Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How do I join the meeting tonight?

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Edward, please use this BBB link: https://osmvideo.cloud68.co/user/gui-ztm-dqh

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:23 AM Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk
 wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Dec 10, 2020, 18:32 by bainton@gmail.com:
>
> though can't see how to set up Push to Talk
>
> big blue cog => audio input tab (selected by default) -> Transmission panel
>
> Change dropdown from "voice activity" to "Push to talk"
>
> Seems that it should work
>
> The wiki has a HOT server listed, but LWG isn't part of HOT? (See below sig)
>
> It is a bit confusing, but yes - HOT server, OSMF group,
> License Working Group (LWG) channel
>
> Disclaimer: I am not experienced and it is possibly that something may be 
> wrong
> in my text.
>
> If you join we can test whatever it works.
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How do I join the meeting tonight?

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi Edward,
OSMF and its working groups have traditionally used the HOT server.
Mumble is not a Web application.
However, we are looking at moving to BBB. A BBB link for this meeting
has not been circulated yet, so please use Mumble for the time being.
Best,
Kathleen

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 9:36 AM Edward Bainton  wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I was hoping to audit the meeting tonight, with a view to possibly 
> volunteering. I now have Mumble installed (though can't see how to set up 
> Push to Talk)
>
> How do I find the group call and join it? Is there some kind of web address 
> or something to be input somewhere?
>
> The wiki has a HOT server listed, but LWG isn't part of HOT? (See below sig)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edward
>
> When the program starts you will be asked to connect to a server click the 
> Add New button and enter in the information for the HOT server:
>
> Label: This is just a name for the server for yourself, enter: HOT
> Address: The actual address of the server, enter: talk.hotosm.org
> Port: The port that the server uses, leave this at the default value of: 64738
> Username: A username to identify yourself on the server, please pick one to 
> use.
>
> This Mumble server is intended for use by the OpenStreetMap community only.
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Given that the attribution is exactly as requested on the website, I would
imagine any issues with below 993 layout pixels is an oversight or a bug. A
friendly email would suffice, but it certainly does not merit a letter from
OSMF. You are free to send the email yourself.

OSM does not contain residential quality of land. Even assuming there
exists a Derivative Database with nontrivial transforms, that would only
cover the shapes of the polygons. Actually quality scores would be not be
subject to sharealike, per the Collective Database Guideline.


On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 3:16 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> sent from a phone
>
> > On 27. Oct 2020, at 22:15, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > Again, not conducting a comprehensive survey here, but if 95% of the
> polygons match OSM polygons, then even if there is technically a derivative
> database, then I think this simply isn't worth our time to investigate.
>
>
> in any case they are using a significant amount of OpenStreetMap data
> and must attribute. They are actively hiding map attribution for all
> screens with less than 993 layout pixels width (i.e. all phones and
> most tablets):
>
> https://www.wohnlagenkarte.de/css/e888f00.css
>
> @media (max-width: 992px) {
> .leaflet-control-attribution {
> display: none;
> }
> }
>
> This alone merits a letter from OSMF. I have been lucky finding a
> mention of osm hidden in the fourth paragraph of "über
> Wohnlagenkarte", but it does not link to osm and which has no mention
> of copyright or the ODbL.
>
> The transforms they are applying to OSM data do not seem trivial to
> me. Can someone explain to me why we are not interested in the data
> about the residential quality of the land?
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Tom,
I think the description is rather unclear as to what the polygons are made
of. Lars-Daniel's original description made it down like they were OSM
polygons combined with each other, or otherwise simplified of details. A
quick glance at the website seemed to confirm this.
OTOH, his second email says "the edges of many polygons go across areas,
where no OSM elements could have been used as a reference." That does make
me wonder whether the polygons were actually created from OSM data, with
3rd party data added or not. Looking at the website again, I see a few
examples where a polygon does not match the road network, but do appear to
match other polygons OSM (assuming that some OSM polygons have been
combined or simplified).
(Another possibility is that the polygons do not originate from OSM data,
but were snapped to the OSM road network for visualization purposes only. I
don't think there's enough information to know.)
Again, not conducting a comprehensive survey here, but if 95% of the
polygons match OSM polygons, then even if there is technically a derivative
database, then I think this simply isn't worth our time to investigate.
Best,
Kathleen


On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 2:02 AM Tom Hummel via legal-talk <
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi Lars-Daniel, Kathleen,
>
> > The process doesn't seem to be trivial, since the edges of many polygons
> go across areas, where no OSM elements could have been used as a reference.
> So OSM dataset has either been changed or augmented using 3rd party
> reference (knowledge, imagery, data etc.) to create the product. Those
> changes are share-alike by ODbL.
>
> The Trivial-Transf.-Guideline asks a trivial transformation to be
> judged from a non-technical point of view. The quality of the
> transformation itself should be non-trivial.
>
> You explained, how the edges of some polygons go along edges that may
> be very difficult to obtain, as they can’t be found within OSM. While
> Kathleen seems to assume that they are directly and easily derived from
> OSM data. Is that right?
>
> OTOH that doesn’t seem important under the TTG. The TTG asks us to
> estimate the modification or addition itself. You seem to be certain,
> the modifications are only possible by combination of 3rd party data
> and OSM data. From that perspective, they don’t seem very trivial to me.
> Kathleen?
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi Lars-Daniel,
Even assuming the polygons are from a Derivative Database, I don't see a
reason for the data to be released under
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline
Why would the polygons, which appear to be simply algorithmically combined
OSM data, be of interest?
Best,
Kathleen

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 8:34 AM Lars-Daniel Weber via legal-talk <
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> https://www.wohnlagenkarte.de/ displays location quality of residential
> areas. Those residential areas haven been produced using OSM data; the
> polygon area results from at least three surrounding paths and streets.
>
> Since the polygons are derived from OSM data and released in public, I've
> asked the owner to release the database OR the method to create the
> database according to ODbL v1.0, section 4.6 - of course without the values
> of location quality. He denied. He doesn't see a reason to release the
> data, which the Produced Work is based on.
>
> In my opinion, they've created a Derivative Database using their polygons
> and they're publishing a Produced Work (the tiles) in public. So section
> 4.6 applies here - doesn't it?
>
> Sincerely,
> Lars-Daniel
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Questions about a produced work with OSM data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

> 1.   As far as I can tell from the copyright statement and use cases
> this is a produced work and SIL International, Map Maker, Ltd. And
> worldgeodatasets.com will retain their copyright for their parts of the
> produced work(overall map design, language polygons, admin boundaries and
> places), and OSM will retain their copyright for their parts of the
> produced work(roads, rivers, lakes and forests). This is because the rest
> of the other data wasn’t derived from any of the OSM data. Also the OSM
> data doesn’t interact with the other data as it doesn’t follow the same
> lines as the other data. That is especially clear where admin boundary
> lines and coincident language boundary lines do not exactly match OSM river
> lines. I also chose to generalize the admin boundary lines and language
> boundary lines a bit for artistic purposes based on the scale at a province
> level. Does this seem correct in this case? I’ve included a draft province
> map for reference to make it clear how I’m using the different layers. The
> main thing I’m wanting to make sure of is that SIL and
> worldgeodatasets.com will retain their copyrights for the language
> polygons and places in the country and not be required to be freely
> distributed under any of the OSM copyright terms or policies.
>
> This sounds fine and consistent with the
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Collective_Database_Guideline_Guideline

>  2.Is the following attribution correct specifically for the OSM
> data that I will use? Note that the publication will be in Portuguese. So
> I’ve translated everything that I felt pertinent into Portuguese. Is that
> appropriate, or are there parts of it or all of the OSM attribution that
> should or need to be in English?  I’ve been planning on putting this
> attribution on each of the 17 province maps and a country overview map. Is
> that necessary to put the attribution on each map, or do I only need to
> include it in the front matter of the atlas, as the plan is to have all the
> maps together in the publication? Perhaps there is a more descriptive OSM
> attribution that could be included in the front matter, and a more simple
> or streamlined attribution on the individual maps? At first I had down ©
> OpenStreetMap contribuidores CC-BY-SA  (2020), however my colleague
> suggested CC-BY-SA would be better to be replaced by the newer license
> ODbL. And I’m not actually sure I need to include CC-BY-SA or ODbL as I’m
> not using tiles, just selections of OSM shapefiles. Overall  I just want to
> make sure I’m correctly attributing the OSM layers. Also, a colleague
> specifically asked if the copyright symbol needs to be included in the
> attribution for OSM data or if it could be taken out as he says data can’t
> be copyrighted.
>
>
>
> © 2020 SIL International®, Todos os direitos reservados;
>
> *Limites administrativos:* Limites e Lugares Mundiais pela ESRI (2019) e
> Map Maker, Ltd. (2007);
>
> Limites municipais, Angola, 2007 Map Maker, Ltd. Disponível em:
> http://purl.stanford.edu/td535nm8341;
>
> *Estradas, rios, lagos e florestas*: © OpenStreetMap contribuidores ODbL
> (2020);
>
> *Llugares:* Inclui geodados do worldgeodatasets.com (2020).
>

