Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: incompatibility issues

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/3/2 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
 80n wrote:
 I can imagine a scenario where, for example, Google uses Amazon's Mechanical
 Turk to pay lots of people to use Map Maker to trace from OSM's rendered
 tiles.

 Is this a scenario we could try to fight when it happens, instead of
 complicating things upfront, or would it be too late then?

 My opinion is that if OSM were non-changing, one could say we need to be
 cautions because once the data is leaked beyond our control then that's
 it. But since OSM is changing, and (IMHO) our database is worth little
 without the steady stream of changes, we can risk such a leak because
 we always have the power to cut off the updates and thus render the
 leaked data next to worthless after a short time.

this is valid for some portions of our data, while a lot of it will
most likely not change but still is quite precious, e.g. housenumbers.

Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/6/25 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
 Yeah, sure, and if I leave the house a brick might fall on my head and
 I'd be dead.

I'm almost sure you wanted to write tile ;-)

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/6/25 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:

 For example, if we build strong national chapters that, legally, are
 separate from OSMF, these could easily between themselves set up all the
 servers required to replace everything OSMF operates. With such a
 healthy backup network, it would not even make much sense for anybody to
 try and kill off OSMF.

 This includes not giving anything to OSMF that has commercial value
 unless that is absolutely necessary. In the long term, I hope that we'll
 be able to switch to a distributed server architecture where OSMF
 operated assets are but one piece of the puzzle, rather than the head of
 everything.


Hallo Frederik,

kennst Du couchdb?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CouchDB

Ich habe leider selbst keine Ahnung von Datenbanken, aber die bietet
wohl eine gute Möglichkeit, auf vielen verschiedenen Servern
gleichzeitíg zu laufen. Keine Ahnung wie performant das ist, wo die
Probleme liegen,etc. aber beim sie scheint ähnlich wie das OSM-Modell
strukturiert zu sein (Key/Value-Paare). Vielleicht ist das Thema ja in
Entwicklerkreisen sowieso schon längst bekannt, aber bei Deinem
aktuellen Beitrag kam mir wieder der Gedanke und ich dachte, ich
schreib Dir mal.

Gruß Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/6/25 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
 Hallo Frederik

oops, sorry, not for the list.

Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adding UK post box information

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/7/14 Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net:
 Royal Mail doesn't know the exact location of all its postboxes. If we
 find out for them, what are the chances they would sue us? It's flipping
 useful from their point of view. They could apply proper Travelling
 Salesman algorithms to them to optimise pick-up routes.

you are cutting jobs ;-)

Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Non-existant streets

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/12 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:

 One such road went into someone's car port, I don't think we have 
 barrier=car_port :)

in this case it will not be a road but a highway=service in Europe and
probably access=private (at least for the last few meters), don't know
about the australian-tagging-scheme though. I agree with Tobias: map
what's there, and if there once was a road, probably there are
remnants which tagged as such will explain to the next mapper, what is
the situation like.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Non-existant streets

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/12 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
 --- On Wed, 12/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 yes, don't mark them as normal roads if they are in a
 degraded state.

 It's worst than that in a lot of cases, they were gazetted, but never built.

there is also a tagging proposal for roads in planning and one for
construction-phase AFAIR. Maybe you find something in the Wiki.
Actually this is not legal-talk anymore. I think the answer was:
separate Layer if you run the servers on your own is OK, but please
don't map nonexisting roads from other maps (and maybe with tag
easter_egg=foomap) and put them into the main db.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Non-existant streets

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/12 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:

 We're not trying to put copyrighted information in the database, we're 
 recording an observation, no different then recording the name on a street 
 sign,

no, it's not the same. Because you're gonna write that there is
nothing. Why there? Why don't you write everywhere, where there is no
road, that you observed that there is no road?

 since we actually go out and see it,

what is it?

 the only question is how to make it as easy as possible for others to know 
 this too.

IMHO (IANAL) it will always infringe copyright reporting in a
structuralized manner about this proprietary data.

cheers,
Martin

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: [OSM-talk] copyright problem with data copied from a map

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Hi, I forward this question from michel in talk:

-- Forwarded message --
From: Renaud MICHEL r.h.michel+...@gmail.com
Date: 2009/8/16
Subject: [OSM-talk] copyright problem with data copied from a map
To: t...@openstreetmap.org


Hello

Two weeks ago, I found problem in Dison, Belgium, see here
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.6044lon=5.8522zoom=14
At that moment, the motorway had been shifted north-west by user Neo while
adding other roads.
I moved it back to correspond to GPS traces and messaged Neo about the
problem.

He did some more edits, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Neo/edits and
that's when I realised that he was actually copying an actual map. He
actually put the bounding box of his map
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38566375

He confirmed a week later that he was really copying a map he scanned and
loaded in JOSM (not rectifying it, so the shifted roads).
He was obviously not aware of the copyright problem as he asked me, in the
same message, if he could somehow copy the map from his tomtom.

I replied one week ago explaining why he must not do that and asking him to
remove all the edits he made based on that map, but had no more answer so
far.
So now I'm thinking about removing those edits myself, but am not sure
what's the best way to do so.

I don't know if the changeset can be reverted, as there are many of them,
and I also did some edits there (changeset #1997354 #2005715 #2046924 a
least) before knowing of the copyright problem.

Any advice?
I think I'm going to remove all this by hand with JOSM.
But the ways will still be present in the DB with the history. Can we do
something about this?

cheers
--
Renaud Michel

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



-- 
___

Martin Koppenhoefer (Dipl-Ing. Arch.)
c/o Sebastianelli
Via del Santuario Regina degli Apostoli, 18

00145 Roma

Italia
N41.8739, E12.5141

tel1: +39 06.916508070
tel2: +49 30 868708638
mobil: +39 389 6488991
m...@koppenhoefer.com
http://www.koppenhoefer.com


Hinweis:
Diese Nachricht wurde manuell erstellt. Wir bemühen uns um fehlerfreie
Korrespondenz, dennoch kann es in Ausnahmefällen vorkommen, dass bei
der manuellen Übertragung von Informationen in elektronische Medien
die übertragenen Informationen Fehler aufweisen. Wir bitten Sie, dies
zu entschuldigen.

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of koppenhoefer.com unless specifically
stated.
This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify
postmas...@koppenhoefer.com

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the
protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read
messages sent to and from our systems.

Thank You.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: [OSM-talk] copyright problem with data copiedfrom a map

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/17 Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com:
 You may wish to set up a Belgium equivalent for this page to act as a
 record of such reverts. As you can see we have been having some
 problems of our own.
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log

actually I just fwded. the request as noone seems to care in talk, and
I thought this might be the right page, so just not to get it
overlooked. Isn't there a special squad team to handle this kind of
thread?

 Or should we have global revert page or what?

maybe would IMHO be better, yes. Actually I don't know if there is a
simple possibility to revert a changeset for simple mappers as I (or
probably Michel) are.

regards,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/9/28 Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi:
 Mike Collinson m...@... writes:

 Article 10
 Term of protection
 1. The right provided for in Article 7 shall run from the date of completion 
 of
 the making of the database. It shall expire fifteen years from the first of
 January of the year following the date of completion.

 Will all contents of OSM year 2009 database be in public domain first of
 January, 2025?

I doubt that OSM db will ever be completed ;-)

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New license status

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/9/28 Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com:
 2009/9/28 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es

 Better? :-)

 :-)


does this mean yes? What is the situation with planned Odbl?

