Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Rob Myers]

On 11/22/2010 07:24 PM, Kevin Peat wrote:


Are there any concrete examples of share-alike actually benefitting
OSM?


There's at least one major data contribution that came about because of 
BY-SA I believe.



It seems like a good thing for software projects but for OSM I
don't really see the benefit.


The benefit isn't meant to be for the project, the benefit is meant to 
be for its users. :-)


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Frederik Ramm  writes:

>>That's one reason why I think a dual licence under both the proposed new
>>licences and the existing CC-BY-SA is a good idea - because it provides a
>>guarantee beyond doubt that all currently allowed uses of the map data will
>>still be okay.
>
>For me, as a PD advocate, the more licenses you license the stuff under 
>the better as it will combine the loopholes of every single one.
>
>If, however, you intend to "protect" our data by putting it under a 
>share-alike data, then any additional license you add weakens that 
>"protection".

It's curious that two of the strongest defences of 'strong share-alike' come 
from
yourself and Richard F. - but both of you prefer public domain.  I, too, would
prefer public domain over the ODbL.  What's going on?  Shouldn't we stop adding
more legalese and just focus on transitioning OSM to PD or attribution-only?

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Rob Myers]

Oops.

Sorry about that. :-(

- rob

"Mike Linksvayer"  wrote:

>On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Rob Myers  wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>>
>>>
 They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the
 rights that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work.

>>>
>>> When I'm given a set of tiles under a CC license (which disclaims
>the
>>> database rights in some versions), I think I can justifiably assume
>>>
>>
>> It disclaims the DB right in all the 3.0 versions iirc.
>>
>
>No, only in EU jurisdiction ports, and there the disclaiming is
>conditional.
>See
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-November/005026.html
>
>Mike
>
>-- 
>https://creativecommons.net/ml
>___
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Rob Myers  wrote:

> On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
>
>>
>>> They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the
>>> rights that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work.
>>>
>>
>> When I'm given a set of tiles under a CC license (which disclaims the
>> database rights in some versions), I think I can justifiably assume
>>
>
> It disclaims the DB right in all the 3.0 versions iirc.
>

No, only in EU jurisdiction ports, and there the disclaiming is conditional.
See
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-November/005026.html

Mike

-- 
https://creativecommons.net/ml
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Anthony]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> For me, as a PD advocate, the more licenses you license the stuff under the
> better as it will combine the loopholes of every single one.
>
> If, however, you intend to "protect" our data by putting it under a
> share-alike data, then any additional license you add weakens that
> "protection". Your suggestion would effectively kill the relatively strong
> share-alike element of ODbL that requires people to share the database
> *behind* a produced work, rather than just the work itself.

So why are you, as a PD advocate, in favor of the ODbL?

That aspect of ODbL is particularly nasty, if in fact it is
enforcible.  Whether or not it is, once you throw the DbCL into the
mix, I don't know.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Anthony]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Rob Myers  wrote:
> On 11/19/2010 01:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>>  The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain
>> the text) "you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY".
>> Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but
>> the ODbL does not *say* you can do so.
>
> It contains, in combination with the DbCL, the permissions required to do
> so.

And I never said it didn't.

>> That was, of course, the first point of a much larger argument, but I
>> find it strange that this particular preliminary point, which is
>> indisputable, was questioned.  Search the ODbL for the string "CC-BY".
>>  You won't find it.
>
> Search the ODbL for the string "proprietary licence".
>
> You won't find it.

Correct.

> So if what you are saying is correct the ODbL
> doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either.

I have no idea where you're getting that from.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[80n]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Rob Myers  wrote:

> On 11/19/2010 02:47 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
>
>>
>> So if what Christine O'Donnell^D^D^Dyou are saying is correct the ODbL
>> doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either.
>>
>
> And, while I have the text of BY-SA 2.0 generic open in front of me, I
> can't find any mention of the words "map", "cartography", "geodata" or
> "database" in the licence that OSM currently uses.
>

And if you had the text of BY-SA 3.0 open in front of you, then you'd see
that it has a lot to say about these matters:

*"Work"* means the literary and/or artistic work offered under the terms of
this License including without limitation any production in the literary,
scientific and artistic domain, *whatever may be the mode or form of its
expression* including  ... an illustration, *map*, plan, sketch or
three-dimensional work relative to *geography*, topography, architecture or
science; ..."

Hmm, perhaps we could use a license like this...
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Rob Myers]

On 11/19/2010 02:47 PM, Rob Myers wrote:


So if what Christine O'Donnell^D^D^Dyou are saying is correct the ODbL
doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either.


And, while I have the text of BY-SA 2.0 generic open in front of me, I 
can't find any mention of the words "map", "cartography", "geodata" or 
"database" in the licence that OSM currently uses.


So clearly if Christine O'Donnell^D^D^Dyou are right, BY-SA can't be 
used for any of those things.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11/19/10 15:38, Ed Avis wrote:

That's one reason why I think a dual licence under both the proposed new 
licences
and the existing CC-BY-SA is a good idea - because it provides a guarantee 
beyond
doubt that all currently allowed uses of the map data will still be okay.


For me, as a PD advocate, the more licenses you license the stuff under 
the better as it will combine the loopholes of every single one.


If, however, you intend to "protect" our data by putting it under a 
share-alike data, then any additional license you add weakens that 
"protection". Your suggestion would effectively kill the relatively 
strong share-alike element of ODbL that requires people to share the 
database *behind* a produced work, rather than just the work itself.


Anyhow - the contributor terms would technically allow OSMF to 
dual-license as you request, even without asking the mappers, so you 
just stand for election to the board and then effect that decision.


Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Rob Myers]

On 11/19/2010 01:43 PM, Anthony wrote:

 The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain
the text) "you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY".
Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but
the ODbL does not *say* you can do so.


It contains, in combination with the DbCL, the permissions required to 
do so.


As I explained to you earlier in the year on this mailing list.


That was, of course, the first point of a much larger argument, but I
find it strange that this particular preliminary point, which is
indisputable, was questioned.  Search the ODbL for the string "CC-BY".
  You won't find it.


Search the ODbL for the string "proprietary licence".

You won't find it.

So if what Christine O'Donnell^D^D^Dyou are saying is correct the ODbL 
doesn't allow you to make proprietary produced works either.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Frederik Ramm  writes:

>>If the latter, then no, it doesn't, in itself, allow you to make a
>>produced work, because a produced work is made from a substantial
>>extract of data.
>
>You know what? After the license change I'll make a few produced works 
>that way and see if OSMF sue me.

Sure - but isn't the supposed advantage of the ODbL/DbCL setup that it makes it
clearer what is and isn't allowed?  As far as I can tell it tends to make things
murkier and more clouded by legalese.

That's one reason why I think a dual licence under both the proposed new 
licences
and the existing CC-BY-SA is a good idea - because it provides a guarantee 
beyond
doubt that all currently allowed uses of the map data will still be okay.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Frederik Ramm]

Anthony,

On 11/19/10 14:38, Anthony wrote:

If the latter, then no, it doesn't, in itself, allow you to make a
produced work, because a produced work is made from a substantial
extract of data.


You know what? After the license change I'll make a few produced works 
that way and see if OSMF sue me.


Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Rob Myers]

On 11/19/2010 11:22 AM, Ed Avis wrote:

Anthony  writes:


On the other hand, I'd say the tiles aren't *really* under CC-BY-SA,
if the underlying data is subject to the ODbL.


Right.  (If your interpretation of the ODbL is correct - which others here
disagree with.)


At length. ;-)

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Anthony]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Frederik Ramm  writes:
>
>>>One thing I should point out, though, is that the ODbL does not *say*
>>>"you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY".
>>
>>I think it does, at least if taken together with DbCL as planned for OSM.
>
> As I understand it the DbCL only applies to the 'database contents'.  Could 
> you
> explain what these 'database contents' are in the context of OSM, and how they
> differ from the 'database' itself?

I should also point out, in case it's not obvious, that Frederik
didn't address my point at all.  The ODbL does not *say* (i.e. contain
the text) "you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY".
Combined with the DbCL it might be the case that you can do so, but
the ODbL does not *say* you can do so.

That was, of course, the first point of a much larger argument, but I
find it strange that this particular preliminary point, which is
indisputable, was questioned.  Search the ODbL for the string "CC-BY".
 You won't find it.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Anthony]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Frederik Ramm  writes:
>
>>>One thing I should point out, though, is that the ODbL does not *say*
>>>"you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY".
>>
>>I think it does, at least if taken together with DbCL as planned for OSM.
>
> As I understand it the DbCL only applies to the 'database contents'.  Could 
> you
> explain what these 'database contents' are in the context of OSM, and how they
> differ from the 'database' itself?