Translation is appropriate. Given the nature of your publication, I would
suggest a more descriptive OSM attribution (with the URL to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright printed out) in the front matter,
and simplified info on (or under, such as a caption) the maps themselves.
You do not need CC-BY-SA, that is outdated (even the tiles are no longer
CC-BY-SA as of July, though not all of the translations of the copyright
page have been updated, please feel free to help). The extent of copyright
protection for data varies country to country, so we still recommend it.
I don't speak Portuguese, but your attribution block looks correct and
appropriate to me (based on Google translate), but I would add the URL to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright so people can find out detailed
license information easily.

>
>
> 3.   I’m planning on having the OSM shapefiles available upon
> request. Since the publication will be in printed form as an atlas, I’m
> thinking of including my personal e-mail or perhaps and/or the e-mail of
> the Angolan government representative or department in the front matter of
> the atlas as the way to contact me and/or them and request the OSM
> shapefiles. Is that OK? If I have the time to update open street map itself
> with my edits, or at least the edits I feel add value and are more detailed
> or more accurate and then refer people to updated OSM shapefiles for the
> country would that suffice for providing the data without having to also
> send the shapefiles I’m using for the map as they are? I’m not sure
> replacing all of my edits would be the best idea as in some places I edited
> for simplicity and included long stretches of road based on satellite
> imagery which were continuous 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Import licensing waiver

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Given that this is a US county agency, I take it they view the data as
public domain. That's a pretty common view for government entities in the
US.



On Fri, Oct 9, 2020, 1:14 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> But license is still needed, right?
>
> Or is it OK to interpret "Agency has no objections"
> as "sounds like CC0" (I would not do this but maybe...)?
>
>
> Oct 9, 2020, 20:40 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org:
>
> Yes, it's fine. That is simply a disclaimer, not a limitation on use.
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 11:14 AM  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have been in contact with the Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning
> Agency (SOCPA), an Onondaga County NY agency, about the licensing of a
> building footprint layer they have. My intention was to import this
> layer after further review by the OSM community and myself. After
> contacting the agency head about a possible waiver for OSM use ( along
> the lines of
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Getting_permission#Letter_Template_1
> ), I received this response:
>
> The Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency has no objections to
> geodata derived in part from the "Onondaga County Building Footprints"
> layer being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata
> database and displayed publicly on the map.  By using the data,
> however, the OpenStreetMap project agrees that Onondaga County makes no
> claim as to the usefulness, accuracy or completeness of the county's
> building footprint file, and the county will not be held responsible
> for any omissions or inaccuracies. This data is provided as is and
> there is no guarantee that it is suitable for any particular purpose.
> Your use of the data is at your own risk.
>
> Is this licensing favorable for use by the OSM community?
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Import licensing waiver

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Yes, it's fine. That is simply a disclaimer, not a limitation on use.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 11:14 AM  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have been in contact with the Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning
> Agency (SOCPA), an Onondaga County NY agency, about the licensing of a
> building footprint layer they have. My intention was to import this
> layer after further review by the OSM community and myself. After
> contacting the agency head about a possible waiver for OSM use ( along
> the lines of
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Getting_permission#Letter_Template_1
> ), I received this response:
>
> The Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency has no objections to
> geodata derived in part from the "Onondaga County Building Footprints"
> layer being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata
> database and displayed publicly on the map.  By using the data,
> however, the OpenStreetMap project agrees that Onondaga County makes no
> claim as to the usefulness, accuracy or completeness of the county's
> building footprint file, and the county will not be held responsible
> for any omissions or inaccuracies. This data is provided as is and
> there is no guarantee that it is suitable for any particular purpose.
> Your use of the data is at your own risk.
>
> Is this licensing favorable for use by the OSM community?
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can I use this photo

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

In that context, I think 'others can use your content' is intended to refer
to users of the website may use it in the context of the website. But I
agree that it is vague and poorly drafted language (and thus I wouldn't
rely on it).
Linking is okay.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:27 AM Edward Bainton 
wrote:

> Thanks: I thought maybe 'others can use your content' meant we could.
>
> I'll keep hunting, but no CC photos of that patch of water that I've found
> so far.
>
> Any problem with linking to it only, in the meantime?
>
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 17:53, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> No, that's just standard language that says Australia247.info can use the
>> photo, it says nothing about what OSM wiki or anyone can do. You would need
>> to get permission from the user. I suggest looking for a CC licensed photo.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:45 PM Edward Bainton 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi legal beagles.
>>>
>>> I have found a photo
>>> <https://cdn.australia247.info/assets/uploads/b7fa27b619deac1ef15f476171bb844a_-queensland-somerset-regional-hazeldean-nrma-lake-somerset-holiday-parkhtml.jpg>
>>> that I'd like to include in the wiki.
>>>
>>> It appears to be user content contributed to this page
>>> <https://australia247.info/explore/queensland/somerset_regional/hazeldean/nrma_lake_somerset_holiday_park.html>
>>> on the australia247.info site under the terms
>>> <https://australia247.info/terms> below.
>>>
>>> If the site confirms that it is 'user content' can I use that photo in
>>> the wiki, with appropriate attribution and source info?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Edward / eteb3
>>>
>>> USER CONTENT
>>>
>>> The Service allows you to post content, including comments, photos, and
>>> other materials. Anything that you post or otherwise make available on our
>>> website is referred to as "user content." You are solely responsible for
>>> the user content you post on the Service. If you post your content on
>>> Australia247.info, it still belongs to you but *we can show it to
>>> people and others can use your content.*
>>> ___
>>> legal-talk mailing list
>>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>>
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can I use this photo

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

No, that's just standard language that says Australia247.info can use the
photo, it says nothing about what OSM wiki or anyone can do. You would need
to get permission from the user. I suggest looking for a CC licensed photo.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:45 PM Edward Bainton 
wrote:

> Hi legal beagles.
>
> I have found a photo
> 
> that I'd like to include in the wiki.
>
> It appears to be user content contributed to this page
> 
> on the australia247.info site under the terms
>  below.
>
> If the site confirms that it is 'user content' can I use that photo in the
> wiki, with appropriate attribution and source info?
>
> Thanks
>
> Edward / eteb3
>
> USER CONTENT
>
> The Service allows you to post content, including comments, photos, and
> other materials. Anything that you post or otherwise make available on our
> website is referred to as "user content." You are solely responsible for
> the user content you post on the Service. If you post your content on
> Australia247.info, it still belongs to you but *we can show it to people
> and others can use your content.*
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:30 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Do., 24. Sept. 2020 um 12:05 Uhr schrieb Tom Hughes :
>
>> On 24/09/2020 10:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> > it contains changesets, notes, etc. but not diary posts or changeset
>> > comments (correct me if I’m wrong).
>>
>> You're wrong:
>>
>> https://planet.openstreetmap.org/planet/discussions-latest.osm.bz2
>
>
>
> thank you Tom, thought they must be somewhere but couldn't find them at a
> glance.
> Can still not find the diaries, this seems to imply diaries are not
> covered by the CT (but by the ToU), because they are not part of the
> geodatabase, while changeset comments are (i.e. are published with ODbL
> license)?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>

This is my view.
-Kathleen
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

> What I meant by legal assessment is that I would like to know what OSMF's
> layers
> think of this. I would assume that the OSMF has some sort of legal
> department,
> like the people who have drafted some of the fundamental legal documents
> (like
> Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Contributor Terms, ODbL etc) regulating
> some
> aspects of OSMF's operations.
>
> OSMF does not have a legal department. OSMF has the Legal/Licensing
Working Group. I am on that working group. If you want the opinion of the
entire group, you are welcome to request it, and it will perhaps be taken
up on the agenda.