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What should be considered legal?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Thanks. The reason I asked that was that I frequently forget where the GPS 
 trace was taken - was it a road or a track, which village or whatever else. 
 This usually happens in areas where OSM map is pitch white :) Yahoo maps 
 aren't very helpful there either.

well, you can still upload the traces as they are always usefull (also
more than one on the same place), especially in white areas, but
without further information (road name, road class, physical state,
reference number, restrictions etc.) you should tag them as
highway=road if you decide to do it (and if it wasn't cross country).
Btw: I guess you ment yahoo aerial imagery, as we have no right at all
to trace yahoo maps or take information from it.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/11/23 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
 But I think that the specific example under discussion here actually falls
 short of even this lowered bar. It is quite possible for me to grab a whole
 Way in JOSM and move it one metre to the left (which makes me the last
 editor of, potentially, hundreds of untagged nodes). I don't think that this
 action would nullify the rights of the original contributor of the way, and
 therefore if the original contributor does not agree to the license change,
 we should remove this data.


Yes, I agree. But if there once were 4 nodes stretching over 30 km
(I'm slightly exaggerating), tagged just highway=tertiary, and now
these initial 4 nodes became 500 nodes or 5000 nodes, distributed now
in 20 different ways with lots of attributes, routes running over
them, etc., how much of the initial 4 nodes is still there?

Just bad luck for us? Or is there a limit where original rights have fainted?

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/11/29 Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org:
 A PNG doesn't fit this description as its intent is to encode a single
 complete image and the pixels are not independent. Likewise PNG and SVG.
 Place them in a systematic or methodical collection and you have a
 database of images. But this is separate from their contents.

 If I place a travel photo of mine into a PNG and then print it out, I
 have not gained a database right.


IMHO there is a difference between a travel photo and a map rendering.
This is a jpeg:
http://www.tnooz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ITA-QR-code-1.jpg

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/12/21 ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl:
 I think it's relevant that node changes as suggested
 should involve stand alone nodes only (such as POI).
 Once they are part of a structure of say a building or a road, water
 or any area, the nodes should be considered a composition  rather
 then 4 nodes


IMHO rights on this composition can also faint, e.g. years ago a
(non-ct) mapper was drawing a rough street with nodes every 300
meters. Now those initial way has five times more nodes then it had in
its initial version (most probably the initial way would also be split
into different pieces now, due to details like speed limits,
turn-restrictions, bus routes, lane-count, ...).

I think there must also be a point where nothing from the initial way
is actually contained in the current data (often these initial ways
don't have much attributes, it is common in here to find ways which
only have/had a highway-tag (the value is now often changed, so not
even one tag is the same). If you assume that other tags (like the
name) would also have been inserted by the following mappers you could
extend this to ways which had a name (or some other frequent tag, for
which a following mapper guarantees that he would have added it if it
were missing).


 While the underlying structure is a geographic fact, the choice
 of place nodes and the number to represent the structure is
 a creative work.


+1, but where is the point that this structure is significantly
changed? How many nodes do you have to move and insert/delete to be
something different?

What if someone takes a river, moves it aside and lets it become a
track (deletes the river tags and sets highway-tag, changes name). Now
he copies this way as a new way (new nodes and way) to the old
position of the river and sets tags. Is the track-way now tainted
because it consists of old nodes, while the river is OK because it was
newly created? Admittedly a rare corner case, but IMHO one that shows
that there is a point where there is no more original information in
the following versions of a way.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Maxspeed tags in Australia

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/1/13 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
 Ok, I've discussed this off-list with Nick and did a test run for 1000 (of
 roughly a quarter million) ways. Here is one example touched by the script:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4018604


Nice, this will also significantly change the relation between
maxspeed:source (mainly John Smith) and the earlier and by
presumbaly more different users attached source:maxspeed
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/maxspeed:source#values
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/source:maxspeed#values

cheers,
Martin

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

[OSM-legal-talk] whitewashing nodes without tags

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I know that some variants of this topic already have been under
discussion, but I'd like to add another version to it, where I believe
that indeed there will be no copyright left by the declining mapper.
Three mappers Ac1, Ac2 (acceptors) and Dec1 (decliner) edit an object:

1. Ac1 creates a highway or any other way (i.e. a way with nodes and
tags on the way).
2. Dec1 adds nodes to the highway/way (no tag modification)
3. Ac2 moves the nodes of the way (interesting for us only the ones from Dec1)

For all nodes that Ac2 has touched (moved or added tags to them) I
would expect that it doesn't matter if Dec1 had created them, because
anyway there is no information from him left. This might be
interpreted differently if Dec1 would have also created the way, and
surely if he added tags, but if he only added nodes, and they are no
longer on their original position because Ac2 has moved them, what
would be copyrightable from this?

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/1/29 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
 demotivated by the data loss. but filling in gaps is really much
 quicker done than starting from scratch.


+1, at least there already are tags for most things, comfortable
editors and lots of experienced mappers ;-)

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Contact And Remap Campaign

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/2/13 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch:
 PS: essentially such an import should never get pass the community
 discussion part in the first place.


FYI: In Italy there are currently some imports going on, where the
data is licensed cc-by-2.5 and there are also other imports of the
past under this license in Italy. cc-by is not a very restrictive
license but still it imposes some problems for further license
changes. I'm pretty sure an import that is compatible with the current
licence (read: OdbL / CT and cc-by-sa2.0 ) will generally pass the
community discussion, if the data is nice (up to date, good quality).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am 6. März 2012 17:52 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
 On 03/06/2012 02:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data
 (in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy
 our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not
 create a derived database. (The database that contains the results of
 the analysis might be derived and have to released.)


 Oops. Tripped over my own negative here. I wanted to say: As long as they
 just compare stuff and verify, I think it's ok and they won't be affected by
 viral ODbL-ness.


Really? So also this sentence was not intended and you mean the
opposite: (The database that contains the results of
the analysis might be derived and have to released.)? Isn't this a
kind of merge: just compare and verify (above there was also
flagging)?

cheers,
Martin

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

[OSM-legal-talk] WAS Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am 11. April 2012 00:06 schrieb Mike  Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com:
 and this on the copyright of css :
 http://b0x0rz.deviantart.com/journal/Is-CSS-Copyrightable-214148624
 First, a short answer to a question (for the impatient ones): Is CSS
 Copyrightable?
 No. Absolutely NOT. (note: This is valid only for the CSS code itself not
 any images it may reference.)


but according to the linked blog post you can protect it with a
trademark. Btw.: in the case of maps I find this strange, because the
CSS is the part that says what is displayed how, and this is mainly
the part of traditional maps, that is copyrighted (the style).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/6/11 Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk:
 In answer to the queries below, the data is free to use as is the OS
open data on their website.
...
 So in short, we believe the RoW data can be incorporated into
 OpenStreetmap as long as acknowledgement and copyright is shown from
 where it came and how can be used


 So in summary it appears that the OS gave HCC specific permission to use
 this, and I'm guessing it's OK to use in OSM, but I am not in any sense of
 the word a legal expert so, what are people's opinions on this?


I am not a legal expert either, but their statements above seem clear
to me: if OS data is compatible with CT/ODBL also the HCC data should
be compatible.

cheers,
Martin

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Wiki fotos with Unkunown license

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

What does Unknown license mean for fotos in the wiki? Isn't there a
requirement for them to be at least available under cc-by-sa?
An example is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Ballroom.jpg

cheers,
Martin

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Is there a PD part in OSM?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I wonder if data you download now or did so in the past from OSM
servers can be used as PD data. There are some users who have publicly
declared that they consider their contributions to OSM to be in the
public domain. For simplicity I'd like to restrict this question to
users who have either made this declaration in their user description
or have linked their wiki account from their user description (i.e. it
is clear, which OSM username the declaration was made for and that the
user was the owner of this account).

