Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Computer-generated derivative
Peter Miller writes: > On 9 Mar 2009, at 12:19, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > By accident I was just tuning my MapServer and thinking about > > analogous situations. How about if my WMS server holds both OSM > > data and some other datasets with different licenses? WMS user can > > request layers separately (send me A and then B) and client software > > combines them. But user may also ask server to render them together > > on server side (send me layers A+B merged together). > > Then user can print the result to pdf and the final product looks > > just the same. > > Or user can even ask MapServer to send the two layers together AND > > in pdf format, and the resulting pdf looks again rather the same. > > There are three ways to reach the same goal, but just one of them is > > allowed, or? > > > > Should I run separate WMS services for each type of licenses? That > > would guarantee that the client software should sent separate > > requests for the layers and thus server side combining would be > > prevented. > > > > And how about OpenLayers applications like this: > > http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=5&lat=64.45292&lon=30&layers=B000TFFF > > I believe that the application can exist, but how about if somebody > > makes a printout? > > Is there is Use Case that you could put on the wiki for this one? > > I am not following the thread but if you want it to be checked out by > a lawyer then I suggest you get it on the wiki in the same format as > the others. In the end we need a license that works for the key use > cases. If the ODbL one won't do that then we will need to think again. > What is clear is that the current version of the ODbL isn't there yet. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases > > Regards, > > Peter I don't know if this is such a use case at all. Perhaps it is just another example about how garbled situations will occur because it is technically so easy to get and combine spatial datasets which are under different licenses. But what can be done? If licenses do not suit together then they don't. I am preparing one dataset to fit the implementing rules of INSPIRE directive, and I have started to think that even if the rules are quite heavy and bureaucratic at least it is good that all the INSPIRE datasets will be under same legistlation. That will make it a rather straight forward process to combine data from different sources. At least it will be simple for ourselves, the bureaucrats. Let's hope that there will be some day at least two user contributed datasets that have combatible licenses and people can start using them together in creative, productive, or unexpected ways. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Computer-generated derivative
On 9 Mar 2009, at 12:19, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > Richard Fairhurst writes: > >> >> Hello all, >> >> This isn't (shock horror) specifically a licence-change post. >> >> If Fred has a program running on his computer that downloads OSM >> data, then combines it with some proprietary, non-CC-BY-SA stuff, >> that's perfectly ok as long as Fred doesn't then distribute the >> result. In fact, Fred isn't actually _allowed_ to distribute the >> result. >> >> And therefore, I presume the same is true if the program is a Flash >> app (running client-side, of course, albeit with a browser frame >> around it) which outputs the result as a PDF - which Fred can then >> save to his local hard drive and/or print. Right? >> >> cheers >> Richard > > Hi, > > By accident I was just tuning my MapServer and thinking about > analogous > situations. How about if my WMS server holds both OSM data and some > other > datasets with different licenses? WMS user can request layers > separately (send > me A and then B) and client software combines them. But user may > also ask server > to render them together on server side (send me layers A+B merged > together). > Then user can print the result to pdf and the final product looks > just the same. > Or user can even ask MapServer to send the two layers together AND > in pdf > format, and the resulting pdf looks again rather the same. There > are three ways > to reach the same goal, but just one of them is allowed, or? > > Should I run separate WMS services for each type of licenses? That > would > guarantee that the client software should sent separate requests for > the layers > and thus server side combining would be prevented. > > And how about OpenLayers applications like this: > http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=5&lat=64.45292&lon=30&layers=B000TFFF > I believe that the application can exist, but how about if somebody > makes a > printout? Is there is Use Case that you could put on the wiki for this one? I am not following the thread but if you want it to be checked out by a lawyer then I suggest you get it on the wiki in the same format as the others. In the end we need a license that works for the key use cases. If the ODbL one won't do that then we will need to think again. What is clear is that the current version of the ODbL isn't there yet. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases Regards, Peter > > > > > ___ > 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] Computer-generated derivative
Interesting comments - thanks both. Rob Myers wrote: > There are two ways of looking at this: > 1) Fred is making the work locally on his machine and that > this therefore won't break BY-SA. > > 2) Fred is being required to give up his ability to distribute > the BY-SA work and its derivatives in order to receive the > BY-SA work through the Flash applet. This therefore breaks > BY-SA 4.a > > "[...] You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that > alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' > exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not > sublicense the Work. [...] 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. [...]" > > I honestly don't know which is right so it might be worth > asking this on the cc-licences list. I don't think 4a does apply. You're not restricting access to the original OSM data - a Safari user, for example, could simply open up Activity Monitor, see that the Flash app has called in something from openstreetmap.org, and option-double-click to extract it. To be extra sure, the Flash app could even present a little link saying "Click here for OpenStreetMap source data". But asking on the CC lists is a good idea and I've now done so. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Computer-generated-derivative-tp2249p22412173.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - 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] Computer-generated derivative
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > If Fred has a program running on his computer that downloads OSM > data, then combines it with some proprietary, non-CC-BY-SA stuff, > that's perfectly ok as long as Fred doesn't then distribute the > result. In fact, Fred isn't actually _allowed_ to distribute the result. Yes. > And therefore, I presume the same is true if the program is a Flash > app (running client-side, of course, albeit with a browser frame > around it) which outputs the result as a PDF - which Fred can then > save to his local hard drive and/or print. Right? There are two ways of looking at this: 1) Fred is making the work locally on his machine and that this therefore won't break BY-SA. 2) Fred is being required to give up his ability to distribute the BY-SA work and its derivatives in order to receive the BY-SA work through the Flash applet. This therefore breaks BY-SA 4.a "[...] You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder. You may not sublicense the Work. [...] 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. [...]" I honestly don't know which is right so it might be worth asking this on the cc-licences list. Now, if you give Fred a script to run or an overlay that he can copy and paste and just so happen to use on a BY-SA work he downloads separately then you remove the requirement that Fred agree to any implicit limitations before downloading the BY-SA work. This is now the same as the "we just give the user the binary and they are the ones that link it" circumvention technique that was tackled by GPL 3. ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Computer-generated derivative
Hi, > And therefore, I presume the same is true if the program is a Flash > app (running client-side, of course, albeit with a browser frame > around it) which outputs the result as a PDF - which Fred can then > save to his local hard drive and/or print. Right? Since you're asking me personally ;-) yes. You're lucky that the program runs client-side because if it ran server-side then even sending the PDF to the user would constitute distribution. I posted some time ago about CC-BY-SA encouraging people to "shift the burden" of creating derivative works further down the line. So instead of creating a PDF, the server creates two data streams and shifts them to the client, which then creates a PDF. If it was important for the client that the PDF could be passed on to third parties, then the client could generate two PDFs together with a little executable that would combine them on the fly for viewing; this again could then be distributed and would shift the burden to the recipient and so on. If one were sarcastic, one could say that this kind of share-alike license tends to produce "bombshell derivatives" which make it easy for the unsuspecting user to do wrong. (E.g. a slippy map with an OSM layer and a something-whatever-noncommercial layer on top - perfectly viewable for you but don't you dare make a screenshot and publish it!) Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