> So, it is absolutely feasible that the Contributor Terms may lack
> something.
> Legal documents, laws, and regulations are not perfect. Nothing is. And,
> it is
> nothing to be ashamed of if anyone spots a loophole or gap in a legal
> document
> or regulation. It is an opportunity for improvement. The Contributor Terms
> have
> been drafted when OpenStreetMap was developing and was accepting not much
> more
> than map data contributions. So, it was sufficient to handle geo-database
> contributions only. Since then, OpenStreetMap has grown, new functionality
> and
> tools have been added. Perhaps OpenStreetMap's progress has outpaced its
> legal
> framework? Or maybe the legal framework did not keep up with
> OpenStreetMap's
> progress? I do not know. What I do know, is that “Content” is limited in
> scope
> to geo-database contributions in the Contributor Terms.
>
> I read "geo-database contributions" as including changeset comments &
discussions and map notes, because they are tied to the map features. I do
not think geo-database contributions include blog posts.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

>
>
> why not remove “geo-database of the”? If someone added the geo-database,
> maybe they wanted to exclude other databases or parts of the project? Are
> there terms for diary posts? Are diary posts distributed under the ODbL?
>
> Well, updating the Contributor Terms would be an enormous project to be
carried out only if absolutely necessary (though I would not be in
principle opposed to the phrasing you suggest, if we were starting from
scratch).
But no, I don't think these terms are for the diary posts, and I don't
think the diary posts are distributed under ODbL, and I'm not aware of OSMF
redistributing them. I would say that diary posts are covered by
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#VII._Additional_terms
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

 GITNE,
I don't know what distinction you are drawing between opinion and legal
assessment. I cannot give you legal advice as I am not your lawyer, but my
legal opinion, based on the terms of the Contributor Agreement, is that
changeset comments are part of OSM's geo-database. Note that the terms say:
"OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a
database and only under the terms of one or more of the following
licences:.." So if changeset comments did not count as part of the
geo-database, OSM would not have rights to use them, which would be
contrary to the purposes of the Contributor Terms.
-Kathleen

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 5:34 AM Eugene Alvin Villar 
wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 6:19 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
>> For those unfamiliar with it, the OSM US' Slack instance has a
>> "feed-changeset-comments" channel which shows new changeset discussion
>> comments shortly after they are added.  There are lots of other ways of
>> getting at that data as well of course - including on osm.org itself.
>>
>
> To provide some context, this Slack channel is simply forwarding the
> contents of an Atom feed generated by Pascal Neis here:
> http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions?c=United States
>
> IANAL, but from an intellectual property point of view, I think Pascal
> creating RSS/Atom feeds of changeset comments per country falls under fair
> use/fair dealing. And there is a whole ecosystem of tools that process and
> consume RSS/Atom feeds, one of which is an integration in Slack was setup
> by someone so that comments on changesets in the United States are more
> visible to the people who are in the OSM US Slack.
>
> ~Eugene
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi GITNE,
Can you also specify what you think the problem is? I get the feeling that
you have an objection to changeset comments being posted in Slack. I'm
assuming such comments appear in the OSMUS slack group which is popular
with mappers. Why do you think this is a bad thing?
(To be clear, I think your premise is wrong and that the definition of
"Contents" in the Contributor Terms clearly includes changeset comments.)
-Kathleen


On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:19 PM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:43 PM GITNE  wrote:
>
>> Hello OSMF Legal Team,
>>
>> due to a quite troubling revelation by @SomeoneElse that changeset
>> comments are
>> automatically republished by the third party private company Slack, I
>> would
>> appreciate if you could share your legal assessment of this situation.
>> More
>> specifically, what is the copyright status of changeset comments and
>> which OSMF
>> document or agreement covers changeset comments?
>>
>
> Can you be more specific? Where is the data being republished?
>
> Best,
> Clifford
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] local copyright law on government data and OSM license

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Thanks for the context Eugene.

On the other hand, if an OSM mapper *derives* new data from such a dataset
> (for example, generating a representative point for each polygon, maybe at
> the centroid, or maybe at at the "admin centre" if the polygon represents
> settlements and the mapper used their best judgement and research to place
> such points), then this new dataset is no longer the same as the government
> dataset. If the OSM mapper added the new derived data to OSM, then one
> could perhaps argue that prior approval from the government agency is no
> longer needed because the very act of mapping in OSM is not "for
> exploitation of such work for profit". And furthermore, end users of OSM
> would also perhaps not need to seek "prior approval" as well since they are
> not exploiting the original government dataset but rather a derived dataset
> (ex., points), and which cannot be used to reverse engineer the original
> government dataset (ex., polygons).
>
> This interpretation would seem to be consistent with the answer provided
on the National Mapping authority's website:
Can I edit and use the NAMRIA maps for business? Article III of NAMRIA
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) states that "the second party shall use the
digital data acquired from NAMRIA only for its own authorized purpose and
not for commercial purpose. If digital is sold to other parties, the Second
Party shall pay the full cost of the digital data and its royalties". This
applies only to digital maps (scanned/vector) purchased from NAMRIA.

If it is not the data itself but rather derived from it, then there are no
restrictions.

-Kathleen



> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:57 AM Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> A few thoughts:
>>
>> I'd want to talk to a Philippine lawyer, because frankly, these two
>> sentences seem to contradict each other:
>> *No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the
>> Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office
>> wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such
>> work for profit*
>>
>> What would be the consequences of not getting permission? A violation of
>> the government's non-copyright rights? Rights of what? I didn't think the
>> Philippines had database rights, but there could well be some other
>> non-copyright law.
>>
>> Looking online, I found this on the National Mapping authority's website:
>> Can I edit and use the NAMRIA maps for business? Article III of NAMRIA
>> Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) states that "the second party shall use the
>> digital data acquired from NAMRIA only for its own authorized purpose and
>> not for commercial purpose. If digital is sold to other parties, the Second
>> Party shall pay the full cost of the digital data and its royalties". This
>> applies only to digital maps (scanned/vector) purchased from NAMRIA.
>> http://www.namria.gov.ph/faq.aspx
>>
>> So one question I would have is whether the data source in question is
>> digital data acquired from NAMRIA?
>>
>> I also found this list
>> http://www.geoportal.gov.ph/resources/PGPDataInventorywithSW
>> which seems to indicate that at least some government geodata has no
>> restrictions on it. With respect to at least those datasets, it would seem
>> that *explicit permission with respect to OSM* is unnecessary. I didn't see
>> a source for the letters mentioned in this list, but it's possible that
>> some of the data restrictions would not be a problem for OSM, but they'd
>> have to be examined on a letter by letter basis.
>>
>> Best,
>> -Kathleen
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 6:17 PM Erwin Olario  wrote:
>>
>>> Recently, some edits in the country came to the  attention of the
>>> community and have been found to be derived from government data.
>>> Volunteers in the community, after advising the DWG of the process and
>>> action plan, are undertaking the rollback of affected edits.
>>>
>>> In our community, the current practice follows the general
>>> recommendation, that  no (Philippine government) data should be added into
>>> OpenStreetMap, unless explicit permission has been obtained from the
>>> originating agency/office/owners that the data will be added in OSM, under
>>> ODbL.
>>>
>>> The relevant local law on government data, states Republic Act 8293
>>> <https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1997/06/06/republic-act-no-8293/>,
>>> section 176:
>>> "*Works of the Government. ‑ 176.1. No copyright shall subsi

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] local copyright law on government data and OSM license

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

A few thoughts:

I'd want to talk to a Philippine lawyer, because frankly, these two
sentences seem to contradict each other:
*No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the
Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office
wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such
work for profit*

What would be the consequences of not getting permission? A violation of
the government's non-copyright rights? Rights of what? I didn't think the
Philippines had database rights, but there could well be some other
non-copyright law.

Looking online, I found this on the National Mapping authority's website:
Can I edit and use the NAMRIA maps for business? Article III of NAMRIA
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) states that "the second party shall use the
digital data acquired from NAMRIA only for its own authorized purpose and
not for commercial purpose. If digital is sold to other parties, the Second
Party shall pay the full cost of the digital data and its royalties". This
applies only to digital maps (scanned/vector) purchased from NAMRIA.
http://www.namria.gov.ph/faq.aspx

So one question I would have is whether the data source in question is
digital data acquired from NAMRIA?