Is it possible to download this data from OSM servers (or
mirrors/extracts/elaborations from this) under a cc-by-sa or ODbL
license and still consider it PD due to the dual licensing, the user
has expressed he wishes his data to be under?

cheers,
Martin

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

[OSM-legal-talk] CT compatibility with attribution only licenses

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Reading the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines#Make_sure_data_license_is_OK

quote
What we certainly cannot do is require end-users of our
data/renderings to give credit to the particular data donor. With this
in mind, our attribution may not be sufficient legally speaking and
might actually be considered unsatisfactory by the original authors
of the data.

it seems to me, that also data which requires attribution only may not
be imported into OSM as long as there is not an explicit statement
from the original author/rights holder that crediting in the OSM
system (e.g. changeset comments, wiki, source-tags on objects which
might be later removed, credits in the description of a deducated
import account, etc.) is sufficient and it is OK for him  that the
attribution to his particular data donation might be removed later by
following users of the data?

Or what is the general interpretation of the meaning of CT/ODbL
regarding attribution only licenses?

I am refering for instance to the Italian Open Data License, which
explicitly states that it is compatible with cc-by-sa 3.0 and ODbL:
http://www.formez.it/iodl/
but requires to (it:indicare la fonte delle Informazioni e il nome
del Licenziante, includendo, se possibile, una copia di questa licenza
o un collegamento (link) ad essa;)  ~cite the source of the
information and the name of the licensor, including if possible a copy
of this license or a link to it (informal translation).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/10/22 Igor Brejc igor.br...@gmail.com:
 Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF?


there are 2 ways to put graphics into a PDF: those with vectors
embedded and those with a raster inside. The first is to treat like a
SVG and the second like a PNG (always asuming you didn't password
protect the PDF).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/10/24 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com:
 As has been noted in the Public Domain subset thread, the contributors
 can make license statement that they like, but the OSMF can still
 enforce the database rights.  So a statement by the contributors (e.g.
 on OSM wiki) that is not confirmed by the OSMF is not very helpful to
 the end user.


what the end user could do: approach the contributor that made the PD
declaration and ask them to give them the data they contributed under
PD conditions ;-). Not sure but I guess this might be only possible if
the user had stored a local copy of the data. If the original
contributor got his (own) data from the OSMF-servers it would
probably be under ODbL even if he himself had contributed it and given
only a non-exclusive license to OSMF. From a practical point of view I
think it would be difficult to determine whether the data was copied
from the OSMF servers of from a local copy though.

cheers,
Martin

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

[OSM-legal-talk] CTs, procedure to change of the license

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

During the license change from cc-by-sa to ODbL the issue was raised
that 3 weeks for an active contributor to respond to a voting for a
license change was not sufficient and IIRR the response was that this
would be dealt with later. What is the view on this? How can this
detail be changed, and what would be a reasonable time span for an
active contributor to respond? My suggestion would be 2 months or 60
days.

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs, procedure to change of the license

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I found the thread:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CT-time-period-for-reply-to-a-new-license-change-active-contributor-td5270119.html

basically what Michael Collinson wrote makes sense:

- In the case of a major license change, there would be a run up of at
least several months of publicity and discussion before the final formal
vote announcement.

- Our general objective in the CTs is to leave future generations as
much flexibility as possible while preserving overall project goals.

- The CTs do not stop such a formal announcement and vote opening to be
made much earlier. I certainly agree that 6-8 weeks is reasonable should
we ever go through a big change again.

- There may be ocassions when a small but vital change needs to be made
if a problem/loop-hole is found with the current license. Hence three
weeks ... two weeks for someone to be on holiday and one week for them
to get organised and vote.


cheers,
Martin

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Copyright and license page, how to do the details

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I am reading the new copyright and license page, but don't find it
very clear to understand.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

How to credit OpenStreetMap

We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”. You
must also make it clear that the data is available under the Open
Database License, and if using our map tiles, that the cartography is
licensed as CC-BY-SA. You may do this by linking to this copyright
page. Alternatively, and as a requirement if you are distributing OSM
in a data form, you can name and link directly to the license(s)...
For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner
of the map.


To whom applies the requirement to credit in the corner of the map,
just to users of the datatiles or to all users of OSM data presenting
it in some form of browsable electronic map? Where does this
requirement come from? Or am I misinterpreting this, and should is
not a requirement but a recommendation?
Crosschecking with the legal FAQ it seems that an about-box/page would
be fine as well:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3a._I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F
For a browsable electronic map (e.g. embedded in a web page or mobile
phone application), the credit should appear in the corner of the map,
as commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps, or an
about box/page..

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/10/30 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
 See also:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#What_sort_of_access_to_Derivative_Databases_is_required.3F

 The page is quite old; the green boxes represent legal advice that we have
 received at the time.


It is also acceptable to provide a copy, diff or instructions for the
latest version of the derivative database - it isn't necessary to
retain old versions of the database. You are not required to provide
regular dumps - the only requirement is that you provide them on
request.

What if you make a derivative database and render from this. Every
time you have rendered a feature, you remove the rendered feature from
the database. Your latest derivative database will be empty ;-)

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

deliberately Offlist


2012/10/30 Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz:
 No loop hole. Unless I am missing something earlier in the thread, this is
 covering very old ground.  This is the LWG understanding:  The buzz phrase
 is layered copyright.  Using an open licensed photo of a MacDonald's
 restaurant does not give one the right to use MacDonald's logo. In our
 world, the classic case is the SVG file. The publisher can publish it as a
 Produced Work if the intent is to show a pretty picture but if someone then
 comes along and tries to extract and re-constitute OSM data from it, then
 OSM copyright applies to them.


deliberately Offlist

Mike, thank you for this statement

I am glad to read this and I really hope it is like this. The
intentions should be associated to the use and not to the producer of
the work (i.e. like you wrote above and not like I read it here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline
). Someone could produce a SVG with the intent to show a pretty
picture (i.e. not intended for the extraction of data and thus clearly
a produced work), but who then comes along and uses it with different
intentions (data extraction) must not do it, because in this case the
same work turned automagically into a database. (That's why it is
important that every produced work has strings attached, (c) for the
data OSM contributors, ODbL1.0, which fortunately is part of the
current guidelines)

Part of my worries rise from the fact, that it seems there once was an
anti-reengineering clause in the ODbL which was then removed to obtain
compatibility with cc-by-sa and other share-alike licenses. Isn't this
an indication that re-engineering is allowed? I mean, why else would
it have been removed? (argueing from an offenders point of view).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright and license page, how to do the details

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Looking at the licensing page there is still the explicit requirement
to credit osm in the corner of the map and in the meantime the FAQ
has been amended with the same requirement. Some time ago this wasn't
required explicitly, that's why I ask when this was introduced and by
whom? (the old requirement was that it should be stated somewhere that
(c) is osm contributors).

I agree with Tobias that for apps on mobile devices which use a lot of
different data from different sources this is somehow impractical, as
it would clutter the screen (fortunately there is no minimum font size
requirement ;-) ).

There is also a whole lot of osm-based websites and services around,
which don't do attribution in this google-tos-style (some of them
credit osm somewhere on the map, but it isn't in the corner, others
link to a dedicated sources-page with sometimes detailed information
about osm and the licensing terms).

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] (c) statement on openstreetmap.org slippy map?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/1/17 Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org

 from http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright:

 For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner of
 the map. For example:


below there is this paragraph:
Finding out more
Read more about using our data, and how to credit us, at the Legal
FAQhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ
.

On that page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3a._I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F

where to put it : For a *browsable electronic map* (e.g. embedded in a
web page or mobile phone application), the credit should appear in the
corner of the map, as commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google
Maps, or an about box/page.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [GIS-Kosova] OSM road network for Kosova

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am 07/mar/2013 um 16:21 schrieb Bekim Kajtazi bekim.kajt...@gmail.com:

 Whatever case it is...the data is gone!!!


Generally it is your responsibility to keep your contact information up to date.

