 7633 1375 www.parkplatz.net . Mobile: 079 4116 0423 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