I also found this list
http://www.geoportal.gov.ph/resources/PGPDataInventorywithSW which
seems to indicate that at least some government geodata has no restrictions
on it. With respect to at least those datasets, it would seem that
*explicit permission with respect to OSM* is unnecessary. I didn't see a
source for the letters mentioned in this list, but it's possible that some
of the data restrictions would not be a problem for OSM, but they'd have to
be examined on a letter by letter basis.

Best,
-Kathleen


On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 6:17 PM Erwin Olario  wrote:

> Recently, some edits in the country came to the  attention of the
> community and have been found to be derived from government data.
> Volunteers in the community, after advising the DWG of the process and
> action plan, are undertaking the rollback of affected edits.
>
> In our community, the current practice follows the general recommendation,
> that  no (Philippine government) data should be added into OpenStreetMap,
> unless explicit permission has been obtained from the originating
> agency/office/owners that the data will be added in OSM, under ODbL.
>
> The relevant local law on government data, states Republic Act 8293
> ,
> section 176:
> "*Works of the Government. ‑ 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any
> work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the
> government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary
> for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among
> other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior
> approval or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of
> statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons,
> addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of
> justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in
> meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first par., P.D. No. 49)"*
>
> In the discussions by contributors, there are some who expressed favor a
> more liberal interpretation of this section of the law, that government
> data is ineligible to copyright, hence no permission is necessary from the
> government. And if the end-user has commercial plans for said data, it is
> up to them to apply for said permission from the relevant government
> agencies.
>
> However, this government permission requirement appears to oppose the OSM
> license, wherein OSM data users are only required to attribute, and not
> seek any additional permissions. Hence, our promoted practice of seeking
> the informed consent of data owners.
>
> While the interpretation of the law is not a question of popularity,
> there's no doubt that a more liberal interpretation is desirable for our
> community but I'm wondering if somebody from the licensing WG can provide
> us specific guidance whether a liberal interpretation of this law is
> aligned with the OSM license.
>
> /Erwin
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> » email: erwin@ *n**gnu**it**y**.xyz*
>  | gov...@gmail.com
> » mobile: https://t.me/GOwin
> » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93
> D56B
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM compatibility of licenses which restrict modification

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

At least in English,
"not reuse the Information in a way that suggests that it is official or
that Licensor approves your use of the Information;
take all reasonable steps to ensure that the uses permitted above do not
mislead others and that the Information itself is not misrepresented."
reads as a trademark clause, which has always been okay and compatible.
-Kathleen

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:42 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 14. Jul 2020, at 15:28, Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe they assume that it is covered
> > anyway by moral rights?
> >
> > But ODBL waives moral rights if allowed
> > by law,
> > it attempts to block asserting such claims,
> > and so on.
> >
> > Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer etc
>
>
> neither am I, just wondering up to which level contradictions and
> uncertainties in licensing terms are still ok for OpenStreetMap and when
> it’s too much.
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal questions about using OSM

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

My personal take (not official guidance):

Question 1:
If I store calculated results based on OSM data in a database table
(without the actual OSM data itself), such as the number of specific
POIs, travel times, travel distances and so on - the database is then a
collective database, a derivative database, a "produced work", or none of
them?

For a count of the number of specific POIs in an area, travel times between
two points, or travel distances between two points, I would say "none of
them", because these types of calculated data points would not actually
contain any data from the OSM database, and thus not be covered by
copyright or database rights law, the rights that ODbL licenses.

Question 2:
Does the calculation of the above described results complies with the
statement: "you geocoded your data"?

No. Geocoding and Geocoding Results have specific meanings, as indicated in
the Geocoding Guidelines.

Question 3:
If I reference other data with the data from this result database, do I
have to put the referenced data under the ODBL license? For the case
that the answer to Question 1 would be collective or a "produced work"?
In case of derivative, I guess the database must be under ODBL...

Your reasoning is correct, but of course, since my answer to 1 is "none of
them", the answer to this question would be "no"



On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 6:42 AM "Birger Schütte" via legal-talk <
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hello to all!
>
> I would like to apologize for asking again, but unfortunately the answer
> did not help me.
> I realize that the use cases are not the ultimate recommendation.
> Therefore I had additionally relied on the
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines.
> I am examining the use of OSM in various tools - this is where these
> questions came up.
> And therefore it would be important for me to understand from when on
> which kind of use of the data leads to the cases mentioned in the questions
> (collective, derivative and so on).
> I have even interviewed a lawyer, but so far with rather little success.
> :-(
>
> So here are my 3 most important still open questions again:
> Question 1:
> If I store calculated results based on OSM data in a database table
> (without the actual OSM data itself), such as the number of specific
> POIs, travel times, travel distances and so on - the database is then a
> collective database, a derivative database, a "produced work", or none of
> them?
>
> Question 2:
> Does the calculation of the above described results complies with the
> statement: "you geocoded your data"?
>
> Question 3:
> If I reference other data with the data from this result database, do I
> have to put the referenced data under the ODBL license? For the case
> that the answer to Question 1 would be collective or a "produced work"?
> In case of derivative, I guess the database must be under ODBL...
>
> Since I haven't had any luck deriving answers to my questions from the
> Community_Guidelines so far, I hope it wouldn't be too much trouble if I
> could possibly get answers to every single question?
> Many thanks for every effort in advance!
>
> Kindly Regards
> Birger
>
> Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 11:14:14 +0200
> From: Simon Poole 
> To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal questions about using OSM
> Message-ID: <9c917920-39c1-03c0-59a4-d0f47fc0e...@poole.ch>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> You are unnecessarily making your life hard. There is a big red warning
> at the top of the "Use Cases" page, simply take it seriously (the
> content of that page was written in 2012 a rather long time ago and
> before any of the guidelines existed). The current relevant guidelines
> are available from
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines
>
> In your specific case, as it seems you are not actually geocoding your
> data (that would be extracting address or location information from OSM
> with 3rd party data), that would be the Produced Work and Collective
> Database guidelines.
>
> Simon
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using OSM data to create our own OSRM API inhouse

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

I would point you to
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline
in particular the last example.
(Other official guidelines are at
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines - please
note that text at wiki.openstreetmap.org, vs osmfoundation.org, is
unofficial)


On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:56 AM Shahnur Islam 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We've recently started experimenting with the OSRM api to see if it was a
> viable solution create distance and time matrices to use for our own
> Travelling Sales person algorithm we built.
> We're a logistics company so the data we generate will not be used
> publicly, but before we start using it commercially our procurement team
> wanted to make sure had all the licensing in place.
>
> I've had a look here
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases#Use_Cases_regarding_the_extraction_of_data_from_OSM_for_various_purposes
>  but
> couldn't see where this falls and whats required.
>
> So I guess my main questions are .
>
>1. Are we allowed to use it for our purpose?
>2. If so, what licensing do we need to put it in place?
>
> Thanks,
> Shan
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adding OSM-ids to an external database and publish in CC-BY

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

I don't think you even need to get into
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Metadata_Layers_-_Guideline
or the substantial question.
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline
and
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Collective_Database_Guideline_Guideline
make clear that you can use a particular OSM type (here, OSM-ids) as a
collective database with other data types of non-OSM origin without
triggering share-alike. It would be nonsensical for OSM-ids to come from a
source other than OSM (hence, all OSM-ids are from OSM and are ODbL), so in
this scenario it is easy to maintain conceptual separation of the ODbL and
non-ODbL databases in the "collective".
Since they're labeled "OSM-ids" even attribution is fairly easily covered.
Surely there is a readme explaining what this metadata type is, just for
use purposes.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:32 AM Tom Lee via legal-talk <
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> This seems similar to the problem discussed here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Metadata_Layers_-_Guideline
>
> The doctrine proposed by Richard Fairhurst (and discussed on that page)
> strikes me as reasonable. It's hard for me to see how OSM IDs could qualify
> as a substantial part of the database when used in isolation, in this
> manner. They're algorithmically generated and, by themselves, contain no
> information about the world that OSM describes.
>
> In a broader sense, it seems like it would be very counterproductive for
> an open project to embrace policies that make it difficult for people to
> even *refer* to useful parts of it, which is what a hyperlink amounts to.
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 1:57 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In Italy we have been discussing this situation: a member of the
>> community wants to add links to OSM objects into a list of specific shops
>> (those that are open during the covid-19 pandemia).
>>
>> The list will be published here: https://www.covid19italia.help/opendata/
>> with an CC-BY-4.0 license.
>>
>> The links will be of the kind
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1834818
>>
>> Question is, will it be possible to publish such a list, containing
>> OSM-ids (or links to OSM objects) with a CC-BY-4.0 license?
>>
>> Thank you for your replies.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Martin
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL Advice — POIs and private / personal data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi Robin,
Have you had a chance to review the Community Guidelines?
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines
In particular, I would think that the Horizontal Layers Guideline
("Examples of where you DO NOT need to share your non-OpenStreetMap data:
You use OpenStreetMap as a base topographical map for orientation and then
plot your own unrelated data over the top. An simple example of this might
be scientific or highly specialist data such as bird migration paths, tree
species distribution or geological outcrops."), Collective Database
Guidelines ("You collect restaurant names and associated phone numbers.
This data is linked to OSM data by references that associate the OSM
restaurant names to your phone numbers so that your restaurant phone
numbers will appear on an OSM-based map. All the restaurant phone numbers
for the regional cut are provided by you (i.e., the restaurant phone
numbers include no OSM data). Your phone numbers are not subject to
share-alike."), and Geocoding Guideline (particularly
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#Adding_location_names_to_photos)
would be of interest/help to you.
-Kathleen