I sent 2 times around 100-200 emails to the major contributors to OSM on the 
Italian grounds which had not decided on the CTs by the time and many of them 
didn't reach the mapper because he didn't care or forgot to update his email.

Btw.: You have had to be a really hardcore (main page sidebars, wiki, mailing 
list, twitter, blog, forum) ignorer if despite being active in OSM you missed 
the license change.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Permissibility of incorporating parts of an address from a business' website

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/4/25 Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es

 The answer to this might be different if your jurisdiction doesn't apply
 the
 european database directive.



But which is the relevant jurisdiction, the one the mapper is in, or the
one the database is in (i.e. where you perform the actual action)?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Permissibility of incorporating parts of an address from a business' website

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/4/25 Pieren pier...@gmail.com

 I'm not sure it has to do with non-substantial amounts of data. But
 business websites publishing their own address or list of addresses is
 reallly intended to be shared and republished everywhere.



I'd also see it like this, it is quite unlikely that they will sue your for
helping their marketing department spread the word. On the other hand from
a strictly legal point of view I have hardly seen a business website that
didn't claim full copyright on all contents.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/6/7 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com

 2. The ODbL is too vague in the definition of its terms, requiring
 additional clarifications by licensor. This is most importantly the case
 around the terms derivative database and what constitutes a substantial
 extraction of data [3].



At least for the substantial part of your question I believe if a
professional geo service provider like map box would decide to use OSM to
satisfy its geocoding needs, it is obvious that this use would be
substantial, or you could use it only very few and for very short time ;-)

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

On 13/giu/2013, at 15:58, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote:

 All other geocoding results in a Produced Work,


IMHO it results in a Derivative Database, as long as the amount of data 
geocoded is not too small.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Place name translations

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

On 16/giu/2013, at 03:47, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:

 While I agree with Richard, it might be interesting to know that
 Wikidata (a Wikimedia.de project) is licensed CC-0, and they copy data
 wholesale from Wikipedia.


that's indeed interesting, how can they throw the original viral licenses of 
Wikipedia overboard?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Place name translations

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

On 16/giu/2013, at 12:14, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:

 that's indeed interesting, how can they throw the original viral licenses of 
 Wikipedia overboard?
 
 Based on what I've seen, what they are copying from Wikipedia are data and 
 facts. In the US, facts are not copyrightable as facts do not originate from 
 creative authorship and there are no database rights in the US either.


but the wikipedia terms of use require you to attribute, for instance. If the 
terms wouldn't apply in this case, couldn't we start to copy facts from other 
maps just as well?

cheers,
Martin___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Attribution and licensing problems at diverse main map providers

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I wonder if we have a strategy how to deal with companies who use our data
but don't attribute in the right way or don't adhere to the license terms.

In the past we had Apple (still unsolved, at least since April 2012) and
Microsoft (using military areas from OSM to blur their imagery), now there
is the biggest German map editor (MairDumont) who is not mentioning the
license of the used data, nor linking to OSM or spelling out the name
(OpenStreetMap).
See here:
http://www.kompass.de/online-karte.html

By rough analysis it seems as if they are using April 2012 data (cc-by-sa)
outside German speaking countries, while they use a different (proprietary)
source in Germany, Austria and maybe other countries.

Their Attribution is unclear in several ways:

1. They don't mention the license (cc-by-sa or odbl), if you click on the
license link you get to a page on their website that encourages you to
enquire about the costs for a print license, but no mention of any openness.

2. The terms of use-link goes to google (from whom they use the API). -
IMHO misleading

As far as I have found until now on their map and website there is no link
or mention of OSM other than the attribution (c) 2013 Falk, OSM 
Contributors, (c) 2013 KOMPASS Karten GmbH (DTK600  10).

---
OK, I missed the i-link, there is additional attribution, even more
confusing:
Diese Anwendung baut auf dem Interaktiven Karten-Framework ecMAPS *) auf.
Details dazu unter http://hubermedia.de

Kontaktieren Sie uns, falls Sie Fragen oder Anregungen haben:
supp...@hubermedia.de

*Technologie-Partner ...*

© 2013 ecMAPS® ONLINE - hubermedia.de/ecmaps-online
© 2013 ecMAPS® MOBIL - hubermedia.de/ecmaps-mobil
© 2013 eT4® META - hubermedia.de/et4-meta
© 2013 eT4® Redaktionssystem - hubermedia.de/et4
© 2013 Google
© 2013 CloudMade - Map data CCBYSA 2009

___

IMHO this is misleading, as you can't tell whether the data comes from
Google or Cloudmade or any other of the mentioned companies (and if it was
cloudmade, still 2009 would not be the correct date, and Cloudmade isn't
OSM- still missing attribution).

I followed the link to hubermedia and clicked on ecmaps-online, also there
is no link to OSM nor the name spelled out.

What are the concatenation (?) requirements for attribution? Is it OK to
generally quote a lot of different map data providers without specifying
which part of the map is from whom, and if yes, how could one exercise his
right to share if you don't know to which part it applies?

And: are we generally willing to try to enforce the license? What are the
measures foreseen if someone refuses to do so?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/8/25 Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de

 The license text says:
 “ The party receiving the data cannot share the imagery or LIDP with a
 third party without express permission from the USG. At no time should this
 imagery or LIDP be used for other than USG-related purposes and must not be
 used for commercial gain. The copyright information should be maintained at
 all times. Your acceptance of these license terms is implied by your use.”

 Later it's suggested:
 In other words, you may only use NextView imagery linked from this site
 for digitizing OpenStreetMap data for humanitarian purposes.



doesn't look as if data from this source can be in the same database as OSM
data and be published (not compatible with ODbL) .

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/8/29 Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com

 Their is clear and full understanding by USG that data digitized into OSM
is made available under the ODbL, which allows commercial use. 
 This is stated on their website at 
 https://hiu.state.gov/ittc/ittc.aspx(Description tab).


Data cc-by-sa by OpenStreetMap ;-)

Maybe you could drop them a hint, as they seem to be pulling tiles from
osmf servers that should be (c) osm contributors

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question on publication of slides with Google and Bing screenshots

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/9/10 Martin Feuersaenger m...@feuersaenger.de

 So my question is: Is my conclusion right, can I publish under less
 restrictive terms, or do I need to remove the shots in order to publish at
 all?




You should ask Google and Bing about this, it is not related to OSM ;-)

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about mixing OSM with licensed data -- eg: mapquest

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/11/2 Abhishek cheerful...@gmail.com

 I'm confused about what the rules are for downstream commercial users
 of OSM data to merge OSM data with other sources. Apple seems have
 done this with their Maps product.



You can't really see Apple as a reference, because of two reasons:

1. they use old data (different license, cc-by-sa2.0 instead of the now
current ODbL)

2. they do it wrong (IMHO, IANAL, TINLA) as they don't say which parts are
from OSM, from when exactly they are, so you cc-by-sa cannot come to
execution and they don't say the data is cc-by-sa and they omit the © icon
they use for other data providers (it is IMHO unclear from their credits
page if there is copyright on OSM data and what is the license).

I think License Working Groups is still working on this to get the
attribution right in this case, even if the last few LWG minutes don't seem
to trace this issue any more.

/rant/
Apparently, if you are big enough and not interested in playing nice, there
don't seem to be limits for commercial users to do whatever with osm data -
you have to fear nothing (apparently), at least as long as you use cc-by-sa
data. (Of course every single contributor might bring you to court, but
that is a different story and not very likely neither if you are big
enough).
/rant off/

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Am 10/gen/2014 um 13:01 schrieb Simon Poole si...@poole.ch:
 
 And I'm very tired of people trying to weasel around the absolute minimal 
 requirements we pose on reuse of OSM data.


like APPL?
 ;-)

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014/1/12 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch

 Apple does not, as far as we know, use OSM data ODbL licensed by the
 foundation.



yes, they are supposedly ignoring former requirements (still valid for
older data).