And round and round we go.  *If* the DbCL applies to the "database
contents", then as soon as you take the data out of the database
(substantial or otherwise), you have unrestricted data which you can
do whatever you want with (including create a new, CC-BY database, and
putting the data in it).

On the other hand, if the DbCL applies to "the individual database
contents"...  I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.  Either it
means the same as "the database contents" above, or it means you can
use DbCL for an insubstantial extract but not the combination of
multiple extracts (i.e. it is meaningless).

If the latter, then no, it doesn't, in itself, allow you to make a
produced work, because a produced work is made from a substantial
extract of data.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Anthony]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:22 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Anthony  writes:
>
So a license from, say, MapQuest,
granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers
MapQuest's copyright,
>
>>>...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA
>>>map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data,
>
>>Well, depends on what you mean by that.  MapQuest certainly can
>>(physically) make a map tile from OSM data and put a notice on the
>>bottom of the screen saying "this map tile is released under
>>CC-BY-SA".
>
> Right, and I could photocopy today's Financial Times and put the same notice
> on it, but that's not what I mean by 'can' or 'cannot'.

Okay, I figured you didn't.  But I still don't know what you do mean.

>>And I don't see how they'd be violating the ODbL by doing
>>so.  Besides, even if they *were* violating the ODbL, it's probably
>>irrelevant, since OSM isn't going to sue them (or anyone) for doing
>>so.  Furthermore, the license would likely be valid, in the sense that
>>the fact that they granted it could be used as a defense against
>>copyright infringement if *they* tried to sue you for redistributing
>>(etc) the tiles under CC-BY-SA.
>>
>>On the other hand, I'd say the tiles aren't *really* under CC-BY-SA,
>>if the underlying data is subject to the ODbL.
>
> Right.  (If your interpretation of the ODbL is correct - which others here
> disagree with.)

Which part of the interpretation do you question?  It's quite plain
that ODbL doesn't allow sublicensing.  On the other hand, yes, DbCL
does.  So another, separate question, is what in the world the DbCL is
supposed to apply to (a question I've asked here before, and which
received several contradictory answers).

If the data embedded in the Produced Work is DbCL, then yeah, you can
sublicense it under any license you want.  Of course, that would mean
that there's nothing wrong with recreating a database from that
embedded data.

I think you've explained the situation correctly in the past, and
we're almost completely in agreement.  Either the produced work can't
be CC-BY, or you can reverse engineer the produced work to create a
CC-BY database.

However, I present a practical problem to that.  What if it's
technically illegal to create a CC-BY produced work, but OSMF refuses
to enforce that?

> Ah - so although you are authorized to distribute produced works, those who
> receive them may not be authorized to distribute them further.  This may be
> the crux of the issue.

Others are authorized to distribute them further (so long as they
include/offer the underlying db/changes).  But aren't authorized to
put them back in DB form.

But, as I've said, I don't see how you can characterize such a work as
truly CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Anthony]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Rob Myers  wrote:
> Since the data isn't covered by BY-SA, if I recreate the data it isn't
> covered by BY-SA.

Is the data covered by ODbL?  If you recreate the data is it covered by ODbL?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Frederik Ramm  writes:

>>One thing I should point out, though, is that the ODbL does not *say*
>>"you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY".
>
>I think it does, at least if taken together with DbCL as planned for OSM.

As I understand it the DbCL only applies to the 'database contents'.  Could you
explain what these 'database contents' are in the context of OSM, and how they
differ from the 'database' itself?

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Anthony  writes:

>>>So a license from, say, MapQuest,
>>>granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers
>>>MapQuest's copyright,

>>...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA
>>map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data,

>Well, depends on what you mean by that.  MapQuest certainly can
>(physically) make a map tile from OSM data and put a notice on the
>bottom of the screen saying "this map tile is released under
>CC-BY-SA".

Right, and I could photocopy today's Financial Times and put the same notice
on it, but that's not what I mean by 'can' or 'cannot'.

>And I don't see how they'd be violating the ODbL by doing
>so.  Besides, even if they *were* violating the ODbL, it's probably
>irrelevant, since OSM isn't going to sue them (or anyone) for doing
>so.  Furthermore, the license would likely be valid, in the sense that
>the fact that they granted it could be used as a defense against
>copyright infringement if *they* tried to sue you for redistributing
>(etc) the tiles under CC-BY-SA.
>
>On the other hand, I'd say the tiles aren't *really* under CC-BY-SA,
>if the underlying data is subject to the ODbL.

Right.  (If your interpretation of the ODbL is correct - which others here
disagree with.)

>You are merging two separate events into one when you talk about
>"distributing a recording under CC-BY", distributing a recording, and
>licensing the recording under CC-BY.  The ODbL explicitly allows the
>former.  But it is actually silent about the latter.  (It says that
>you can't sublicense "the score" under CC-BY, but it says nothing
>about whether or not you can license "the recording" under CC-BY.)

Ah - so although you are authorized to distribute produced works, those who
receive them may not be authorized to distribute them further.  This may be
the crux of the issue.

-- 
Ed Avis 



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Rob Myers]

On 11/18/2010 08:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:


They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the rights that 
the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work.


When I'm given a set of tiles under a CC license (which disclaims the
database rights in some versions), I think I can justifiably assume


It disclaims the DB right in all the 3.0 versions iirc.

Which is a good point [adds it to the list of things to ask about].


that it doesn't contain anyone else's work under conditions different
from those in the license I was given, unless I'm told so.  So I


You're told of the existence of the source database in the attribution 
for the CC work.


If the CC work includes fair use material, trademarks, description of 
patents, or photographs of models without release sheets then the CC 
licence doesn't cover those either despite their inclusion.



should be able to excercise my right to reverse engineer the POIs
names and positions and the streets graph represented by the bitmaps
and distribute the result under a license compatible with the CC
license.


"Reverse engineer" is a euphemism for "recreate". ;-)

Since the data isn't covered by BY-SA, if I recreate the data it isn't 
covered by BY-SA.


(See Jordan's "secret sauce" explanation on odc-discuss.)


So it should be entirely possible to reproduce most of planet.osm or
at least the useful part of it (so e.g. not the object IDs and not
their order) which would not be covered by database rights or
copyright of OSMF.  For example I could produce z30 tiles with a
public domain mapnik stylesheet and my friend could run a program to
produce a .osm file taking the tileset and the stylesheet as input.


Steganography doesn't defeat copyright.


If you use a CC licenced work to recreate another, non-CC-licenced

work, for example if you rearrange it to make the score and lyrics to a
Lady Gaga song then record that, the work that you have "reverse
engineered" still breaks copyright despite the fact that you have used a
CC licenced work to make it.


Is there any known case that would show that this is how copyright
works?  I'm no lawyer, but copyright is mostly "reasonable" to me
whereas what you explain would make it unreasonable.


http://www.poster.net/star-wars/star-wars-episode-ii-yoda-photomosaic-4900333.jpg

The above image could be made of BY or BY-SA images and the resulting 
image would still infringe on the copyright in the movie and the 
character it depicts.



For example say I'm using the CC-BY-SA photographs from flickr to
create a great photo wall, placing the pictures in alphabetical order.
  How do I know that I'm not recreating a differently licensed work by
somebody else, from which all the pictures were cut out?


You don't. But if you're using them to create an image of Yoda, it 
doesn't matter what images you use.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Anthony  writes:
>
>>>Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original
>>>data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of
>>>map you received
>>
>>As you have correctly pointed out with regard to the contributor
>>terms, you aren't allowed to grant a license on someone else's
>>copyright without permission.
>
> Correct!  So it matters whether the tiles are produced by OSMF itself
> or by a third party.

Agreed.

>>So a license from, say, MapQuest,
>>granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers
>>MapQuest's copyright, which only extends to the material contributed
>>by MapQuest, not to the preexisting material already in the work.
>
> ...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA
> map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data, although OSMF itself has the
> power to do so because of the special rights granted by the contributor terms.

Well, depends on what you mean by that.  MapQuest certainly can
(physically) make a map tile from OSM data and put a notice on the
bottom of the screen saying "this map tile is released under
CC-BY-SA".  And I don't see how they'd be violating the ODbL by doing
so.  Besides, even if they *were* violating the ODbL, it's probably
irrelevant, since OSM isn't going to sue them (or anyone) for doing
so.  Furthermore, the license would likely be valid, in the sense that
the fact that they granted it could be used as a defense against
copyright infringement if *they* tried to sue you for redistributing
(etc) the tiles under CC-BY-SA.