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 1:19 PM Robin Hawkes  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm hoping to get some help to better understand how the ODbL licence
> applies with my use of OSM data. I understand that the discussion here is
> not official — nor a replacement for proper legal advice — however I'm
> hoping you can provide some guidance so I can come to my own conclusion as
> to my obligations.
>
> I'm working on an application for photographers to plan trips, discover
> new locations and save "collections" of markers as inspiration for future
> trips. The application is public (requiring registration and login) and
> most of what users create within this application will be mostly private
> and only view-able by themselves, though some may be shared with other
> users of the application.
>
> Here is a breakdown of relevant functionality:
>
>- The basemap for this is vector tiles from Mapbox (so OSM)
>- A user is able to use the basemap as visual reference and manually
>click on the map and place their own markers under a variety of types (eg.
>place I want to take a photo at, place I want to park my car, waterfall
>that I want to visit)
>   - The coordinates for manually-placed markers will come from the
>   mouse position, not from any OSM feature metadata underneath the mouse 
> at
>   the time
>   - Manually-placed markers may have metadata added by the user to
>   help them organise (eg. a title, an icon, etc) and will be persisted to 
> a
>   database
>- Separately, users will be able to search for OSM POIs near a
>location and add some of them manually to a personal "collection"
>   - The POI search area will be on a relatively local basis (eg.
>   smaller than a national park)
>   - POI search will be limited to very specific features (parking,
>   toilets, viewpoints, waterfalls, etc) — let's say somewhere between 20 
> and
>   40 feature types
>   - POIs will either come from the vector tiles directly, or from a
>   geocoding API (not yet decided)
>   - A user can click on a POI and add it to a personal collection,
>   which will persist the coordinates and POI name and type in a database 
> as a
>   one-time, one-way operation (nothing else is stored in the database from
>   OSM, not even the node ID) — the node coordinates are the only data of
>   interest
>   - A user can then view their saved POIs on the map (coordinates,
>   name and type) and have the ability to change the position, name or 
> type if
>   they wish due to personal preference (eg. I saved a viewpoint POI from 
> OSM
>   but I later change it to a "place I want to take a photo" marker and 
> rename
>   it to "Cool view of mountain")
>
> I've not yet decided if I want to keep the user-created markers and the
> 'collected' OSM POI-sourced markers on separate map layers and separate
> database tables, but it's possible if it helps reduce ODbL compliance
> complexity.
>
> Ultimately, each collection that a user creates will consist of relatively
> few markers (<200 at the top end, probably more like <30 on average),
> mostly manually added by the user (not from POIs), and will be private to
> that user, unless they decide to make it view-able by other users of the
> application. A user can create multiple collections of markers but
> collections are isolated from each other and they can only view one
> collection at a time on the map.
>
> Regarding ODbL:
>
>- With the first example (manually clicking map to add markers); am I
>creating a derivative database, or a collective database? Or neither?
>   - I've been reading up on the definitions and it's confusing
>- Likewise for the second example (storing coordinates manually 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New data source

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi Cj,
Easiest method would be for you to update
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors with this information.
(But please do note the import guidelines if you are thinking about
importing)
Best,
Kathleen

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 5:26 AM Cj Malone  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I recently saw that some bus stop names are out of date in my area. I
> updated the one I saw (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/533814248/history)
>
> But the local bus operator offers this data under Open Government
> License Version 3.0. (https://www.islandbuses.info/open-data)
>
> As far as I understand it OGL can be used in OSM, but needs
> attribution. Is this correct? How can OSM add the attribution so I can
> start using this dataset?
>
> Once someone verifies that I can use this dataset I intend to correct
> any OSM names, add fixme tags to any this I don't think exist any more.
> And possibly add naptan:AtcoCode=x to nodes that don't have it in OSM
> but do in the Southern Vectis dataset. And add "SouthernVectis" to the
> source tag which would usually mean, source=naptan_import ->
> source=naptan_import;SouthernVectis.
>
> Thanks
> Cj
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

This is an interesting question. I'm not sure what exactly one feature is.
But I would find it very hard to claim that a single way, even a complex
one, was "substantial" by itself. Remember that it's a "substantial
part...of the contents of a database" (in this case OSM), and one way would
be a very very small part of OSM.
But I think this is why the guideline defined mostly "insubstantial"
instead of substantial, because defining substantial is much more
difficult, context dependent, and would depend on case law (of which there
is very little)

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 4:13 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 20. Dec 2019, at 00:16, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > This is not what the Substantial Guideline says. It says that fewer than
> 100 features is "not Substantial". It also gives as an example "More that
> 100 Features only if the extraction is non-systematic and clearly based on
> your own qualitative criteria for example an extract of all the the
> locations of restaurants you have visited for a personal map to share with
> friends or use the locations of a selection of historic buildings as an
> adjunct in a book you are writing, we would regard that as non Substantial."
>
>
> If I recall correctly there is no definition what a feature is. Nobody has
> yet commented how they would interpret this for a border: is it about the
> border way or about the individual border points from which the border is
> made of?
>
> 100 features may be a reasonable limit for point features, but for complex
> ways and relations, already very few (maybe even a single one) may be
> substantial?
>
> Kathleen, I would be interested in your thoughts what a feature is in the
> context of ways.
>
> Cheers Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

the guideline is about individual results, not about aggregations, for
> which the share alike provisions persist. From my interpretation this also
> implies that the attribution requirements persist for individual results,
> because otherwise it would not be clear that you cannot aggregate them. Do
> you agree?
>

No, the guideline was explicitly about both individual results and
aggregations. Individual results are insubstantial, so no ODbL obligations
attach at all (attribution is one of the ODbL obligations). A collection of
results is not a Derivative Database *unless* the collection is used as a
general geodatabase (basically, if you tried to reverse engineer OSM by
mass geocoding). That means that in normal circumstances, for a collection
of results (an aggregation), the sharealike provisions *do not* persist.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

>
> “substantial” does not mean it has to be a certain percentage of the whole
> db, you can see this from the substantial guideline, which has fixed limits
> that are not growing with the db. “substantial” means it’s more than one or
> two features (OpenStreetMap-Foundation has declared they see a total of 100
> features as substantial, although it is not completely clear what a feature
> is, for example you could go to an extreme point of view and see the whole
> border of Germany as a single feature (I am not) while a more credible
> interpretation would see every border point as a feature, so that the
> border of Germany would be thousands of features).
>
> This is not what the Substantial Guideline says. It says that fewer than
100 features is "not Substantial". It also gives as an example "More that
100 Features only if the extraction is non-systematic and clearly based on
your own qualitative criteria for example an extract of all the the
locations of restaurants you have visited for a personal map to share with
friends or use the locations of a selection of historic buildings as an
adjunct in a book you are writing, we would regard that as non
Substantial." BTW, a list of flats/houses for sale in the current time
period is not too far off from these examples.
And that is for extracting the entirety of each feature. The Geocoding
Guideline states: "Furthermore, if only names are provided in Geocoding
Results from OSM -- in particular, latitude/longitude information from OSM
is not included in the Geocoding Results -- a collection of such results is
not a substantial extract." There's no 100 feature limit at all for
geocoding.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

it will contain a lot of postcode information from the original
> OpenStreetMap database, in adapted/translated form.


This doesn't seem correct to me. In the final set, each point will only
tell you yes/no whether it was in a particular postcode. That's not very
much info at all.