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Corine Land Cover?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014/1/13 pmsg pmsg2...@yahoo.com

 Thank you for your opinions,
 pmsg



legal issues aside my concern is that Corine Data is not suitable
technically for OSM: the resolution is too low and not compatible with the
rest of our data.

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Am 14/gen/2014 um 10:54 schrieb Simon Poole si...@poole.ch:
 
 a IMHO good
 example of what we want http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/contact/spaces/


no mention of ODbL and the attribution three screens after the map (on mobile, 
maybe this looks different on a desktop)?

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Corine Land Cover?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014/1/14 pmsg pmsg2...@yahoo.com

 can we use Corine Land Cover data? I think not, but I would
 be grateful to be tought something different.


I think it depends on the country, AFAIK this is not one big dataset but
several datasets, with different licensing according to the contributing
country.

Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of old media / images / maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Anybody can explain how it can be legal to claim copyright on old material,
say 18th or 19th century works?

When browsing the web (mostly library pages and catalogues) those
institutions often claim full copyright and prohibit reproduction,
distribution etc. of the (digitalized/scanned/photographed) works, but I
wonder on what basis they do so, given that the authors of those works are
all dead for centuries now.

Would it be legitimate to derive features (e.g. names or old names) for osm
from such sources if the distributing entity claims copyright on the
material?

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of old media / images / maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-04-05 6:01 GMT+02:00 Andreas Labres l...@lab.at:

 Below the line the question is: was the act of reproducing that thing an
 act of
 creation (Akt der Schöpfung im Sinne des Urheberrechts; also mit der
 nötigen
 Schöpfungshöhe). This is usually granted for a photography. The copyright
 status
 (*Urheberrechts*status) of the reproduction is separate from the copyright
 status of the original (in the case of an act of creation).



in Germany you would have to have made creative decisions in order to have
protection, a simple reproduction which aims to reproduce with most
fidelity the original does not qualify for Urheberrecht (~ copyright).
Look here for reference (German):
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildrechte#Urheberrechtlich_nicht_gesch.C3.BCtzte_Bilder

Of course it is still true, if the creator sues you, you will have to
defend your point of view in court and see how they decide.

Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using Google Street View to perform virtual survey

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Am 07/apr/2014 um 02:24 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com:
 
 You can always file for a declaratory judgment: 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment


interesting, wouldn't it be a good idea to try this for deriving facts from 
google sat or street view? On the other hand this would maybe not work out for 
OSMF with their seat in London? In European jurisdiction with its database 
doctrine those will probably be protected also when deriving uncopyrightable 
facts

cheers,
Martin___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using Google Street View to perform virtual survey

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Am 07/apr/2014 um 19:57 schrieb Simon Poole si...@poole.ch:
 
 forgetting the ethical side of it (do we really want to use data collected by 
 somebody that doesn't want us to do so?),


from an ethical point of view you could also see it like this: as the 
information (geographic facts) in the data does not belong to them (but to 
everybody), why should they be able to put restrictions on the use? (undue 
appropriation)


 we would need such a judgement in -every- jurisdiction where we would want 
 people to freely use our data. That is so obviously balmy that i don't think 
 it needs further discussion.

+1
(sweat of the brow)

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using Google Street View to perform virtual survey

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-04-08 10:39 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch:

 @Martin It is undoubtedly so that the information in question is -not-
 simply available for use. You need to invest the time and effort to
 actually go out and collect it. Google has done so and that we should
 respect, regardless of legalities*.



I am aware of this, but you have put ethics into play. If someone
developped a system to analyze and store the DNA information of another
person (or of an animal, plant), should they be able to become the
proprietor of this information and forbid others to use it or ask license
fees? Collecting information about the world, nature, the universe ,etc.
(regardless how great the effort is) does not automatically make you the
exclusive owner of this information. Now in some jurisdictions it is
actually possible to put patents and the like on stuff that is basically
derived from nature, but it doesn't seem very ethical, at least not to me.

To make it clear, I am not advocating to use Google StreetView to derive
information for OSM, I agree that we cannot allow to do so, because we want
to have a dataset that is globally usable in every jurisdiction for any
use, I was simply replying to the ethical argument that you have raised.

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Upload of copyrighted map images from OSM to Facebook

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Following the German Blog there was a post today referencing this forum
thread: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=411611#p411611
where the contributors come to the conclusion that uploading OSM map images
to Facebook is against the osm maps license (cc-by-sa).

It looks as if they are right (because Facebook has in their terms (
https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms ):

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos
and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission,
subject to your privacy https://www.facebook.com/privacy/ and application
settings https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=applications: you grant
us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide
license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with
Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content
or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they
have not deleted it.).

I am not sure if this is the only relevant paragraph because like almost
any other multinational player their legal department has set up a real
jungle of different guidelines and terms.

Interestingly even the OSMF is infracting the license ;-)
https://www.facebook.com/OpenStreetMapFoundation/photos/a.447164861995676.103897.447161935329302/447164878662341/?type=1

What is your point of view on this?

Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upload of copyrighted map images from OSM to Facebook

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-04-15 18:59 GMT+02:00 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com:

 What do you suggest, Martin?



contact Facebook and if they are not willing to make an exception to their
terms we'll have to delete our accounts there (seems to be the only way to
remove images according to their terms). In case of the latter I'd make a
public announcement on the blog explaining the reasons why OSM cannot be on
Facebook and hope for some publicity ;-)

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upload of copyrighted map images from OSM to Facebook

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-04-15 19:22 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:

 2014-04-15 18:59 GMT+02:00 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com:

 What do you suggest, Martin?



 contact Facebook and if they are not willing to make an exception to their
 terms we'll have to delete our accounts there (seems to be the only way to
 remove images according to their terms). In case of the latter I'd make a
 public announcement on the blog explaining the reasons why OSM cannot be on
 Facebook and hope for some publicity ;-)



Like often there are also other options:
1) ignore the issue because the publicity we get from Facebook is more
important than insisting on licenses (point not proven yet).
2) decide that this is covered by fair use (but then everyone else who uses
a single map image from osm might also say this is fair use, similar to
what OSM does on Facebook, and this would effectively make the license a
farce).
3) ask the rights holders of the map style if they are willing to dual
license (cc-by-sa and facebook) or change the license to something that
doesn't require attribution or share alike (e.g. cc0).

an maybe more. From these options I'd only see 3) as meaningful.

Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upload of copyrighted map images from OSM to Facebook

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-04-15 19:59 GMT+02:00 Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us:

 OSMF only has two photos posted. We can easily remove the map and the
 logo.



I think we can keep the logo as it is protected as a registered brand, but
even if you remove the map image from our page they will continue to have
the rights on it they reserve in their terms (maybe we could file a
copyright complaint and then they will have to remove it).

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upload of copyrighted map images from OSM to Facebook

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

A user on the Italian Mailing List posted this link concerning Facebook's
integration of Wikipedia content into the so-called facebook community
pages:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721

In this case they achieved to retain the cc-by-sa attribution and all
backlinks to Wikipedia. Maybe we can convince them to do the same for OSM
cartography?

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attributing OpenStreetMap at Mapbox

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-04-30 20:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com:

 I feel that the attribution that you currently use provides
 insufficient recognition for OpenStreetMap.



there was also a discussion one year ago on a similar topic (attribution by
an icon instead by a text) to which I'd like to point:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-April/066802.html

AFAIR that time this idea was not approved.

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative Commons license question

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Am 04/mag/2014 um 08:44 schrieb Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz:
 
 An organisation is making a short film/video which will be released CC-BY.  
 They want to show (fleetingly) OSM map tiles ... which are CC-BY-SA- 2.0.  
 Can they do that?