On the other hand, I'd say the tiles aren't *really* under CC-BY-SA,
if the underlying data is subject to the ODbL.

>>>since you have not even looked at the original data you cannot
>>>be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules)
>>
>>Depends to what extent map data is copyrightable.  If I write a score,
>>and someone else records a piano rendition of the score, and a third
>>person converts that recording back to a score, that score is still
>>copyrighted by the original author.
>
> Absolutely!  I am not disputing that at all.
>
> I am saying that if you write a score, and then *with your permission and
> authorization* somebody distributes a recording of it under CC-BY or
> other permissive licence, then a person receiving it can exercise the
> rights granted by the licence to turn it back into the original score.

You are merging two separate events into one when you talk about
"distributing a recording under CC-BY", distributing a recording, and
licensing the recording under CC-BY.  The ODbL explicitly allows the
former.  But it is actually silent about the latter.  (It says that
you can't sublicense "the score" under CC-BY, but it says nothing
about whether or not you can license "the recording" under CC-BY.)

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Frederik Ramm]

Martin,

M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

But a map is (this might have to be looked at for the individual case)
not only a work but can constitute a database at the same time. If you
are able to reconstruct a database with substantial parts of the
original database by re-engineering if from the map, you must admit
that the database somehow still was in the map. Otherwise you could
simply create a SVG-Map, publish it under PD, recompile the db from
the svg and you would have circumvented the license.


The first version of ODbL hat an explicit clause about reverse 
engineering, saying that if you reverse engineer a produced work the 
resulting DB will fall under ODbL. That has been scrapped because 
lawyers said that this was implicit - i.e. you *can* indeed have a 
produced work that is, say, PD, but if you use that to re-create the 
database from which it was made, that database is protected by database 
right once again and you need a license to use it.


Otherwise, only the most obscure works (certainly not a printed map) 
could fall under the "Produced Works" rule.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[andrzej zaborowski]

Hi,

On 18 November 2010 17:30, Rob Myers  wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 02:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that
>> at times has been ascribed to the ODbL: that you cannot reverse-engineer the
>> produced map tiles, so they cannot be fairly described as CC-BY-SA or CC-BY
>> or indeed anything other than ODbL or 'all rights reserved'.
>
> They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the rights 
> that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work.

When I'm given a set of tiles under a CC license (which disclaims the
database rights in some versions), I think I can justifiably assume
that it doesn't contain anyone else's work under conditions different
from those in the license I was given, unless I'm told so.  So I
should be able to excercise my right to reverse engineer the POIs
names and positions and the streets graph represented by the bitmaps
and distribute the result under a license compatible with the CC
license.

So it should be entirely possible to reproduce most of planet.osm or
at least the useful part of it (so e.g. not the object IDs and not
their order) which would not be covered by database rights or
copyright of OSMF.  For example I could produce z30 tiles with a
public domain mapnik stylesheet and my friend could run a program to
produce a .osm file taking the tileset and the stylesheet as input.

>
> If you use a CC licenced work to recreate another, non-CC-licenced work, for 
> example if you rearrange it to make the score and lyrics to a Lady Gaga song 
> then record that, the work that you have "reverse engineered" still breaks 
> copyright despite the fact that you have used a CC licenced work to make it.

Is there any known case that would show that this is how copyright
works?  I'm no lawyer, but copyright is mostly "reasonable" to me
whereas what you explain would make it unreasonable.

For example say I'm using the CC-BY-SA photographs from flickr to
create a great photo wall, placing the pictures in alphabetical order.
 How do I know that I'm not recreating a differently licensed work by
somebody else, from which all the pictures were cut out?

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/11/18 Frederik Ramm :
> ODbL gives you the right to use the data to create a Produced Work. A
> Produced Work is not subject to ODbL because it is not a database; in so far
> as any copyright subsists in the Produced Work, one would have to look to
> DbCL for guidance on what happens with that, and DbCL says:
>
> "The Licensor grants to You a [...] license to do any act that is restricted
> by copyright [...]. These rights include, without limitation, the right to
> sublicense the work."


But a map is (this might have to be looked at for the individual case)
not only a work but can constitute a database at the same time. If you
are able to reconstruct a database with substantial parts of the
original database by re-engineering if from the map, you must admit
that the database somehow still was in the map. Otherwise you could
simply create a SVG-Map, publish it under PD, recompile the db from
the svg and you would have circumvented the license.

cheers,
Martin

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Richard Bullock]

Sure, the licence to the produced work. So how is a substantial portion
of the original database structure and contents going to be accidentally
recreated in this scenario?

I don't think it will be possible to accidentally "reverse engineer" the
DB, and if you intentionally "reverse engineer" it, you cannot claim
independent creation.



OK, imagine the following;
Suppose that some time from now, OSM has moved to ODBL - and a group has 
forked OSM using the last CC-BY-SA planet file - for the sake of argument 
call it OSM-CC.


The original OSM project, with the database under ODBL still releases its 
map tiles on its main website under CC-BY-SA.


Presumably, the OSM-CC project would be well within their rights to use the 
OSM created map tiles as a background layer in JOSM / Potlatch etc. to allow 
users to trace map data. The data created is derived from the CC-BY-SA 
tiles - and so must therefore also be under a CC-BY-SA licence. Therefore 
it's compatible with the OSM-CC project.


With sufficient resources, the OSM-CC project could in theory create a 
substantially similar database to that of the main OSM project - although 
it's extremely unlikely to be identical.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Anthony wrote:

One thing I should point out, though, is that the ODbL does not *say*
"you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY".


I think it does, at least if taken together with DbCL as planned for OSM.


In fact, what it says is: "You may not sublicense the Database. Each
time You communicate the Database, the whole or Substantial part of
the Contents, or any Derivative Database to anyone else in any way,
the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Database on the
same terms and conditions as this License."

To the extent that you are allowed to offer a license on a Produced
Work, that license only applies to *your contribution* to the Produced
Work.  It does not apply to the "preexisting material".  The license
you have for the preexisting material, i.e. the Database, is given by
the original Licensor of the database, and is ODbL, not CC-BY, or
CC-BY-SA, or anything else.


I think you're completely wrong here. Not just a little wrong, but 
drive-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-motorway kind of wrong. The only reason 
that you're not being told so by a hundred people is that they have 
grown tired of telling you.


ODbL gives you the right to use the data to create a Produced Work. A 
Produced Work is not subject to ODbL because it is not a database; in so 
far as any copyright subsists in the Produced Work, one would have to 
look to DbCL for guidance on what happens with that, and DbCL says:


"The Licensor grants to You a [...] license to do any act that is 
restricted by copyright [...]. These rights include, without limitation, 
the right to sublicense the work."


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Rob Myers]

On 11/18/2010 06:46 PM, Ed Avis wrote:

Rob Myers  writes:


The point is this.  The CC text says that it grants you a copyright licence
in the work.



Well, not clearly. CC licences don't cover what they cannot.


Yes - but the licence does cover copyright in the particular work that you
received (in this case a printed map, say).  That is what I want to establish.
And it covers all of the copyright for that particular work, not just a subset
so that you're granted a licence to the pictures but not the words.


The example that springs to mind is if I write a BY-(SA) review of a 
story or a poem and I include quotes from the work I am reviewing under 
fair use or fair dealing.


I am fairly certain that I am not giving people who receive my BY-SA 
review a BY-SA licence to the quotes that are contained in it.



It doesn't, obviously, cover anything not contained in that work.
So it couldn't possibly include the exact tags used in a landuse=brownfield
area - just the shape of the area and the fact that it is brown.


Yes that makes sense.


If you're familiar with the Ordnance Survey OpenData release in the UK, it's
exactly the same situation.  The original OS master database is copyrighted.


It is not, as with the OS data the licence on the database is expected
to apply directly to derived works.


Could you clarify what you mean here?  The OpenData release does not include
any access to the original database.  I have never seen the OS's master database
or the terms under which it is licensed; as far as I am concerned the Street
View tiles are just some image files released under a permissive licence.
If I trace from them and make a derived work, I need to stay within the licence
granted - but I need not care at all what the terms are of the original DB.


Sure, my point was that the licence and the copyright relationship to 
the derived work are direct: the BY-style licence applies to your use of 
the OS data and to work produced using it rather than having the 
mothership/lander relationship of the ODbL and a BY-SA produced work.



But the ODbL isn't about some platonic idea of a map, this is about the
precise structure and numbers in the database.


Ah, no I don't mean the precise numbers, obviously it would be a practical
impossibility to recreate the exact database and if somebody did that you
would suspect that they had been peeking at the original DB all along.
I just mean the subset of the information that is recoverable from the tiles.


Ah, this is where I think I misunderstood what you are saying.