>
> To create an accurate postcode polygon from point features you will need a
> lot of them, so probably already a handful of them would be considered
> substantial.
>

 This logic seems backwards. Since it would require a lot of point features
in order to recreate the polygon (and thus something that looks similar to
the original OSM database), it should require a *lot* of points to be
considered substantial.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

But what that says is not just "create a new database" but one "that
contains the whole or a substantial part of the original OSM database." His
new database will contain very little if any of the original OSM database.

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 2:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 16. Dec 2019, at 22:09, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> That's what the guidelines are for!
> We can't cover every possible example because there are too many, but as I
> already said, I think your usecase is covered by the Geocoding Guideline.
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline
>
>
>
> I also believe it is covered by this guideline, but it seems his use would
> trigger share alike according to this guideline:
>
> 2. the Geocoding Results are not used to create a new database that
> contains the whole or a substantial part of the original OSM database
>
>
>
> because he wants to create a new database.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

> It is kind of unfortunate, because OSM as far as I am informed, wouldn't
> be interested in the specific dataset (of real estate prices) anyway.
>
> If it's not the type of data that OSM would be interested in, then why
doesn't it fall under the Collective Database Guideline?
the non-OSM data adds a particular type of geometry or data for a primary
feature that was not already present within a regional cut, and the added
feature data includes no OSM data;
Wasn't a major reason for that guideline to permit nonsharealike usecases
where the data potentially subject to sharealike would not be useful to OSM
anyway?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

That's what the guidelines are for!
We can't cover every possible example because there are too many, but as I
already said, I think your usecase is covered by the Geocoding Guideline.
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline


> Why doesn't the OSMF write about fundamental stuff then? I think,
> ST_Intersects() is one of the main tools in GIS world. Why don't
> give a clear statement on this?
>
> Since the ODbL has never changed, it's fixed. So there could be
> something like an FAQ or matrix to look up what triggers share-alike
> and what not?
>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Nuno -
I do not see how Matthias's usecase qualifies as "AND you have *added to or
enhanced our data*" since the houses and flat and their prices are *not*
added to OSM houses or flats, but if this FAQ answer is misleading, we
should rewrite this FAQ answer to more accurate reflect ODbL.

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:45 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> well
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#The_OpenStreetMap_Geodata_Licence
>
> Secondly, you *"Share Alike"*. If you do not make any changes to
> OpenStreetMap data, then you are unlikely to have a "Share Alike"
> obligation. But, if you *publicly distribute something that you have made*
> from our data, such as a *map or another database*, AND you have *added
> to or enhanced our data*, then we want you to make those additions
> publicly available. We obviously prefer it if you added the data straight
> back to our database, but you do not have to, *as long as the public can
> easily get a copy of what you have done.* If you do not publicly
> distribute anything, then you do not have to share anything.
>
>
> Às 19:34 de 13/12/2019, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk escreveu:
>
> Nuno - I think you are operating under the mistaken assumption that a
> CC-BY-SA license would mean that uses such as Mattias's would require
> sharealike.
>
> Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Derivative Work:
> *"Derivative Work"* means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and
> other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
> dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording,
> art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the
> Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that
> constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for
> the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is
> a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work
> in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a
> Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.
>
> Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Collective Work:
> *"Collective Work"* means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology
> or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form,
> along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and
> independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A
> work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative
> Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
>
> As you can see from these examples (which focus on creative derivatives,
> since facts are not even copyrightable in the US and there is no US
> database protection law), a "derivative work" needs quite a bit of the
> original to qualify. The meaning of a "derivative work" was always much
> narrower than what a colloquial understanding of what "derived" might be,
> and the change in license did not change that.
>
> -Kathleen
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:11 AM Nuno Caldeira <
> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> these new Liberal interpretation of ODbL are funny. to bad it's not
>> documented what we wanted when we changed license. seems to be full of
>> lies
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License
>>
>> *"This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but the
>> “bad guys” may be able to use it anyway." *
>>
>> *" We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our current
>> progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see more below) but
>> have it written explicitly for data."*
>>
>> *"Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”." *
>>
>> *"But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
>> commercial interests?*
>>
>>- *You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
>>Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the Foundation to
>>publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a free and open 
>> license.*
>>
>>
>>- *The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and
>>release it under a commercial license.*
>>
>>
>>- *If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
>>license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the existing data
>>can be made and released by a different body.*
>>
>>
>>- *If a change is made to another free and open license, it is a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi Christoph,
I think that there is a premise to your list that I do not quite agree
with. ODbL says:

3.1 Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, the Licensor
grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, terminable (but
only under Section 9) license to Use the Database for the duration of
any applicable copyright and Database Rights. These rights explicitly
include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. To
the extent possible in the relevant jurisdiction, these rights may be
exercised in all media and formats whether now known or created in the
future.

So the rights granted are *all* database and copyright rights, subject to
certain conditions that apply to Produced Works and Derivative Databases.
There are rights that are completely not covered by ODbL are trademark and
patent rights, which would be #6.
But that also means there is a category #7 you have not listed, where the
database and/or copyright rights *are* conveyed by ODbL and no limitations
on the exercise of those rights is placed on the user.
So as far as usecases like Matthias's which we are discussing, my opinion
is that it is #5, but if it is not, it could be #7. But it could not be #6.



On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:54 AM Christoph Hormann 
wrote:

> On Friday 13 December 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> >
> > I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under
> > the ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative
> > Database" definition.
>
> My reading of the ODbL has always been that something is either
>
> 1) the original Database (or substantial parts of it)
> 2) a Derivative Database
> 3) a Collective Database
> 4) a Produced Work
>
> or if something is neither of these it would be either
>
> 5) something that is not protected by law at all so free to use
> independent of the license terms (like insubstantial extracts of data).
> 6) something the ODbL does not grant any rights for and therefore cannot
> be legally used by the user based on the ODbL.
>
> So my question would always be if someone considers certain things not
> to be a Derivative Database which of the five other above cases applies
> instead.
>
> I would kind of assume that for case (5) there are probably already some
> court rulings available for to what extent EU database protection
> applies to set operations of different databases since this is nothing
> specific to spatial databases but also is relevant for many other types
> of data.
>
> As i already wrote in
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-November/083535.html
>
> existing OSMF community guidelines suggest spatial operations like
> ST_Difference() and ST_Intersection() yield Derivative Databases that
> are subject to share-alike.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Nuno - I think you are operating under the mistaken assumption that a
CC-BY-SA license would mean that uses such as Mattias's would require
sharealike.

Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Derivative Work:
*"Derivative Work"* means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and
other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording,
art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the
Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that
constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for
the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is
a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work
in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a
Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.

Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Collective Work:
*"Collective Work"* means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or
encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along
with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent
works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A work that
constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as
defined below) for the purposes of this License.

As you can see from these examples (which focus on creative derivatives,
since facts are not even copyrightable in the US and there is no US
database protection law), a "derivative work" needs quite a bit of the
original to qualify. The meaning of a "derivative work" was always much
narrower than what a colloquial understanding of what "derived" might be,
and the change in license did not change that.

-Kathleen



On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:11 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> these new Liberal interpretation of ODbL are funny. to bad it's not
> documented what we wanted when we changed license. seems to be full of lies
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License
>
> *"This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but the “bad
> guys” may be able to use it anyway." *
>
> *" We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our current
> progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see more below) but
> have it written explicitly for data."*
>
> *"Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”." *
>
> *"But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
> commercial interests?*
>
>- *You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
>Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the Foundation to
>publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a free and open license.*
>
>
>- *The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and release
>it under a commercial license.*
>
>
>- *If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
>license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the existing data
>can be made and released by a different body.*
>
>
>- *If a change is made to another free and open license, it is active
>contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation."*
>
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 18:56 Frederik Ramm,  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
>> > “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.
>>
>> Interesting. I knew the ODbL text but I have always glossed over this
>> definition, assuming that "well you know what derived means".
>>
>> I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some assumptions I had
>> made. It would mean that, for example, a database that contains a count
>> of all pubs in each municipality, or a database that contains the
>> average travel time from a building in a city to the nearest hospital,
>> or a heatmap of ice cream parlours, would not fall under the ODbL
>> because these, while derived from OSM, do not actually contain a copy of
>> anything in OSM (and neither could they possibly be used to reassemble
>> OSM).
>>
>> I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under the
>> ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative Database"
>> definition.
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
&

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi Frederik,

Here's why I disagree. The meaning of "derived" in a colloquial sense and
the definition of "Derivative Database" are not the same.
While colloquially, it may be fair to interpret "derived" as "made from" or
"could not have been made without", that is not the legal definition of
"Derivative Database".

