Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Frederik Ramm frede...@... 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 e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
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?
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 o...@... 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 e...@waniasset.com ___ 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 frede...@... 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 e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org 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?
On 11/19/2010 11:22 AM, Ed Avis wrote: Anthonyo...@... 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 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?
Frederik Ramm frede...@... 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 e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
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?
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?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org 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?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org 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?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org 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?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org 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?
Oops. Sorry about that. :-( - rob Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org 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?
On 18 November 2010 10:19, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com 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?
Francis Davey fjm...@... 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 e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On 11/18/2010 10:19 AM, Ed Avis wrote: Rob Myersr...@... 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?
Rob Myers r...@... 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 e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
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?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Richard Fairhurst rich...@... 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?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Rob Myers r...@... 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?
Anthony o...@... 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 e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On 11/18/2010 05:25 PM, Ed Avis wrote: Rob Myersr...@... 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?
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?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com 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?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org 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?
Rob Myers r...@... 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 e...@waniasset.com ___ 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 o...@... 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 e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
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?
Hi, On 18 November 2010 17:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org 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?
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?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Anthony o...@... 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
Richard Weait rich...@... 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 e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?
2010/11/17 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com: 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?
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:30 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org 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?
2010/11/17 Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net: On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:20:39 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 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?
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes: 2010/11/17 Matthias Julius li...@julius-net.net: On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:20:39 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 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
