Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-A-Like (non-) Verifiability because they are not publicly accessable
Frederik Ramm writes: > I think that OSM as a whole - and this is not a legal issue - needs to > improve interoperability. What we're currently seeing is "import mania", > poeple trying to stuff every possible bit of information into OSM > because that's the easiest way for them to use it in conjunction with > OSM data. There is too much geodata in the world for this to be > sustainable - OSM must stick to things that mappers map. I agree. An EU-driven example about interoperability can be seen at http://www.paikkatietoikkuna.fi/web/en/map-window It is a pilot implemantation about what Inspire directive calls view services. Some rought OSM data from Geofabrik shapefiles are also included, on layers Transport networks - OpenStreetMap and Buildings - OpenStreetMap buildings. OSM data has a scale limit, zoom in enough and data appears but there are not many buildings outside the Helsinki district. GetFeatureInfo - the "i" tool works on these layers. Interoperability does not need to mean that everything that exists needs must be imported into OSM. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-A-Like (non-) Verifiability because they are not publicly accessable
On 24 June 2010 09:31, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Oliver (skobbler) wrote: > >> He shouldn't draw then into the database, as this mixes OSM data and his > >> own data. Why not just use a layer on top of the OSM data? > > > > One of the big advantages of OSM is that you the "drawing tools". An > option > > would be to create a blank database on top of the OSM data by using the > OSM > > tools. > > I think that OSM as a whole - and this is not a legal issue - needs to > improve interoperability. What we're currently seeing is "import mania", > poeple trying to stuff every possible bit of information into OSM > because that's the easiest way for them to use it in conjunction with > OSM data. There is too much geodata in the world for this to be > sustainable - OSM must stick to things that mappers map. > > I hope that it will become gradually easier to mix'n'match OSM with > other data at the rendering stage so that people will not feel compelled > to upload any rubbish to OSM just becasue they want to render it on a map. > > That will then also make it easier for those who wish to create produced > works from several databases, one of them being OSM, without tainting > their private data in the process. > I agree with this statement quite strongly. Once the rendering step is sorted, it should be then easy to mix the data without actually mixing private data and OSM data. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-A-Like (non-) Verifiability because they are not publicly accessable
Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > Users must just take care that they do not edit cable lines according to > what they see on the OSM map, otherwise all of the cable network data > will be considered to be derived from OSM data and thus fall under odbl. Very very broadly yes, but actually at that point (whichever licence you're using) you get into all the hoo-hah of defining "substantial". Realigning one cable along one straight OSM road is unlikely to be a substantial derivative, and therefore won't trigger share-alike. Realigning a massive network along every single road is, and will. It's all fun and games until someone gets sued. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Share-A-Like-non-Verifiability-because-they-are-not-publicly-accessable-tp5212191p5217021.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-A-Like (non-) Verifiability because they are not publicly accessable
>What we're currently seeing is "import mania", >poeple trying to stuff every possible bit of information into OSM >because that's the easiest way for them to use it in conjunction with >OSM data. There is too much geodata in the world for this to be >sustainable - OSM must stick to things that mappers map. I fully agree. However, taking this thought then the current license is counterproductive in a way - unless you solve the problem with your mentioned "interoperability". Regards, Oliver -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Share-A-Like-non-Verifiability-because-they-are-not-publicly-accessable-tp5212191p5217007.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-A-Like (non-) Verifiability because they are not publicly accessable
Richard Fairhurst writes: > Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > > Andy Allan writes: > >> If they have geographic data that we don't have, and they mix it > >> with OSM data, then the whole point is that we end up with access > >> to their geographic data. > > [...] > > You are obviously reading section 4.5 in a different way that I do. > > [...] > > For me it looks like business users can feel safe with their data if they > > do not make derivative databases, for example by enhancing their > > own data by taking tags from OSM database. Drawing their own data > > on top of OSM basemap is OK, isn't it? > > Which fits in exactly with what Andy said. > > The key word is "mix". Ok, I missed the meaning of "mix". Thus our advice for Oliver about the cable network is not to mix the private data with OSM data inside his own copy of OSM database. It will be OK to render OSM basemap tiles and use for example a separate WFS-T service [1] for showing and editing the cable network vectors. Users must just take care that they do not edit cable lines according to what they see on the OSM map, otherwise all of the cable network data will be considered to be derived from OSM data and thus fall under odbl. [1] Openlayers example combining tiles and WFS-T http://dev.openlayers.org/releases/OpenLayers-2.9.1/examples/ wfs-protocol-transactions.html -Jukka- > > cheers > Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-A-Like (non-) Verifiability because they are not publicly accessable
On 06/24/2010 10:07 AM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > > For me it looks like business users can feel safe with their data if they do > not > make derivative databases, for example by enhancing their own data by taking > tags from OSM database. If enhancing means incorporating the data into a single database, they are producing a derivative. "Business users" are not special in this. > Drawing their own data on top of OSM basemap is OK, > isn't it? This is considered to be different from combining the data in a single database. (IANAL, TINLA.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-A-Like (non-) Verifiability because they are not publicly accessable
Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > Andy Allan writes: >> If they have geographic data that we don't have, and they mix it >> with OSM data, then the whole point is that we end up with access >> to their geographic data. > [...] > You are obviously reading section 4.5 in a different way that I do. > [...] > For me it looks like business users can feel safe with their data if they > do not make derivative databases, for example by enhancing their > own data by taking tags from OSM database. Drawing their own data > on top of OSM basemap is OK, isn't it? Which fits in exactly with what Andy said. The key word is "mix". cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Share-A-Like-non-Verifiability-because-they-are-not-publicly-accessable-tp5212191p5216880.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-A-Like (non-) Verifiability because they are not publicly accessable
Andy Allan writes: > > No. That would be avoiding the whole point of the share-alike license. > If they have geographic data that we don't have, and they mix it with > OSM data, then the whole point is that we end up with access to their > geographic data. It's called share-alike! Not > "take-ours-and-keep-yours-private"! > > Really, if people (businesses, charities, individuals or whoever) have > data they wish to keep private, they can still use OSM data > internally. If they want to "Publicly Convey this Database, any > Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective > Database", then they can't avoid the licence. Hi, You are obviously reading http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ , section 4.5 in a different way that I do. " a. For the avoidance of doubt, You are not required to license Collective Databases under this License if You incorporate this Database or a Derivative Database in the collection, but this License still applies to this Database or a Derivative Database as a part of the Collective Database; " For me it looks like business users can feel safe with their data if they do not make derivative databases, for example by enhancing their own data by taking tags from OSM database. Drawing their own data on top of OSM basemap is OK, isn't it? -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-A-Like (non-) Verifiability because they are not publicly accessable
On 06/24/2010 09:34 AM, Andy Allan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Oliver (skobbler) > > Really, if people (businesses, charities, individuals or whoever) have > data they wish to keep private, they can still use OSM data > internally. If they want to "Publicly Convey this Database, any > Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective > Database", then they can't avoid the licence. Yes. This is a point worth making to people who are concerned that they won't be able to deny other people their freedom. You can do (pretty much) what you like in private. I do wish people would *read* the licence. ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-A-Like (non-) Verifiability because they are not publicly accessable
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Oliver (skobbler) wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > I am still concerned that some business users cannot make use of > OpenStreetMap data because of the Share-Alike-rule as they don't want or > cannot share proprietary data. Umm, if you want it so that some people are exempt from sharing their data, then having a share-alike license is the wrong license. Ergo, if you want a share-alike license, people have to share their data. If you want people to not share some data, you want a non-share-alike license. > I have the following interpretation in mind that could make the life of > business users easier without undermining the generic Share-Alike rule: Don't call them "business users", since that's just smearing lots of other businesses. Call them "people trying to wriggle out of the license". > Would it be possible that all objects and attributes of these objects that > are non-publicly accessible to declare as non-substantial due to the lack of > verifiability? No. That would be avoiding the whole point of the share-alike license. If they have geographic data that we don't have, and they mix it with OSM data, then the whole point is that we end up with access to their geographic data. It's called share-alike! Not "take-ours-and-keep-yours-private"! Really, if people (businesses, charities, individuals or whoever) have data they wish to keep private, they can still use OSM data internally. If they want to "Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database", then they can't avoid the licence. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-A-Like (non-) Verifiability because they are not publicly accessable
Hi, Oliver (skobbler) wrote: >> He shouldn't draw then into the database, as this mixes OSM data and his >> own data. Why not just use a layer on top of the OSM data? > > One of the big advantages of OSM is that you the "drawing tools". An option > would be to create a blank database on top of the OSM data by using the OSM > tools. I think that OSM as a whole - and this is not a legal issue - needs to improve interoperability. What we're currently seeing is "import mania", poeple trying to stuff every possible bit of information into OSM because that's the easiest way for them to use it in conjunction with OSM data. There is too much geodata in the world for this to be sustainable - OSM must stick to things that mappers map. I hope that it will become gradually easier to mix'n'match OSM with other data at the rendering stage so that people will not feel compelled to upload any rubbish to OSM just becasue they want to render it on a map. That will then also make it easier for those who wish to create produced works from several databases, one of them being OSM, without tainting their private data in the process. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-A-Like (non-) Verifiability because they are not publicly accessable
>He shouldn't draw then into the database, as this mixes OSM data and his >own data. Why not just use a layer on top of the OSM data? One of the big advantages of OSM is that you the "drawing tools". An option would be to create a blank database on top of the OSM data by using the OSM tools. Regards, Oliver -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Share-A-Like-non-Verifiability-because-they-are-not-publicly-accessable-tp5212191p5216612.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share-A-Like (non-) Verifiability because they are not publicly accessable
Oliver (skobbler) wrote: > Let's assume that a business user has a database of non-publicly accessible > objects (e.g. a subsurface cable network for demonstration purposes). If the > user installs its own instance of an OpenStreetMap server and draws the > "non-publicly accessible subsurface cable network" into the database. He shouldn't draw then into the database, as this mixes OSM data and his own data. Why not just use a layer on top of the OSM data? Yours Manuel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