Is this different to publishing a book (full copyright) with osm cartography  
(cc-by-sa) in it? I would expect that they can do it, the maps would remain 
cc-by-sa but the film could be cc-by or any other license (agree with Eugene, 
fair use unless the film is mainly maps). 

Btw, this was already happening in the past, a German TV series had some osm 
maps in it pretending it was the police cartography system and AFAIR crediting 
osm in the titles.

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-05-05 14:05 GMT+02:00 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:

  *And share-alike only applies to what we collect.*

 Let me first say that this is a brilliantly clear way to put it. I like
 this a lot.



I believe this is somehow more limiting than what we actually might want.
E.g. we don't collect traffic data, but if there was a company which used
our data as basemap and associated average speeds for time spans to our
graph (e.g. automatically from the analysis of their users / smartphones) I
think we would be interested to get this data to improve our routing.

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-05-05 17:42 GMT+02:00 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org:

 Usage may be different, but the data is the same: ways with an
 hypothetical 'speed' attribute added to them in the persistent database of
 your choice. Whether you use that joined data to perform Dijkstra stunts or
 just render it graphically does not change its nature. In either case, no
 Openstreetmap data is altered in any way - only extended thus meeting the
 definition of a Collective Database.




The requisite for a collective Database is that the parts are independent,
which they aren't I think when you add information to our graph. Maybe one
has to look into the details of an actual case in order to see whether the
dbs are independant or not. IMHO an extension of OSM data is already an
alteration.

If your point of view was correct, users would hardly ever have to comply
to share alike provisions.

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Imports] N50 imports from Kartverket (The Norwegian Mapping Authority)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Am 21/giu/2014 um 23:03 schrieb Paul Norman penor...@mac.com:
 
 As a reminder, CC BY 3.0 and earlier are incompatible for reasons related to 
 the attribution requirements.


can you expand on this? I remember there are already heaps of data with these 
licenses (cc-by 3.0 and older) in OSM.

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Am 11/lug/2014 um 16:41 schrieb Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk:
 
 so wording As Geocodes are a Produced Work, they do not trigger the
 share-alike clauses of the ODbL.  is totally against section 4.6.


+1
the data contained in produced works remains ruled by ODbL / share alike, this 
is stated in 4.3:

4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does 
not require the notice in Section 4.2. 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. 


I agree it's hard to believe that geocoding would be considered creating a 
produced work and not a derivative database (maybe we have a different idea 
what one is doing when geocoding). 

the definition for produced work is
“Produced Work” – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or 
sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents 
(via a search or other query) from this Database - See more at: 
http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/#sthash.l1YXFGoW.dpuf


some use of geocoding might lead to producing a work like an image, 
audiovisual material, text, or sounds but the data  behind it remains ODbL and 
if you reuse those locations obtained by geocoding you'd have to do it under 
ODbL IMHO.

Generally what I think about when reading geocoding: you'd take a list of 
addresses and use the database to localize (translate) them in geo coordinates. 
This seems to fit perfectly to the derivative db description:

“Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and includes 
any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration 
of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents. This includes, but is 
not limited to, Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of 
the Contents in a new Database. - See more at: 
http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/#sthash.l1YXFGoW.dpuf


cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-14 20:26 GMT+02:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:

 Just like how CC-BY-SA created a grey area around the SA implications for
 the rendered map which wasn't good for OSM, ODbL does the same with
 permanent geocoding. To make OSM viable for geocoding we can't have its
 ODbL infecting the datasets it's used on.

 There are tons of geodatasets out there waiting to be geocoded and we
 should have clarity around the legal implications of doing that. More use
 of OSM for geocoding means more incentives to keep and maintain geocoding
 data (addresses, POIs, admin polygons) in OSM.



I think for what you want you should push for a license change, and not for
guidelines...
I also fail to understand how a database of coordinates could qualify as
produced work.

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-15 18:01 GMT+02:00 Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk:

 btw, cp planet.osm.bz2 planet.png creates a produced work...



LOL

I'd doubt this, because an image is likely not to be read like in disk
image, and not every file with an png extension will be considered an
image...
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am 24/lug/2014 um 23:03 schrieb Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:

 In this example, the database powering the geocoder is a derived database. 
 The geocoding results are produced works, which are then collected into what 
 forms a derivative database as part of a collective database.
 
 Not following how I can make a Derivative Database from a Produced Work. Once 
 it's a Produced Work it's a Produced Work, right?


I also see it like this, it would be a database of works (like a database of 
renderings) and not under ODbL, therefore I think the premise that a geocoding 
result is a produced work might already be flawed, because it seems natural 
that a database of results is a derivative database.

cheers,
Martin___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Am 28/lug/2014 um 09:07 schrieb Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:
 
 Our lawyers' advice is captured in the guideline as shared and posted in this 
 revision:


your lawyers did really say according to their understanding a pair of 
coordinates is similar to an image or a video, hence a work? 

The whole interpretation in this example turns around this sentence but it 
isn't quite self explaining: 
The guideline

Geocodes are a Produced Work by the definition of the ODbL (section 1.)


cheers,
Martin___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Il giorno 30/lug/2014, alle ore 16:44, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com ha scritto:

 your lawyers did really say according to their understanding a pair of 
 coordinates is similar to an image or a video, hence a work? 
 
 Yeah, there's no definition of 'work' in the ODbL, just a non-exclusive list 
 of examples in the definition of Produced Work.


yes, but there is also a definition of derivative database, into which 
geocoding results seem to fit perfectly.

cheers,
Martin___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-29 12:32 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk:

 What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin


doesn't seem to be a nobody in this field though:
Kevin is the Executive Director of the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy
and a lawyer focusing on the unique legal and policy issues associated with
spatial data and spatial technology. These issues include intellectual
property rights, licensing, liability, privacy and national security. He
writes and speaks extensively on spatial law and technology. He is a member
of the Board of Directors of the Open Geospatial Consortium and is active
in other geospatial associations...

so regardless that by asking 2 lawyers about geodata and licenses you'd
typically get 3 different interpretations (so I am told), this bloke at
first glance looks like an expert for this topic...

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-29 13:47 GMT+01:00 Sachin Dole sd...@genvega.com:

 ...  if there  was lot more clarity. I imagine, ..., that contributors and
 other stakeholders might also benefit from commercial users if the license
 is clear that only data gathered from OSM be shared alike leaving
 derivative or collective out of share alike if possible.



actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature that
was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share alike
licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact with the
share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself.

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-29 20:56 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:

 Updated:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License%2FGeocoding_-_Guidelinediff=1102233oldid=1076215





wouldn't it make more sense to come to a conclusion here before updating
the wiki?

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-02 23:11 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:

 We have no significant third party ODbL data releases due to OSM share
 alike to show for



Actually the Italian Government has designed their open data license (IODL)
to be compatible with OdbL:
http://www.dati.gov.it/content/italian-open-data-license-domande-e-risposte

(I've heard they did this explicitly because of OSM). If it makes sense for
a PA to use a share-alike license instead of PD is a different kettle of
fish...

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-03 0:17 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:

 2014-10-29 20:56 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:

 Updated:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License%2FGeocoding_-_Guidelinediff=1102233oldid=1076215


 wouldn't it make more sense to come to a conclusion here before updating
 the wiki?


 Hey Martin - the change you link to was to replace the term 'geocode' with
 the more common 'geocoding result' - do you have a specific concern with it?



my bad, sorry for the confusion, my comment was referring to the following
edit, which was 4 minutes later:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guidelinediff=nextoldid=1102233

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-03 15:05 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:

 On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 where in one of the first paragraphs there is this unproven claim:

 

 Geocoding Results are a Produced Work by the definition of the ODbL
 (section 1.):

 “Produced Work” – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text,
 or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the
 Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative
 Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database.