>From ODbL:
“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.

So a Derivative Database must include a "translation, adaptation,
arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a
Substantial part of the
Contents." In other words, it has to include in the new database at least a
substantial part of what was in the previous database.
The inference of "with pubs" would not be, in my mind, a "translation,
adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the
Database or of a Substantial part of the
Contents" because it is too minor of an inference.
I view Mattias's usecase as *using* OSM, not *making a Derivative Database
from OSM*.
I would also say that, looking back at the EU Database Directive, I do not
see a case for breach of the restricted rights, particularly the right of
"translation, adaptation, arrangement and any other alteration."

With respect to Mateusz's more extreme example, this is also very
specifically covered in the Geocoding Guidelines: "A collection of
Geocoding Results will be considered a systematic attempt to aggregate data
if it is used as a general purpose geodatabase, regardless of how the
original aggregation was accomplished."

In other worse, if, as in Mateusz's hypothetical, you attempt to abuse the
system to reverse engineer a database that is equivalent to OSM, you make a
Derivative Database. But Mattias has been very clear that is not what he's
doing. He just wants to display the subparts of a list of points he already
has on a different layer than the other subparts.

-Kathleen


On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 12:49 AM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Kathleen,
>
> On 12.12.19 23:40, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
> > No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data.
>
> Are you sure about this? Let me give an example:
>
> > If I understand your usecase correctly, Matthais, you are essentially
> > checking your list against OSM boundaries. If something is both on your
> > list and within the OSM boundary, then you say 'yes, this goes on the
> > secondary list.' Then you want to publish your secondary list. There is
> > no OSM data in the secondary list so it is not a Derivative Database.
>
> Let us assume I have a list of all streets in Germany with their
> geometry, from a non-OSM source.
>
> I want to divide these into two groups: streets that have at least one
> pub, and streets that have no pub.
>
> Using OSM information about the location of pubs, I count the number of
> pubs along each street, allowing me to make the desired separation.
>
> I end up with a database of "streets that have at least one pub". This
> database does not include OSM data.
>
> In my eyes, though, it is still *derived* from OSM data. It is the
> result of an algorithmic process that has made use of OSM data; if you
> will, the OSM data residue is in the name/description of my new
> database: "roads with pubs". It is derived from OSM; it could not have
> been made without OSM.
>
> Do you disagree?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data.
There are two reasons.

First, this example is analogous to the FAQ here:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Can_I_use_OSM_data_and_OpenStreetMap-derived_maps_to_verify_my_own_data_without_triggering_share-alike.3F
Can I use OSM data and OpenStreetMap-derived maps to verify my own data
without triggering share-alike?

Yes, provided that you are only comparing and do not copy any OpenStreetMap
data. If you make any changes to your data after making the comparison, you
should be able to reasonably demonstrate that any such change was made
either from your own physical observation or comes from a non-OpenStreetMap
source accessed directly by you. I.e you can compare but not take!

   - Example 1: You notice that a street is called one name on your map and
   another in OpenStreetMap. You should visit the street and check the name,
   then you are free to put that name in your data as it is your own
   observation.


   - Example 2: You notice that a boundary is different in your data and
   OpenStreetMap. You should check back to original authoritative sources and
   make any correction required.


When someone does example #1 above, they compare OSM data and nonOSM data
and make a list of streets to check in the real world. Neither the nonOSM
data nor the list of streets needs to be licensed under ODbL. You may
*compare* freely.
If I understand your usecase correctly, Matthais, you are essentially
checking your list against OSM boundaries. If something is both on your
list and within the OSM boundary, then you say 'yes, this goes on the
secondary list.' Then you want to publish your secondary list. There is no
OSM data in the secondary list so it is not a Derivative Database.

Second, see the Geocoding Guidelines, which Martin also pointed out -
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline
Your example is akin to using OSM polygons for certain areas to geocode.
You already have the lat/long for your points (houses and flats), so what
you are getting from OSM is equivalent to the name of the area you are
filtering against (e.g., all these points are in neighborhood X).
The Geocoding Guidelines specifically state "if only names are provided in
Geocoding Results from OSM -- in particular, latitude/longitude information
from OSM is not included in the Geocoding Results -- *a collection of such
results is not a substantial extract*."
Thus, no ODbL obligations attach.

-Kathleen






On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 11:55 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> does contain derivate however,which means license applies
>
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 19:46 ,  wrote:
>
>> > we are here to create more open data, not to feed proprietary data than
>> is lock under their TOS.
>>
>> I want to apologize for my misunderstanding: my final product does not
>> contain any OpenStreetMap data.
>>
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensability of an employee's work

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Jurisdiction dependant, but here are two general concepts which I think are
relevant:

As the statute you quoted specifies, when copyright will belong to the
employer, it tends to depend on if the copyrightable work was made within
the scope of the employee's job. (If you're a software programmer, it would
be difficult for your employer to claim ownership a romance novel you
write, but easier to claim ownership of code you write.)

When an employee signs a contract, whether that contract is binding on the
employer depends on whether the employee had authorization to sign on
behalf of the employer, and sometimes whether it *seems* like to a
reasonably objective person dealing with the employee whether the employee
had authorization.

These two principles would be in tension with each other in the case of an
employer who claimed, on the one hand, that their employee's job was to
edit OSM, but on the other hand, the employee did not have authorization to
sign the Contributor Agreement, which would have been required for them to
do their job.

Thus, while it would be easy for an employer to claim ownership of such
edits, I think it would be difficult for that same employer to also claim
the Contributor Agreement does not apply.

-Kathleen


On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 3:04 PM Simon Poole  wrote:

> The question is rather complicated and if at all can really only be
> approached on a per jurisdiction base as both employment regulation and
> certain aspects of intellectual property law differ widely by territory.
>
> So the 1st thing to clarify would be where this is taking place and which
> law is relevant.
>
> Simon
>
> Am 18. Oktober 2019 19:41:59 MESZ schrieb Edward Bainton <
> bainton@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Quick question arising from a 'lobbying' conversation:
>>
>> *If an employee edits the map in the course of their employment, has the
>> work been adequately licensed to OSM/the big wide Open?*
>>
>> According to UK Copyright Act 1988,
>> s. 11 (2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work [F1
>> ,
>> or a film,] is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his
>> employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any
>> agreement to the contrary.
>>
>> Can the employee be regarded, as far as OSM is concerned, as having
>> authority to license the work? Or rather, which is what I take to be the
>> more important question, if the employer became unhappy with OSM using
>> their employee's edits, would her remedy be against OSM, or against her
>> employee?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
> --
> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail
> gesendet.
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible licensed dataset

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

The additional guidelines are OSM-specific:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:58 PM Lars-Daniel Weber 
wrote:

> Sorry, this was a typo. Of course I mean houses in both cases:
>
> Let's say you're creating a map of Western, taking houses from OSM in
> Germany and houses from proprietary data from all other countries, since
> OSM is incomplete here. Isn't this a mixture on the same layer?
>
> Also, when starting from a Planet file, there are no regional cuts.
>
> Are those guidelines additional rules to the ODbL? I thought, ODbL is a
> generic databank license and not OSM specific.
>
>
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 14. Oktober 2019 um 19:57 Uhr
> *Von:* "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk" 
> *An:* "Licensing and other legal discussions." <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>
> *Cc:* "Kathleen Lu" 
> *Betreff:* Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible
> licensed dataset
> The reference to countries come from the Regional Cuts Guideline (and then
> the later Collective Database Guideline), in case that was not clear.
> I don't see how roads and houses (do you mean building footprints?) would
> be "mixture on the same layer" or why the layer matters since they're
> different data types...
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:33 AM Lars-Daniel Weber <
> lars-daniel.we...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> From: "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk" 
>> > Lars-Daniel already said that they are kept in separate columns and not
>> > de-duplicated. There is no requirement that, in order to function as a
>> > Collective Database, data types may not be used together to create a
>> > Produced Work. To the contrary, the guidance is that the most axiomatic
>> > Produced Work, a global map, may be created from multiple Collective
>> > Databases consisting of different data types and/or different countries.
>>
>> Hmm... but doesn't this violate "Horizontal Layers" Guideline?
>>
>> Let's say you're creating a map of Western, taking roads from OSM in
>> Germany and houses from proprietary data from all other countries, since
>> OSM is incomplete here. Isn't this a mixture on the same layer?
>>
>> I think, there's no difference in this guideline between small and large
>> scale.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
> ___ legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

I don't think the analogy is quite right.
The Geocoding Guidelines say:

Geocoding Results can be latitude/longitude pairs (as typical in forward
Geocoding Results), and/or full or partial addresses and/or point of
interest names (as typical in reverse Geocoding Results).
Latitude/longitude pairs may come from a “Direct Hit” -- in which case the
data returned will exactly match the data of a feature in the geo-database
used for geocoding -- or it may be an “Indirect Hit”, in which case the
data is inferred or derived from other features, but does not directly
match any feature in the database. The most common type of indirect hits
are interpolated addresses.