I don't think that what you refer to here as a subset of the information 
would count as a Derivative Database as it wouldn't reproduce (part of) 
the content of the original database.


This would depend on the accuracy and structure of what is "recovered", 
I think.


But I will check odc-discuss and ask about this.


If I received a printed map 'all rights reserved' and then produced a derived
work from it such as a tracing, I'd probably be infringing the rights of the
copyright holder of that printed map.  On the other hand, if I had a licence
(from a suitably authorized person) to make derivative works and distribute
them under certain terms, I would be able to do that.


And if the proprietary licence said "you can do what you like with
derivatives but you cannot do what you like with the original", how
would that be different from the ODbL?


Perhaps it wouldn't be different, but that is not what happens here.
You don't receive the map tiles under ODbL.  You receive them under CC-BY,
shall we say, without additional restrictions.  If that is the case, then
you can make derivatives such as tracing and distribute them under the
licence terms you received.


You do not receive the tiles with any extra restrictions with an ODbL 
produced work either. If the ODbL attempted to impose them that would 
clash with BY. What you receive in the attribution for the BY work is a 
"source offer" that does not, in itself, affect your ability to use the 
BY work.



Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original
data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of
map you received; since you have not even looked at the original data you
cannot be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules), and
if you do things with just the extract you received then you are covered by
the licence you received with that extract.


Sure, the licence to the produced work. So how is a substantial portion
of the original database structure and contents going to be accidentally
recreated in this scenario?


I am only referring to tracing from the map tiles themselves.  Perhaps you
are right that it would be practically impossible to recreate the original
database from that - in which case we come to the same conclusion, albeit
from different premises: that the tiles can be distributed under CC-BY without
additional riders, and people can freely trace over them

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Anthony  writes:

>>Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original
>>data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of
>>map you received
> 
>As you have correctly pointed out with regard to the contributor
>terms, you aren't allowed to grant a license on someone else's
>copyright without permission.

Correct!  So it matters whether the tiles are produced by OSMF itself
or by a third party.

>So a license from, say, MapQuest,
>granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers
>MapQuest's copyright, which only extends to the material contributed
>by MapQuest, not to the preexisting material already in the work.

...in which case, surely, we have the situation that in general, CC-BY-SA
map tiles cannot be made from the OSM data, although OSMF itself has the
power to do so because of the special rights granted by the contributor terms.

>>since you have not even looked at the original data you cannot
>>be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules)
>
>Depends to what extent map data is copyrightable.  If I write a score,
>and someone else records a piano rendition of the score, and a third
>person converts that recording back to a score, that score is still
>copyrighted by the original author.

Absolutely!  I am not disputing that at all.

I am saying that if you write a score, and then *with your permission and
authorization* somebody distributes a recording of it under CC-BY or
other permissive licence, then a person receiving it can exercise the
rights granted by the licence to turn it back into the original score.

>In any case, clean room rules don't apply to database rights.  So if
>you live in a jurisdiction with database rights, you can pretty much
>throw away that argument.

Yes, that is a separate argument.

-- 
Ed Avis  





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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Rob Myers  writes:

>>The point is this.  The CC text says that it grants you a copyright licence
>>in the work.

>Well, not clearly. CC licences don't cover what they cannot.

Yes - but the licence does cover copyright in the particular work that you
received (in this case a printed map, say).  That is what I want to establish.
And it covers all of the copyright for that particular work, not just a subset
so that you're granted a licence to the pictures but not the words.

It doesn't, obviously, cover anything not contained in that work.
So it couldn't possibly include the exact tags used in a landuse=brownfield
area - just the shape of the area and the fact that it is brown.

>>If you're familiar with the Ordnance Survey OpenData release in the UK, it's
>>exactly the same situation.  The original OS master database is copyrighted.
>
>It is not, as with the OS data the licence on the database is expected 
>to apply directly to derived works.

Could you clarify what you mean here?  The OpenData release does not include
any access to the original database.  I have never seen the OS's master database
or the terms under which it is licensed; as far as I am concerned the Street
View tiles are just some image files released under a permissive licence.
If I trace from them and make a derived work, I need to stay within the licence
granted - but I need not care at all what the terms are of the original DB.

>But the ODbL isn't about some platonic idea of a map, this is about the 
>precise structure and numbers in the database.

Ah, no I don't mean the precise numbers, obviously it would be a practical
impossibility to recreate the exact database and if somebody did that you
would suspect that they had been peeking at the original DB all along.
I just mean the subset of the information that is recoverable from the tiles.

>>If I received a printed map 'all rights reserved' and then produced a derived
>>work from it such as a tracing, I'd probably be infringing the rights of the
>>copyright holder of that printed map.  On the other hand, if I had a licence
>>(from a suitably authorized person) to make derivative works and distribute
>>them under certain terms, I would be able to do that.
> 
>And if the proprietary licence said "you can do what you like with 
>derivatives but you cannot do what you like with the original", how 
>would that be different from the ODbL?

Perhaps it wouldn't be different, but that is not what happens here.
You don't receive the map tiles under ODbL.  You receive them under CC-BY,
shall we say, without additional restrictions.  If that is the case, then
you can make derivatives such as tracing and distribute them under the
licence terms you received.

>>Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original
>>data but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of
>>map you received; since you have not even looked at the original data you
>>cannot be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules), and
>>if you do things with just the extract you received then you are covered by
>>the licence you received with that extract.
> 
>Sure, the licence to the produced work. So how is a substantial portion 
>of the original database structure and contents going to be accidentally 
>recreated in this scenario?

I am only referring to tracing from the map tiles themselves.  Perhaps you
are right that it would be practically impossible to recreate the original
database from that - in which case we come to the same conclusion, albeit
from different premises: that the tiles can be distributed under CC-BY without
additional riders, and people can freely trace over them to make their own
CC-BY licensed map.  (As long as they don't cheat by looking at the source
data!)

-- 
Ed Avis 




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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Rob Myers  wrote:
> On 11/18/2010 05:28 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
>>
>> Indeed, this is another point of contention where different people say
>> different
>> things about what the ODbL permits or does not permit.  And it's not some
>> abstract conundrum but part of the everyday business of the project -
>> rendering
>> data into map tiles and distributing them.
>
> So ask on odc-discuss.

And then explain it to us here.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Ed Avis  wrote:
>>Exactly. And the copyright (or DB right) in the original data is an
>>entirely separate issue.
>
> Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original 
> data
> but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of map
> you received

As you have correctly pointed out with regard to the contributor
terms, you aren't allowed to grant a license on someone else's
copyright without permission.  So a license from, say, MapQuest,
granting you permission to use the tiles under CC-BY-SA, only covers
MapQuest's copyright, which only extends to the material contributed
by MapQuest, not to the preexisting material already in the work.

> since you have not even looked at the original data you cannot
> be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules)

Depends to what extent map data is copyrightable.  If I write a score,
and someone else records a piano rendition of the score, and a third
person converts that recording back to a score, that score is still
copyrighted by the original author.

Clean room rules involve using only uncopyrightable factual data.
There are arguments on both sides as to whether or not tracing a map
constitutes copying only uncopyrightable facts (personally I lean
strongly toward the side that says it does, but I wouldn't be willing
to bet my business on that without receiving substantial legal
advice).

In any case, clean room rules don't apply to database rights.  So if
you live in a jurisdiction with database rights, you can pretty much
throw away that argument.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Rob Myers]

On 11/18/2010 05:28 PM, Ed Avis wrote:


Indeed, this is another point of contention where different people say different
things about what the ODbL permits or does not permit.  And it's not some
abstract conundrum but part of the everyday business of the project - rendering
data into map tiles and distributing them.


So ask on odc-discuss.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Rob Myers]

On 11/18/2010 05:25 PM, Ed Avis wrote:

Rob Myers  writes:


We can produce a CC licenced set of map tiles from ODbL data. But we
cannot use those to make a Lady Gaga score or the original ODbL
database.


Actually, you can use them to produce a Lady Gaga score, if you somehow
managed to do so independently without ever hearing her music before.  That


Magic aside, the likelihood of a "substantial portion" of the precise 
structure and content of the OSM database being independently created is 
close enough to zero that this is unlikely to be a concern.



would be independent creation.  It would, of course, require that nobody had
added bits of Gaga-music to the OSM database without prior permission from
the record company.


If we do, the original rights still apply to the recreated
work. CC licencing is not a way of circumventing that.


The point is this.  The CC text says that it grants you a copyright licence
in the work.  Clearly,


Well, not clearly. CC licences don't cover what they cannot.


that applies to all copyright interest in the work and
not selectively to just the pictorial part of it (even if that concept existed).
If you follow the terms of the licence, you are not infringing copyright.