 A geocoding result is created via a search or a query. It's a Produced
 Work. A work can specifically be a database, see
 http://www.out-law.com/page-5698, Databases are treated as a class of
 literary works and may therefore receive copyright protection for the
 selection and/or arrangement of the contents under the terms of the
 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. (UK law)

 This is clearly a possible reading of the ODbL and it would enable
 geocoding.



Do you really think that a list of addresses can be seen as similar to a
literary work? Will there be any protectworthy selection and/or
arrangement of the contents? This probably has to be found out based on
the individual case and decided by a judge - there will be databases that
qualify as works, but maybe this doesn't exclude them from being a database
the same time in the context of ODbL?

Let's presume we all followed this reading, then when would something
actually fall under the definition of derivative database? Why would we
still be writing to legal talk instead of using the whole OSM db as a
produced work - produced e.g. by performing some operations like wget
planet.osm -O osm-produced.work

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Use of OSM Data in Apple Maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

As many of you may already be aware of, Apple is supposedly using ODbL data
from OSM after their recent update, in their iOS App Maps, together with
other data (some of which proprietary, some public domain) and appearently
also together with older data from OSM (pre-license change).

They still deny to name any license or to credit the copyright for the data
from 2011/2012 (there are 2 credit items for osm), but they do recognize
the copyright for the current data like this: © 2014 OpenStreetMap
contributors, www.openstreetmap.org/copyright.

They also still do not credit OSM at the same level of prominence than they
do with TomTom (Data by TomTom and others).

I wonder if this use is compatible with the ODbL, and how we can check
this, given that they do not declare where they are using the data, if it
is used in parallel or together with the other data sources,
and obviously they do not release any details or software from their stack.

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Use of OSM Data in Apple Maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-24 19:26 GMT+01:00 Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de:

 Am 24.11.2014 17:21, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:

 As many of you may already be aware of, Apple is supposedly using ODbL
 data from OSM after their recent update, in their iOS App Maps, together
 with other data (some of which proprietary, some public domain) and
 appearently also together with older data from OSM (pre-license change).

 Just as a hint:
 * there have been already some discussion wenn Apple started to use OSM
 data for the first time...



yes, for reference, this was discussed in the license working group, then
on the board and then back in the license working group. OSMF has indeed
been talking to Apple about this, and the outcome as far as I remember was
that OSMF was not concerned, because Apple were using cc-by-sa data of
individual contributors by the time, i.e. a license intended for works but
applied to data (by that time the license change was almost done, and it
was clear, that the cc-license was unclear for data), and OSMF wasn't the
rights holder (pre-CT, all rights were by the contributors). Also Apple had
modified the attribution string by stating the vague date of the data
(2011/2012), so parts of our concerns regarding the attribution were solved.

The situation is now pretty different, in that they are using ODbL data,
and they are recognizing the copyright for this data (see screenshot).

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Travel Channel + OSM

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-02-25 9:51 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch:

 If they want we won't sue you reassurance the proper place to ask is
 legal-questi...@osmfoundation.org



out of curiosity, how many people have been sued in the past 11 years of
OpenStreetMap?
;-)

cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

thank you Michal, I see it now. I have finally discovered that I cannot
contribute much to this list and apologize for having caused disruption
from time to time, I'm unsubscribing, see you on the other lists ;-)

Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-13 21:08 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm :

> rankly, if there was a halfway usable repository of open
> addresses that could be merged with OSM for those who want it, and if
> open addresses become available for regions where OSM already has
> addresses, I'd not be opposed to dropping the addresses from OSM in
> those regions.
>


Really? I've always thought our user's ground truth would be trumping data
we'd import, i.e. we'd request from importers not to drop features that are
already there, but to conflate in the opposite way, drop from the external
data set the stuff that we already have, before importing the rest. Did I
read you right? Can you explain why you changed your mind?

FWIW, if this usable open address dataset became available in Italy I'd
still insist on keeping the already present data and merge just the rest of
the public open data.

Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 24.09.2015 um 11:23 schrieb Frederik Ramm :
> 
> 
> I would hesitate to apply this rule for making a selection that can not
> be repeated ("select reverse geocoding results for this non-public list
> of coordinates and store them in my non-public derived database").


I had understood that a database containing the list of coordinates would have 
to be made public (on request), just not what they were standing for/how they 
were gathered.



> 
> Whether something is useful to us or not is not a factor in determining
> where ODbL share-alike applies. This is not great - I'd love a license
> that forces people to share stuff we're interested in and ignores
> everything else. But it is hard to put that in lawyerese ;)


it would also open a can of worms to get to a definition of what is stuff we 
are interested in.


cheers 
Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-09-21 12:43 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole :

> I have to say that I'm not completely happy with the document as is,
> however nobody has come up with anything better. It will definitely need
> some more examples in a final version.
>


I don't believe that the restaurant star rating is a good example, as we
don't rate restaurants ourselves, and copying the rating from other
professional restaurant testers might even be an infraction of their
intellectual property.


Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal
point of view, how it should be interpreted?
I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise of introducing
more and more examples and guidelines how to interpret the legal text,
because every additional word is augmenting the risk of introducing
loopholes and weakening our position in a potential prosecution of
infringers. Also, according to the mandate the OSMF is given from the
original IP holders by means of the CTs, any modification of the current
license has to be approved by a majority of active contributors.

Is the OSMF consulting with their legal advisors before publishing these
amendments/interpretations?

Finally, the OSMF in the past didn't seem to care about prosecution of
actual infringers. Is there any example where some action was taken? Is
someone from the OSMF checking this list from time for instance:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution ?

FWIW, apple maps continues big scale infringement, e.g. their map app in
the most recent OS (OX-X 10.10.5) has the attribution very hidden, it is
neither on the screen nor when you print a map (but you can get to it by
clicking in the menu on "Maps"->"About Maps" and then on "Data from TomTom
and others ->"  (on my system nothing happens after the click, but that's
likely just a bug)). Also Apple's "Friends" app on iOS has no attribution
whatsoever.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to review
and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview about the
compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility

Feel free to modify and improve this first draft. I have not yet linked it
from any other wiki pages but plan to do so from the imports section of the
wiki after some community review.

Cheers,
Martin

For reference, this is the OSMF-talk thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2016-January/003665.html
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-01-18 16:21 GMT+01:00 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com>:

> Some comments / suggestions:
>
>
thank you for your comments.



> * In the notes column, it might be better to say "rights holder(s)"
> rather than "licensor" since the former is presumably the only
> person/body who is able to give such permission.
>


done



>
> * For the CC-By notes, I think those giving the permission also need
> to be aware that they are (or would need to be) also authorising
> downstream use of their data, without necessarily getting any direct
> attribution from those downstream uses. I'd suggest adding "including
> to cover downstream use in works derived from OSM" to the end of the
> note.
>


I have integrated this now, had first tried to put it in the middle but
then decided to add it to the end as you suggested (but without the "to
cover"), feel free to improve it yourself


* It's not clear from the page whether or not the lack of green in the
> "contributor terms" column precludes the use of ODbL data or not.
> Presumably not, but more consideration should be taken before using
> such data, and with documenting them and attributing it in OSM. If
> this is correct, then something to this effect should be added in an
> explanatory paragraph.
>


yes, I agree this could be made more verbose. I agree with your
interpretation that it doesn't seem to prevent people from importing this
data now, but it clearly puts more obligations on us that will make future
license changes harder to perform. Feel free to add some explanatory lines
yourself


>
> * It would be good to add the UK's Open Government Licence (OGL) and
> Non-Commercial Government Licence (NCGL) to the list. The first should
> be the same as the ODbL (as it explicitly states the ODbLs terms are
> sufficient to fulfil the obligations under the licence) while the
> second is incompatible due to the NC terms.
>


can you (or someone else) add these? I am not familiar with them and could
only replicate what you have written above.

Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-01-19 10:38 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole :

> As has been pointed out here before CC-BY 4.0 is essentially a completely
> new license (compared to previous CC-BY versions) and potentially is not
> "fixable", definitely it is not just a question of getting permission to
> attribute on the website. Further it could be argued that in reality such
> permission creates a completely new licence, in any case I think "fixable"
> might be the wrong term, since every licence is "fixable" by replacing it
> with something else or explicit permission.
>


yes, I agree that "fixable" might not be the right term, and that adding
something to a license makes it a new license. I had thought about this
"fixable" and "not fixable" wording but decided to put it as a kind of
generalized placeholder and wait what the discussion would come up with.
You are right that any license is fixable if replaces by a different one,
but if someone has decided to require only attribution it is much more
likely they'd be willing to agree on a specific kind of (indirect)
attribution rather than someone refusing commercial use would agree on
permitting it.
If the cc-by 4.0 is not compatible even by agreeing on a particular kind of
attribution, please go ahead and fix the page. I had naively (and
admittedly without looking at the details) asumed that an attribution only
license would be OK if attribution requirements are fulfilled.



>  The other problem with ODbL and CC-BY licences is that they do not allow
> sub-licensing, not to mention that the ODbL is silent on the form of rights
> (ownership) in derivative databases (in conventional copyright the creator
> of a derivative could/would have separate rights to the specific
> derivative, it is not clear how this is supposed to work in the potential
> absence of copyright protection in the case of database elements that
> themselves have no protection).
>
> And another point: the whole thing needs a gigantic disclaimer at the top
> pointing out that the determinations are only for unmodified versions of
> the licences and that (that they are unmodified) needs to be determined by
> looking at the actual licence text, see the OS version of the OGL and the
> current upset with the Australian GNAF data (licensed on terms of a
> modified CC-BY 4.0) for examples of such issues.
>


its a wiki page, please go ahead and fix it. If there are uncertainties and
doubt, make some annotations.

Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 13.03.2016 um 13:11 schrieb Tobias Wendorff 
> :
> 
> This would mean: If I show parking facilities for bikes as an GPX or
> GeoJSON overlay as a layer an top of the OpenStreetMap base tiles,
> which might already included existing facilities, I'd need to publish
> my overlay under ODbL?


yes, you won't have to release your data if you remove similar data from OSM 
before rendering though.

cheers,
Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 13.03.2016 um 13:47 schrieb Tobias Wendorff 
> :
> 
> "If the published result of your project is intended for the extraction
> of the original data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work."


shouldn't this go further and include cases where the published result wasn't 
intended for the extraction of the original (or derived) data, but it was used 
to do it?


cheers,
Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 13.03.2016 um 11:39 schrieb Tobias Wendorff 
> :
> 
> There needs to be a revision of the ODbL to cleary state, what's a
> printed map. From the legal site, it's not a "produced work" by the
> old meaning anymore.


I believe it has always been clear that the information stored in a map was a 
kind of database by arrangement and selection, e.g. you can't take a OSM based 
printed map that was released under cc0 and derive the contained information as 
cc0 (it remains ODbL), and you couldn't before this ECK decision 

cheers 
Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 13.03.2016 um 13:01 schrieb Tobias Wendorff 
> :
> 
> I'm seeing a problem in the formulation: it might be not correct to call
> a map a "produced work" anymore.


what other things besides maps can be produced from our db? Not many (yes, you. 
could make "lists", but they're DBs as well). In the end, something like a 
carpet or a tshirt or a bag are just objects to apply a map on. FWIW, our 
guidelines even define electronically stored databases as produced works in 
some circumstances (e.g. garmin maps).

cheers,
Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] attributive data enrichment using OSM

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 22 lug 2016, alle ore 14:46, Stefan Jäger  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> My question now is: if we enrich our data (with only underlying attributes, 
> no geometry from OSM at all) with such a process using OSM data, is this then 
> a produced work (or a collective database) or would I have to license my 
> enriched data product under the odbl,


I think it's the latter (derivative database). You are mixing up databases and 
they are not independent, so the viral aspect of ODbL comes into play 

cheers,
Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] School Units Data Resources in Greece

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 21 lug 2016, alle ore 11:43, Νίκος Σταματόπουλος 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> a)   Is it legal to use public data although it is not strictly stated as 
> CC,  GPU or other License?
> 


if there is no license the default is full copyright and database protection 
(as it's in the EU), unless Greece has an open-by-default law (e.g. Italy has 
this since recently)


> b)  Moreover, since the above is accepted, address info is still free to 
> tag even for private schools?
> 


if you can get the addresses in a license compatible way (e.g. PD source, own 
survey), you should be able to add them without problems.


cheers,
Martin ___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Australian Government Data from data.gov.au

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-06-30 12:47 GMT+02:00 Tobias Wendorff :

> > Do you always have to attribute once something got imported, even if
> there
> > a no (visual) traces of this import any more? E.g. you could say that all
> > following contributions built on what was there at a time.
>
> Sorry, but that's a very hard discussion and English isn't my native
> language.



I was only insisting because you had written "A script can handle this and
output the source of the data imported into this area. Nobody would
need to analyse the data on its own."

it isn't easy to do this properly, you would have to analyse the data and
make judgements. A script could do it, but it would have to be a very
complex analysis and you would have to put a lot of judgement into the
rules of this script. Two different scripts would likely make different
judgements.

Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Australian Government Data from data.gov.au

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 30 giu 2016, alle ore 13:15, Christoph Hormann 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> The whole idea to me seems completely impractical.


+1
what we might do: add an auto generated list of all osm user pseudonyms with at 
least one edit at the bottom of the osm.org/contributors page, and update from 
time to time.

cheers,
Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Australian Government Data from data.gov.au

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-06-29 23:58 GMT+02:00 Tobias Wendorff <tobias.wendo...@tu-dortmund.de>:

> Am Mi, 29.06.2016, 23:46 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> > Is there still need to attribute the original creator?
>
> In my opinion that's what CC-BY is all about. You're allowed to change
> it, but you still need to tell the name of the licensee.



Examples:
E1
v1 import 1 node, amenity=place_of_worship, name=Foo
v2 move the node slightly

in this case, I think is clear that you would have to attribute


E2
v1 import 1 node, amenity=place_of_worship, name=Foo
v2 move the node significantly (e.g. 30 km)

in this case I think you rather wouldn't continue to attribute the original
dataset


E3
v1 import 1 node, amenity=place_of_worship, name=Foo
v2 copy tags, delete the node, draw a way, paste the tags

do you have to attribute?
What if the name was corrected to "Foobaz" in step 2?
Is the situation different if you don't delete the node but make it part of
the new way?


E4
v1 import 1 node, amenity=place_of_worship, name=Foo
v2 remove tags and add amenity=fuel, name=Foo23, move the node 100 m

do you still have to attribute?


Do you always have to attribute once something got imported, even if there
a no (visual) traces of this import any more? E.g. you could say that all
following contributions built on what was there at a time.

Cheers,
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Australian Government Data from data.gov.au

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 29 giu 2016, alle ore 23:26, Tobias Wendorff 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Oh come on, that's no valid argument. A script can handle this and
> output the source of the data imported into this area. Nobody would
> need to analyse the data on its own.


it is far from trivial, because people modify data in OSM. You would have to 
decide for every object and all its history. Maybe version 1 of a way was 
imported but then a different user deleted a node from it. Is there still need 
to attribute the original creator? What if after some time none of the original 
nodes is still in the way (or in the original place), would you have to 
attribute to him anyway? etc. etc., this was just an example with geometry, 
tags also can play a role.


cheers,
Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk