Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material
On 26/11/11 23:43, Nic Roets wrote: Rob, I'm not sure what you mean. So I'm going to give a simple example. Suppose someone has a table with museums and their capabilities. He then combines it with OSM to create a map. If the capabilities is something opaque like type1 and type2, then the resultant map can be useless to us. (Reverse engineering is not reliable). It's possible that an exact definition of type1 and type2 exist, but requiring the person to publish it may be too intrusive. For example it could involve some statistical scoring process like Page Rank (which involves processing every web page on the Internet). If the only way the database can function is with data not included in it, then the database is incomplete and not the source of the produced work. (IMO.) It's also possible that type1 can be completely subjective e.g. the person thinks that the paintings in the museum are beautiful. That's a definition right there. :-) So I really can't see how useful source data can have a water tight, yet practical definition. It can however state that obfuscation or don't wanna aren't sufficient reasons for something not being a derivative database. :-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material
!i! wrote: But to be hornest, we aren't legal experts, so it would be great to get a statement of people that are more aware of all of the legal aspects. 1. You cannot apply extra conditions to the licence (CC-BY-SA 4a, as you say). 2. Your website may have its own terms of use that restrict how you extract the data from that site (e.g. no scraping), but these may not limit what you do with the data once you've downloaded it. 3. CC-BY-SA indeed does not require that you publish the useful source data. (ODbL does.) 4. CC-BY-SA does not permit you to distribute DRMed versions: You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. (ODbL does _but_ only if you also offer a version without such measures.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Copyprotection-for-OSM-based-materil-tp7030609p7030708.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 3. CC-BY-SA indeed does not require that you publish the useful source data. (ODbL does.) I honestly doubt that ODbL will achieve this. For example, if someone decides to use some convoluted tagging system without publishing a specification, his data will mean very little to the community. I will go even further and say this is already happening by people who have already agreed to the ODbL. (Should I point out the examples that I know of ?) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material
On 25 November 2011 11:07, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: I will go even further and say this is already happening by people who have already agreed to the ODbL. (Should I point out the examples that I know of ?) From where we stand now, they are doing nothing wrong, since ODbL does not yet apply to the database. Now, you can of course claim that what those people are doing now represents a good indication of intent for when ODbL does kick in... Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material
Thanks for this statement Richard :) Have a nice weekend Matthias Am 25.11.2011 11:56, schrieb Richard Fairhurst: !i! wrote: But to be hornest, we aren't legal experts, so it would be great to get a statement of people that are more aware of all of the legal aspects. 1. You cannot apply extra conditions to the licence (CC-BY-SA 4a, as you say). 2. Your website may have its own terms of use that restrict how you extract the data from that site (e.g. no scraping), but these may not limit what you do with the data once you've downloaded it. 3. CC-BY-SA indeed does not require that you publish the useful source data. (ODbL does.) 4. CC-BY-SA does not permit you to distribute DRMed versions: You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. (ODbL does _but_ only if you also offer a version without such measures.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Copyprotection-for-OSM-based-materil-tp7030609p7030708.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material
On 25/11/11 11:07, Nic Roets wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net mailto:rich...@systemed.net wrote: 3. CC-BY-SA indeed does not require that you publish the useful source data. (ODbL does.) I honestly doubt that ODbL will achieve this. For example, if someone decides to use some convoluted tagging system without publishing a specification, his data will mean very little to the community. If it's that complex it's part of the data... :-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