You are not infringing the copyright on the produced work, no.


If you're familiar with the Ordnance Survey OpenData release in the UK, it's
exactly the same situation.  The original OS master database is copyrighted.


It is not, as with the OS data the licence on the database is expected 
to apply directly to derived works.



Perhaps you are to some extent 'recreating' it by tracing from the Street View
tiles, but that doesn't matter; you have a copyright licence from the Ordnance
Survey to use those tiles, so as long as you don't cheat by looking at the
original database, you can trace and derive whatever you like from them as long
as you stay within the copyright licence granted.


But the ODbL isn't about some platonic idea of a map, this is about the 
precise structure and numbers in the database.



What would prevent us from using an ARR map tile to magically recreate
the original ODbL database?


If I received a printed map 'all rights reserved' and then produced a derived
work from it such as a tracing, I'd probably be infringing the rights of the
copyright holder of that printed map.  On the other hand, if I had a licence
(from a suitably authorized person) to make derivative works and distribute
them under certain terms, I would be able to do that.


And if the proprietary licence said "you can do what you like with 
derivatives but you cannot do what you like with the original", how 
would that be different from the ODbL?



If we look at the licencing of "My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts", which
licenced individual track elements CC but not the original compiled
work, that's probably closer.



Exactly. And the copyright (or DB right) in the original data is an
entirely separate issue.


Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original data
but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of map
you received; since you have not even looked at the original data you cannot
be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules), and if you do
things with just the extract you received then you are covered by the licence
you received with that extract.


Sure, the licence to the produced work. So how is a substantial portion 
of the original database structure and contents going to be accidentally 
recreated in this scenario?


I don't think it will be possible to accidentally "reverse engineer" the 
DB, and if you intentionally "reverse engineer" it, you cannot claim 
independent creation.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Anthony  writes:

>One thing I should point out, though, is that the ODbL does not *say*
>"you can make Produced Works and release them as CC-BY".

>To the extent that you are allowed to offer a license on a Produced
>Work, that license only applies to *your contribution* to the Produced
>Work.  It does not apply to the "preexisting material".  The license
>you have for the preexisting material, i.e. the Database, is given by
>the original Licensor of the database, and is ODbL, not CC-BY, or
>CC-BY-SA, or anything else.

Indeed, this is another point of contention where different people say different
things about what the ODbL permits or does not permit.  And it's not some
abstract conundrum but part of the everyday business of the project - rendering
data into map tiles and distributing them.

-- 
Ed Avis 





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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Rob Myers  writes:

>We can produce a CC licenced set of map tiles from ODbL data. But we 
>cannot use those to make a Lady Gaga score or the original ODbL 
>database.

Actually, you can use them to produce a Lady Gaga score, if you somehow
managed to do so independently without ever hearing her music before.  That
would be independent creation.  It would, of course, require that nobody had
added bits of Gaga-music to the OSM database without prior permission from
the record company.

>If we do, the original rights still apply to the recreated 
>work. CC licencing is not a way of circumventing that.

The point is this.  The CC text says that it grants you a copyright licence
in the work.  Clearly, that applies to all copyright interest in the work and
not selectively to just the pictorial part of it (even if that concept existed).
If you follow the terms of the licence, you are not infringing copyright.

If you're familiar with the Ordnance Survey OpenData release in the UK, it's
exactly the same situation.  The original OS master database is copyrighted.
Perhaps you are to some extent 'recreating' it by tracing from the Street View
tiles, but that doesn't matter; you have a copyright licence from the Ordnance
Survey to use those tiles, so as long as you don't cheat by looking at the
original database, you can trace and derive whatever you like from them as long
as you stay within the copyright licence granted.

>What would prevent us from using an ARR map tile to magically recreate 
>the original ODbL database?

If I received a printed map 'all rights reserved' and then produced a derived
work from it such as a tracing, I'd probably be infringing the rights of the
copyright holder of that printed map.  On the other hand, if I had a licence
(from a suitably authorized person) to make derivative works and distribute
them under certain terms, I would be able to do that.

>If we look at the licencing of "My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts", which 
>licenced individual track elements CC but not the original compiled 
>work, that's probably closer.

>Exactly. And the copyright (or DB right) in the original data is an 
>entirely separate issue.

Yes - it's quite separate - you do not receive any licence to the original data
but you do get a licence to all copyright interest in the small bit of map
you received; since you have not even looked at the original data you cannot
be infringing copyright in that (similar to 'clean room' rules), and if you do
things with just the extract you received then you are covered by the licence
you received with that extract.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Rob Myers]

On 11/18/2010 04:42 PM, Ed Avis wrote:

Rob Myers  writes:


Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that
at times has been ascribed to the ODbL: that you cannot reverse-engineer the
produced map tiles, so they cannot be fairly described as CC-BY-SA or CC-BY
or indeed anything other than ODbL or 'all rights reserved'.


They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the
rights that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work.

If you use a CC licenced work to recreate another, non-CC-licenced work,
for example if you rearrange it to make the score and lyrics to a Lady
Gaga song then record that, the work that you have "reverse engineered"
still breaks copyright despite the fact that you have used a CC licenced
work to make it.


Uh... which would, in my way of thinking, mean that it is impossible to
produce a CC-licensed score and lyrics of a Lady Gaga song.  You can make an


It means that we cannot use (...are still not allowed to use) a 
CC-licenced work to make an infringing work.



'all rights reserved' version, by agreement with the record company, but you
cannot release a CC or public domain version.  Similarly, you cannot release
a CC or public domain set of map tiles from an ODbL map.  Perhaps this is just
a difference in terminology.


We can produce a CC licenced set of map tiles from ODbL data. But we 
cannot use those to make a Lady Gaga score or the original ODbL 
database. If we do, the original rights still apply to the recreated 
work. CC licencing is not a way of circumventing that.


What would prevent us from using an ARR map tile to magically recreate 
the original ODbL database?



Systematically extracting data out of Produced Works to recreate the whole
database, or a substantial part of it, would trigger the Share Alike
obligation.


Myself, I don't see how this can be enforceable;



It's enforcable for much the same reason that if you send ten of your
friends a few seconds of a Lady Gaga song and they put them back
together to make the original track, whether they realise it or not the
copyright on it hasn't magically vanished.


Right.  But if the music publisher had given permission (perhaps by some
tortuously worded licence document) to release those short clips under CC-BY
then you would be within your rights to put them together into a longer work.


Sure but there's no equivalent to the original database in that example.

If we look at the licencing of "My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts", which 
licenced individual track elements CC but not the original compiled 
work, that's probably closer.



You would not imagine the record company saying on the one hand 'yes, you can
make short clips of our music and release them as CC-BY' but on the other hand
'no, if you try to exercise the rights granted by the CC-BY licence you are
infringing our copyright and must stop'.  Either position is possible, but not
both together.


And do look at Jordan's "Secret Sauce" explanation again.


He explained that 'I see the data layer as being potentially different from the
rest of what is being licensed CC-BY-SA in a "produced work"'.

>

However this doesn't really square with your assertion that it's a question of
copyright (rather than some effect of contract law or 'agreeing' to the ODbL).
The CC-BY-SA licence explicitly grants a copyright licence, so if there is any
copyright interest in the printed map produced, it is licensed by those terms.


Exactly. And the copyright (or DB right) in the original data is an 
entirely separate issue. Which does not interact with your use of the CC 
licenced work, and is also not in any way circumventable using the CC 
licenced work.


- Rob.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Rob Myers  writes:
>>It's enforcable for much the same reason that if you send ten of your
>>friends a few seconds of a Lady Gaga song and they put them back
>>together to make the original track, whether they realise it or not the
>>copyright on it hasn't magically vanished.
>
> Right.  But if the music publisher had given permission (perhaps by some
> tortuously worded licence document) to release those short clips under CC-BY
> then you would be within your rights to put them together into a longer work.

Moreover, a better analogy is that you send *one* friend the entire
Lady Gaga song, in a form (maybe a waveform video) which makes it
difficult, but not impossible, to extract the underlying song.

An even better analogy would be a library released under the LGPL.
You are allowed to release the library only under the LGPL, but a
binary which contains the library does not have to be under LGPL.

The only free license which the LGPL is compatible with is the GPL,
and it's only compatible with that because it's *explicitly*
compatible with it.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Rob Myers  writes:

>>Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that
>>at times has been ascribed to the ODbL: that you cannot reverse-engineer the
>>produced map tiles, so they cannot be fairly described as CC-BY-SA or CC-BY
>>or indeed anything other than ODbL or 'all rights reserved'.
>
>They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the 
>rights that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work.
>
>If you use a CC licenced work to recreate another, non-CC-licenced work, 
>for example if you rearrange it to make the score and lyrics to a Lady 
>Gaga song then record that, the work that you have "reverse engineered" 
>still breaks copyright despite the fact that you have used a CC licenced 
>work to make it.

Uh... which would, in my way of thinking, mean that it is impossible to
produce a CC-licensed score and lyrics of a Lady Gaga song.  You can make an
'all rights reserved' version, by agreement with the record company, but you
cannot release a CC or public domain version.  Similarly, you cannot release
a CC or public domain set of map tiles from an ODbL map.  Perhaps this is just
a difference in terminology.

>>>Systematically extracting data out of Produced Works to recreate the whole
>>>database, or a substantial part of it, would trigger the Share Alike
>>>obligation.
>>
>>Myself, I don't see how this can be enforceable;

>It's enforcable for much the same reason that if you send ten of your 
>friends a few seconds of a Lady Gaga song and they put them back 
>together to make the original track, whether they realise it or not the 
>copyright on it hasn't magically vanished.

Right.  But if the music publisher had given permission (perhaps by some
tortuously worded licence document) to release those short clips under CC-BY
then you would be within your rights to put them together into a longer work.

You would not imagine the record company saying on the one hand 'yes, you can
make short clips of our music and release them as CC-BY' but on the other hand
'no, if you try to exercise the rights granted by the CC-BY licence you are
infringing our copyright and must stop'.  Either position is possible, but not
both together.

>And do look at Jordan's "Secret Sauce" explanation again.

He explained that 'I see the data layer as being potentially different from the
rest of what is being licensed CC-BY-SA in a "produced work"'.

However this doesn't really square with your assertion that it's a question of
copyright (rather than some effect of contract law or 'agreeing' to the ODbL).
The CC-BY-SA licence explicitly grants a copyright licence, so if there is any
copyright interest in the printed map produced, it is licensed by those terms.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Richard Fairhurst  writes:
>>Yes. ODbL is very clear that there's an attribution requirement (4.3).
>
> Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that
> at times has been ascribed to the ODbL: that you cannot reverse-engineer the
> produced map tiles, so they cannot be fairly described as CC-BY-SA or CC-BY
> or indeed anything other than ODbL or 'all rights reserved'.

That's not exactly the argument.

You can reverse-engineer the produced map tiles.  But one
interpretation of the ODbL (which I find to be persuasive) is that any
significant extract of data which you obtained from such
reverse-engineering would be ODbL, to the extent that a) it's
copyrightable; b) it's protected by database rights; or c) you agreed
to the ODbL.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Rob Myers]

On 11/18/2010 02:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote:


Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that
at times has been ascribed to the ODbL: that you cannot reverse-engineer the
produced map tiles, so they cannot be fairly described as CC-BY-SA or CC-BY
or indeed anything other than ODbL or 'all rights reserved'.


They can fairly be described as CC because you can exercise all the 
rights that the CC licence grants you over the CC-licenced work.


If you use a CC licenced work to recreate another, non-CC-licenced work, 
for example if you rearrange it to make the score and lyrics to a Lady 
Gaga song then record that, the work that you have "reverse engineered" 
still breaks copyright despite the fact that you have used a CC licenced 
work to make it.


Which if your theory is correct means that *no* CC-BY-SA or CC-BY work 
can fairly be described as anything other than ARR. ;-)



Systematically extracting data out of Produced Works to recreate the whole
database, or a substantial part of it, would trigger the Share Alike
obligation.


Myself, I don't see how this can be enforceable; the ODbL licence text can say


It's enforcable for much the same reason that if you send ten of your 
friends a few seconds of a Lady Gaga song and they put them back 
together to make the original track, whether they realise it or not the 
copyright on it hasn't magically vanished.



whatever it likes but if someone has received some tiles under CC-BY then they
have not agreed to the ODbL at all (whether or not they are 'notified' of it).
But I am not a lawyer and Jordan H. is.


Their agreement to the ODbL is irrelevant (except for the contract part).


As a personal view, I don't like this no-reverse-engineering provision at all.
It means making proprietary map tiles is possible, but CC-licensed ones is not.


It does not, for the reasons I have given.

And do look at Jordan's "Secret Sauce" explanation again.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11/18/10 14:47, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

(I believe that the "reasonably calculated" in 4.3 imposes a downstream
requirement as part of this: in other words, you must require that
attribution is preserved for adaptations of the Produced Work, otherwise you
have not "reasonably calculated" that the attribution will be shown to "any
Person that views, accesses [etc.]... the Produced Work". At least one
person disagrees with me here. :) )


And he's watching.

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Richard Fairhurst  writes:

>>Do you mean to say that the earlier statement is true - that it's not 
>>possible to produce truly public domain, unrestricted map tiles or 
>>printed maps from the ODbL data? 
>
>Yes. ODbL is very clear that there's an attribution requirement (4.3).

Yes, that's right, but I also wanted to ask about the other requirement that
at times has been ascribed to the ODbL: that you cannot reverse-engineer the
produced map tiles, so they cannot be fairly described as CC-BY-SA or CC-BY
or indeed anything other than ODbL or 'all rights reserved'.

Jordan Hatcher appears to support this interpretation in
:

>"For the avoidance of doubt, Extraction or Re-utilisation of the whole or a
>Substantial part of the Contents into a new database is a Derivative Database
>and must comply with Section 4.4."
>
>Systematically extracting data out of Produced Works to recreate the whole
>database, or a substantial part of it, would trigger the Share Alike
>obligation.

Myself, I don't see how this can be enforceable; the ODbL licence text can say
whatever it likes but if someone has received some tiles under CC-BY then they
have not agreed to the ODbL at all (whether or not they are 'notified' of it).
But I am not a lawyer and Jordan H. is.

As a personal view, I don't like this no-reverse-engineering provision at all.
It means making proprietary map tiles is possible, but CC-licensed ones is not.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Rob Myers  writes:

It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved
map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public
domain one you can't.  (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an
attribution requirement is more reasonable.)

>If someone tries to launder or teleport ODbL data using produced works, 
>they should and will fail.

Do you mean to say that the earlier statement is true - that it's not possible
to produce truly public domain, unrestricted map tiles or printed maps from
the ODbL data?

Or do you just mean that trying to trace from such maps would be a futile
exercise, although not actually prohibited by law?

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Rob Myers]

On 11/18/2010 10:19 AM, Ed Avis wrote:

Rob Myers  writes:


Yes, this is one of the more unpleasant aspects of the licence, at least under
some interpretations.  It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved
map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public
domain one you can't.  (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an
attribution requirement is more reasonable.)


You can produce CC-licensed work from ODbL/DbCL data.


That's what you say, and I hope it is true.  But others claim different things;


It is true.

If you have any reason to believe that it isn't, do ask on odc-discuss, 
where you will receive a more authoritative answer than I can give:


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

I'd personally regard it as a disaster if copyleft works couldn't be 
produced from ODbL data.



some say that even once the work such as a printed map has been produced and
distributed under CC-BY-SA or even CC0 terms, it is still tainted somehow, such
that some legal force field prevents you from freely tracing it or otherwise
turning it into machine-readable form.


That is a kind of mass hysterical folk misunderstanding of the 
requirement to make derived databases available.


If someone tries to launder or teleport ODbL data using produced works, 
they should and will fail. Derived Databases and Produced Works are 
different enough conceptually that this shouldn't be a problem in 
practice. I've discussed some of this on odc-discuss so I really do 
recommend looking at the archives there.



If this definitely isn't the case then it would be good to see a definitive
statement to that effect, preferably attached to the licence itself.


I think that's excessive. The licence isn't meant to be its own 
educational materials or to contain its own FUD.


I do think the ODbL FAQ needs extending though.


I know it sucks to have to refute every canard that somebody somewhere comes up
with about the bogeyman ODbL, but this is in my view one of the big problems 
with
the licence: it's so vague and complicated that if you ask three people about
what it permits you get four answers.


I've seen conversations with similar levels of fear, uncertainty and 
doubt about the GPL, the FDL and various CC licences over the years.


I don't believe the ODbL is worse than BY-SA or the GPL in terms of 
readability and of clarity of intent. The formatting is certainly better 
than BY-SA 2.0 unported. ;-)


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Francis Davey  writes:

>>More interesting is your remark about 'no
>>contractual relationship' - which makes one ask, why have the attempted
>>contract-law stuff in the ODbL at all?  Could it not be stripped out?

>Well, you'd have to ask ODbL designers about that. My understanding is
>that its the best that can be done to make the level of protection of
>database style rights more uniform. Some jurisdictions have a right in
>databases, others don't (or protect them much less). So the idea is to
>require licensees under ODbL to agree contractually to respect a right
>which, in some jurisdictions, would apply by default anyway.

Right, that is the intention, but if 'further down the chain' there is no
contractual relationship anyway, then is it effective?  To me it seems more
like wishful thinking to suppose a contractual agreement can be conjured up
to add new restrictions not supported by rights that exist in a jurisdiction.

It may be 'the best that can be done' as you say, but if even the best is pretty
wobbly, it might as well be left out.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Francis Davey]

On 18 November 2010 10:54, Ed Avis  wrote:
>
> From my point of view, I think that is a feature, not a bug.  The extent of
> copyright, database right and other laws is best decided by individual 
> countries
> and it is IMHO misguided to try to override the compromise between public and
> private interests made by a particular society.
>

I'm not suggesting its a bug - least of all in the licence. But its a
reason why its hard to get a straight answer.

> However that's just opinion.  More interesting is your remark about 'no
> contractual relationship' - which makes one ask, why have the attempted
> contract-law stuff in the ODbL at all?  Could it not be stripped out?
> An ODbL-lite with the contract law stuff removed is a licence I could live 
> with.
>

Well, you'd have to ask ODbL designers about that. My understanding is
that its the best that can be done to make the level of protection of
database style rights more uniform. Some jurisdictions have a right in
databases, others don't (or protect them much less). So the idea is to
require licensees under ODbL to agree contractually to respect a right
which, in some jurisdictions, would apply by default anyway.

Again, don't ask me _why_ or if this is a good idea or anything like that.

-- 
Francis Davey

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Francis Davey  writes:

>>this is in my view one of the big problems with
>>the licence: it's so vague and complicated that if you ask three people about
>>what it permits you get four answers.
>
>One problem is that where there is no contractual relationship (as
>there wouldn't be further down the chain of derivation/copying) the
>extent to which ODbL is enforceable depends on what (if any) IP rights
>a particular jurisdiction recognises in the licensed work and how that
>jurisdiction treats them.

>From my point of view, I think that is a feature, not a bug.  The extent of
copyright, database right and other laws is best decided by individual countries
and it is IMHO misguided to try to override the compromise between public and
private interests made by a particular society.

However that's just opinion.  More interesting is your remark about 'no
contractual relationship' - which makes one ask, why have the attempted
contract-law stuff in the ODbL at all?  Could it not be stripped out?
An ODbL-lite with the contract law stuff removed is a licence I could live with.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Francis Davey]

On 18 November 2010 10:19, Ed Avis  wrote:
>
> That's what you say, and I hope it is true.  But others claim different 
> things;
> some say that even once the work such as a printed map has been produced and
> distributed under CC-BY-SA or even CC0 terms, it is still tainted somehow, 
> such
> that some legal force field prevents you from freely tracing it or otherwise
> turning it into machine-readable form.
>
> If this definitely isn't the case then it would be good to see a definitive
> statement to that effect, preferably attached to the licence itself.
>
> I know it sucks to have to refute every canard that somebody somewhere comes 
> up
> with about the bogeyman ODbL, but this is in my view one of the big problems 
> with
> the licence: it's so vague and complicated that if you ask three people about
> what it permits you get four answers.
>

One problem is that where there is no contractual relationship (as
there wouldn't be further down the chain of derivation/copying) the
extent to which ODbL is enforceable depends on what (if any) IP rights
a particular jurisdiction recognises in the licensed work and how that
jurisdiction treats them. I can tell you (because this is one of my
fields of expertise) that treatment varies widely (you knew that
almost certainly) which means that answers will vary across space.

Some of this is also developing. It was only this year that a UK court
recognised (new style) database copyright in football fixtures lists.
That was by no means a foregone conclusion. Multiply that sort of
uncertainty across the world and you will find it difficult to get
straight answers.

-- 
Francis Davey

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Rob Myers  writes:

>>Yes, this is one of the more unpleasant aspects of the licence, at least under
>>some interpretations.  It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved
>>map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public
>>domain one you can't.  (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an
>>attribution requirement is more reasonable.)
> 
>You can produce CC-licensed work from ODbL/DbCL data.

That's what you say, and I hope it is true.  But others claim different things;
some say that even once the work such as a printed map has been produced and
distributed under CC-BY-SA or even CC0 terms, it is still tainted somehow, such
that some legal force field prevents you from freely tracing it or otherwise
turning it into machine-readable form.

If this definitely isn't the case then it would be good to see a definitive
statement to that effect, preferably attached to the licence itself.

I know it sucks to have to refute every canard that somebody somewhere comes up
with about the bogeyman ODbL, but this is in my view one of the big problems 
with
the licence: it's so vague and complicated that if you ask three people about
what it permits you get four answers.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Rob Myers]

On 11/17/2010 05:43 PM, Ed Avis wrote:


Yes, this is one of the more unpleasant aspects of the licence, at least under
some interpretations.  It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved
map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public domain
one you can't.  (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an attribution
requirement is more reasonable.)


You can produce CC-licensed work from ODbL/DbCL data.


One of the main problems with the proposed ODbL/DbCL setup is that it's pretty
murky what is allowed and what isn't allowed; and also quite unclear whether the


It is more clear that the ODbL allows what OSM wish to allow than BY-SA 
does.


I don't personally agree with the consensus on mash-ups, but it is 
clearly realised by the ODbL.



things that are disallowed are truly enforceable, or just magic text which has
no real weight.  If OSM itself produced a public domain tileset, the clarity of
the action would compensate a bit for the uncertainty of the licence; it would
be clear for all that rendered map tiles can be distributed under any terms.


That's a reasonable point. But it would upset the copyleft proponents.

Like me. ;-)


Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well?


Quite possibly.


No, it's a derived work. The definitions in the ODbL make this 
reasonably clear.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Matthias Julius]

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer  writes:

> 2010/11/17 Matthias Julius :
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:20:39 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
>>  wrote:
>>> Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well?
>>
>> A database of pixels?  I would not regard a printed map as a database.
>> And neither would I the electronic version of that.
>>
>> One could argue about a "rendered" vector map.
>
> I think that this distinction is nonsense, a vector map has a certain
> resolution just like a georeferenced bitmap has.

There is no reason for a vector map to have a lower resolution than the
OSM data itself.  But, this is not the point.  The difference to a
bitmap is that a vector image contains descrete objects which someone
could import directly into a database.  So, one could view a vector map
as a database of map objects.

Each .osm file already is a vector map.

Matthias

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/11/17 Matthias Julius :
>
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:20:39 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
>> Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well?
>
> A database of pixels?  I would not regard a printed map as a database.
> And neither would I the electronic version of that.
>
> One could argue about a "rendered" vector map.


I think that this distinction is nonsense, a vector map has a certain
resolution just like a georeferenced bitmap has. Is it possible to
trace a bitmap map (therefore recreating vectors)? Definitely yes,
even if this might no easily or at all be possible in automated manner
(maybe if you have an "intelligent" program you might be able to do it
automatically, but I don't know any proof for this).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Anthony]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:30 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:19 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Anyone care to point to the language in ODbL that would stop someone
>> > tracing
>> > from a Produced Work? I really havn't been able to find it.
>>
>> If tracing (a map) is considered copying (and that's a question of law
>> which is not exactly clear), then the question is not what in the ODbL
>> stops you from tracing, the question is what in the ODbL allows you to
>> trace.
>>
> ODbL specifically and explicitly gives you the right to create a Produced
> Work with which you can do whatever you like.

Let's assume, for these purposes, that the person doing the tracing is
not the same as the person who created the Produced Work.  Is that
fair?

What gives the person doing the tracing the right to trace?  Is the
Database copyrighted?  By tracing, are they copying a copyrightable
portion of the Database?  By tracing, are they extracting a
substantial portion of the Database?  If so, what gives them
permission to do that?

> The only restrictions are those specified in 4.3 as quoted above.

The person creating the Produced Work is specifically prohibited from
sublicensing the Database.  So any license granted by the producer of
the Produced Work is not a license on the underlying Database itself.

> If there were other restrictions you wouldn't be able to create a Produced
> Work that was publishable under PD, CC0, WTFPL, CC-BY-SA etc.

You have permission to license the produced work, not the underlying
database.  See 4.8.

Can you publish a Produced Work under CC-BY-SA?  Personally, I don't
think you meaningfully can.  The only semi-reasonable argument I've
heard that you can, came from an ODbL lawyer who basically said, yes,
you can publish a Produced Work under CC-BY-SA, because CC-BY-SA
doesn't apply to databases anyway.

I think Ed Avis is right on that one, though.  "It's allowed to make
proprietary, all-rights-reserved
map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or
public domain one you can't.  (This refers to the no-tracing
restrictions; an attribution requirement is more reasonable.)"

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[80n]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:19 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Anyone care to point to the language in ODbL that would stop someone
> tracing
> > from a Produced Work? I really havn't been able to find it.
>
> If tracing (a map) is considered copying (and that's a question of law
> which is not exactly clear), then the question is not what in the ODbL
> stops you from tracing, the question is what in the ODbL allows you to
> trace.
>
> ODbL specifically and explicitly gives you the right to create a Produced
Work with which you can do whatever you like.  The only restrictions are
those specified in 4.3 as quoted above.

If there were other restrictions you wouldn't be able to create a Produced
Work that was publishable under PD, CC0, WTFPL, CC-BY-SA etc.




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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Anthony]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:19 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone care to point to the language in ODbL that would stop someone tracing
> from a Produced Work? I really havn't been able to find it.

If tracing (a map) is considered copying (and that's a question of law
which is not exactly clear), then the question is not what in the ODbL
stops you from tracing, the question is what in the ODbL allows you to
trace.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[80n]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Ed Avis  wrote:

> M∡rtin Koppenhoefer  writes:
>
> >> I don't think a change to public domain licensing could cause any
> >> compatibility problem.
> >
> >PD but still with certain conditions respected: no re-engineering,
> >attribution, etc. like requested by the OdbL? As far as I understand
> >this, while the tiles themselves might be quite unrestricted, the
> >contained data still won't be --- also under OdbL.
>
> Yes, this is one of the more unpleasant aspects of the licence, at least
> under
> some interpretations.  It's allowed to make proprietary,
> all-rights-reserved
> map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public
> domain
> one you can't.  (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an attribution
> requirement is more reasonable.)
>

ODbL does not contain any tracing restrictions.  An early draft contained a
no-reverse-engineering clause, but this was removed.  ODbL does not impose
any restrictions whatsoever over the *use* of a produced work.

If I want to take a PD licensed copy of a produced work I can do whatever I
like with it.  Some people, including Jordan Hatcher, do believe that ODbL
does not permit such freedom, but there's no words that I can see to that
effect.

The *only* rider on a produced work is a rather weak and non-viral
attribution demand:

"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, Derivative
Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is
available under this License."

Anyone care to point to the language in ODbL that would stop someone tracing
from a Produced Work? I really havn't been able to find it.



>
> One of the main problems with the proposed ODbL/DbCL setup is that it's
> pretty
> murky what is allowed and what isn't allowed; and also quite unclear
> whether the
> things that are disallowed are truly enforceable, or just magic text which
> has
> no real weight.  If OSM itself produced a public domain tileset, the
> clarity of
> the action would compensate a bit for the uncertainty of the licence; it
> would
> be clear for all that rendered map tiles can be distributed under any
> terms.
>
> >Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well?
>
> Quite possibly.  In my view the attempt to shoehorn a map into a 'database'
> is
> not the best way to look at things; the distinction between 'database' and
> 'database contents' seems nonsensical in the case of map data, and indeed
> you
> can argue that a rendered map is just as much a 'derived database' as a
> 'produced work'.
>
> (I much prefer the simplicity of the CC-BY-SA licence where if it is
> subject to
> copyright, the licence applies, and if not, it doesn't.  The scope of
> copyright
> is something that courts and legislation address directly, whereas the
> legal
> contortions of the ODbL will never be truly clarified unless a specific
> case
> goes to court.)
>
> --
> Ed Avis 
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Matthias Julius]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:20:39 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well?

A database of pixels?  I would not regard a printed map as a database. 
And neither would I the electronic version of that.

One could argue about a "rendered" vector map.

Matthias

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer  writes:

>> I don't think a change to public domain licensing could cause any
>> compatibility problem.
>
>PD but still with certain conditions respected: no re-engineering,
>attribution, etc. like requested by the OdbL? As far as I understand
>this, while the tiles themselves might be quite unrestricted, the
>contained data still won't be --- also under OdbL.

Yes, this is one of the more unpleasant aspects of the licence, at least under
some interpretations.  It's allowed to make proprietary, all-rights-reserved
map renderings, but if you want to produce a truly CC-licensed or public domain
one you can't.  (This refers to the no-tracing restrictions; an attribution
requirement is more reasonable.)

One of the main problems with the proposed ODbL/DbCL setup is that it's pretty
murky what is allowed and what isn't allowed; and also quite unclear whether the
things that are disallowed are truly enforceable, or just magic text which has
no real weight.  If OSM itself produced a public domain tileset, the clarity of
the action would compensate a bit for the uncertainty of the licence; it would
be clear for all that rendered map tiles can be distributed under any terms.

>Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well?

Quite possibly.  In my view the attempt to shoehorn a map into a 'database' is
not the best way to look at things; the distinction between 'database' and
'database contents' seems nonsensical in the case of map data, and indeed you
can argue that a rendered map is just as much a 'derived database' as a
'produced work'.

(I much prefer the simplicity of the CC-BY-SA licence where if it is subject to
copyright, the licence applies, and if not, it doesn't.  The scope of copyright
is something that courts and legislation address directly, whereas the legal
contortions of the ODbL will never be truly clarified unless a specific case
goes to court.)

-- 
Ed Avis 



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/11/17 Ed Avis :
> I don't think a change to public domain licensing could cause any
> compatibility problem.


PD but still with certain conditions respected: no re-engineering,
attribution, etc. like requested by the OdbL? As far as I understand
this, while the tiles themselves might be quite unrestricted, the
contained data still won't be --- also under OdbL.

Btw: isn't a rendering a derived database as well?

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Richard Weait  writes:

>>As a side note, if using ODbL, why not make the tiles public domain?

>What would be your preference for the future tile license?  Ed, do you
>have a preferred future tile license?

I don't think that is the important question.  If the OSM project's licence
says that rendered map tiles (or Produced Works, if we assume that the ODbL's
terminology applies in this way) need not be distributed under any particular
terms, then anybody can download the planet file and Mapnik configuration and
make their own tiles released into the public domain.  Since anyone can do it,
it would be silly for the OSM project to choose anything more restrictive.

More important is the licensing for the source data from which the images or
printed pages are generated - what permission should it grant for such derived
works?  And the choice there is essentially 'under the same licence as the
source data' or 'unrestricted'; I don't think much in between makes sense.

Presumably it would help out MapQuest, CloudMade and others if they could
generate map tiles from OSM without having to publish those under share-alike.
And that would probably help the project.  So I'd reluctantly have to conclude
that allowing it is a good idea.  That does jar a bit with the claim sometimes
advanced that we must move to ODbL because it provides stronger share-alike
provisions.

>Would it be okay with you if I published my future tiles under a
>license that differs from that of openstreetmap.org tiles?

I don't see it would be up to me?  Of course, if I had agreed to license my
map contributions under ODbL then I would implicitly have agreed to that.

>But the main OSM site and tile server is a special case.  We should
>aim to set a good example.

Yes, and that good example would be public domain.  What would be the point
of insisting on something else, when it can be so easily circumvented by
creating a Tile Drawer instance?

(Unless, of course, as a deliberate step to keep load down on the tile server...
but the kind of people who ignore the tile usage policy would happily ignore
any licence terms as well.)

>Is it simplest to keep the tile license the same as it is now rather
>than risk compatibility problems with downstream consumers of tiles?

I don't think a change to public domain licensing could cause any
compatibility problem.

-- 
Ed Avis 




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

[OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Richard Weait]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> As a side note, if using ODbL, why not make the tiles public domain?

Indeed.  But I think that you are right that this is a side note.  Why
not start that discussion on the wiki, or in a separate thread here?
I've changed the subject to reflect this.

What would be your preference for the future tile license?  Ed, do you
have a preferred future tile license?

Would it be okay with you if I published my future tiles under a
license that differs from that of openstreetmap.org tiles?  I think it
is a net-benefit for the project and the community if future tiles can
be published anywhere along the spectrum of

Proprietary< --->Some rights reserved<--->No rights reserved

But the main OSM site and tile server is a special case.  We should
aim to set a good example.  What should the future tile license be?
Is it simplest to keep the tile license the same as it is now rather
than risk compatibility problems with downstream consumers of tiles?
Should the main site create tiles under a selection of licenses?

Do we aim for minimum change in the tile license, or do we aim for
maximum compatibility for the tiles by changing the tile license to
PDDL or CC-Zero?

I am not suggesting a change in tile usage policy.  Tiles should still
be primarily a service to assist mappers, not an unrestricted service
for tile consumers.

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