For example: Suppose a Geocoding user queries “120 Main St, Anytown, Big
State, USA” and there is a node in the geo-database for that address. A
Geocoding Result consisting of the lat/lon of that node would be a Direct
Hit. However, suppose instead the database contains nodes for 150 Main St
and 110 Main St, but not 120 Main Street. A Geocoder might return a point
in between in between the two known nodes as an estimate of the requested
location. This point (an interpolated result) would be an Indirect Hit.

In the section you quoted, it says "Geocoding Results are an insubstantial
extract **or** contain no OSM data" (emphasis added). So *sometimes*
there's no OSM data, but that's when the results are interpolated. Other
times, individual Geocoding Results (and in certain circumstances as
described in detail in the guidelines, certain types of collections of
Geocoding Results) are insubstantial.

I don't think tracing from a physical printout is the same as
interpolating. It's more like a really basic trivial transformation.

But like I said, based on the usecase you described, I agree I think all
you need to do attribute, just based on different reasoning.

-Kathleen


On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 7:59 AM Lars-Daniel Weber 
wrote:
>
> According to community guideline for "Geocoding", I'm not using original
OSM data in my new map at all. Since I've drawn lines from paper drawn on
an Produced Work of OSM data, I don't have any of the original OSM elements
in my final dataset, which are in the OSM dataset.
>
> So, I just need to credit OpenStreetMap as decribed in Section 4.3 of the
ODbL, since it's a Produced Work.
>
>
> > Users of a navigation application send an address search query to a
> > cloud-based Geocoder. The Geocoder has access to two separate map
> > databases, one of which contains solely OSM data. The other database
> > contains non-OSM data. If the address is accurately found in the OSM
> > database, the location is sent back to the navigation application. If
> > the address is not found in the OSM database, then the other database is
> > searched, and that result is returned. (The same example applies when
> > the third party database is searched before the OSM database or when
> > they are searched concurrently.) The OSM-based Geocoding Results are an
> > insubstantial extract or contain no OSM data and thus do not trigger
> > share-alike obligations and can be stored together with the
> > non-OSM-based Geocoding Results with no impact on the non-OSM-based
> > Geocoding results, so long as the aggregated collection of results does
> > not contain the whole or a substantial part of the OSM database. The
> > cloud-based Geocoder is, however, required to credit OpenStreetMap as
> > described in Section 4.3 of the ODbL.
>
> Gesendet: Montag, 07. Oktober 2019 um 20:05 Uhr
> Von: "Kathleen Lu" 
> An: "Licensing and other legal discussions." 
> Cc: "Lars-Daniel Weber" 
> Betreff: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles
> > Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of
>>
>> > simplified OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL.
>>
>> Actually, it's like 40% OSM borders (hard borders, like roads, rivers,
topography and administrative stuff) and 60% own borders, which don't
appear in OSM. BUt those borders wouldn't make OSM any better, since
they're specific for the current task.
>>
>
> My view would be the OSM borders are ODbL. Just because it's one
shapefile doesn't mean all of the data in the shapefile has to be under one
license. If the other borders are not border types that are in OSM that you
have traced, ODbL does not implicate them per the Collective Database
Guideline.
>
>>
>> > Now, it sounds like you're not tracing very much, so it's possible that
>> > you have traced fewer than 100 features in which case your tracing is
>> > insubstantial
>> >
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
>>
>> Actually, I've traced more than 100 features, but the "extraction is
non-systematic and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria" - okay,
not on my one, but on the one who draw the overlay with the pen.
>>
>
> It's possible that your extraction is insubstantial, though I can't say
definitively. But I don't think that you need a definitive answer on

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] conflicting statements in Community Guidelines

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Recall that under the geocoding guidelines, it is not considered a
substantial extra if "only names, addresses, and/or latitude/longitude
information are included in the Geocoding Results," "the collection is not
a systematic attempt to aggregate all or substantially all Primary Features
of a given type (as defined in the Collective Database Guideline) within a
geographic area city-sized or larger." This is not the same as
"restaurants" since there are additional features that can be included with
a restaurant (though some restaurants will only be name/address/latlong).
(Also, I would not conclude that 4000 restaurants is clearly insubstantial
under database protection law, I think that's an open question. I have not
seen definitive case law as to whether "substantial" is measured by
percentage or absolute number.)
Also "A collection of Geocoding Results will be considered a systematic
attempt to aggregate data if it is used as a general purpose geodatabase,
regardless of how the original aggregation was accomplished." so the
intended usecase of the collection would matter as well.
Recall that you can *always* store together, as mere storage is not a
public use that would trigger any ODbL obligations anyway. What you do with
the data once you put it together *and* how to put it together both impact
potential obligations under ODbL.
It is not a conflict with the Collective Database Guideline or the
Horizontal Map Layers guideline because those describe situations where two
databases are considered Collective Databases regardless of the intended
usecase or the tags involved, whereas the Geocoding Guideline specifics
tags, usecases, and extraction parameters that would not be considered
Substantial.
-Kathleen


On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:09 AM Lars-Daniel Weber 
wrote:

> Hi again,
>
> sorry for creating another topic, it's somehow related, but somehow
> different.
>
> Community Guideline "Horizontal Map Layers" doesn't allow to cherry-pick
> features within the same layer from a proprietary dataset to complete
> missing data in OSM without triggering share-alike.
>
> Community Guideline "Geocoding" allows cherry-picking as quoted here:
>
> > The OSM-based Geocoding Results are an insubstantial extract or
> > contain no OSM data and thus do not trigger share-alike obligations
> > and can be stored together with the non-OSM-based Geocoding Results
> > with no impact on the non-OSM-based Geocoding results, so long as the
> > aggregated collection of results does not contain the whole or a
> > substantial part of the OSM database. The cloud-based Geocoder is,
> > however, required to credit OpenStreetMap as described in Section 4.3
> > of the ODbL.
>
> Let's say, you're picking 5,000 restaurants, which is clearly a
> insubstantial part of all restaurants in planet file. For 4,000 items,
> you'll get coordinates from the proprietary dataset, for the other 1,000
> items you can pick coordinates from OSM. It won't trigger share alike, it's
> insubstantial and can be stored together.
>
> Isn't that a violation of "Horizontal Map Layers", since it's on the same
> layer?
>
> Confused,
> Lars-Daniel
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible licensed dataset

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

The reference to countries come from the Regional Cuts Guideline (and then
the later Collective Database Guideline), in case that was not clear.
I don't see how roads and houses (do you mean building footprints?) would
be "mixture on the same layer" or why the layer matters since they're
different data types...

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:33 AM Lars-Daniel Weber 
wrote:

> From: "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk" 
> > Lars-Daniel already said that they are kept in separate columns and not
> > de-duplicated. There is no requirement that, in order to function as a
> > Collective Database, data types may not be used together to create a
> > Produced Work. To the contrary, the guidance is that the most axiomatic
> > Produced Work, a global map, may be created from multiple Collective
> > Databases consisting of different data types and/or different countries.
>
> Hmm... but doesn't this violate "Horizontal Layers" Guideline?
>
> Let's say you're creating a map of Western, taking roads from OSM in
> Germany and houses from proprietary data from all other countries, since
> OSM is incomplete here. Isn't this a mixture on the same layer?
>
> I think, there's no difference in this guideline between small and large
> scale.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible licensed dataset

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Cost is a relevant factor in database protection law, which is one of the
>> rights covered by the licence. First, a database is not protected unless
>> there has been "substantial investment" in its making.
>>
>
>
>
> "substantial investment" is not the same as monetary cost. The human time
> that is needed to collect and arrange the data is also an investment.
>
> Of course they are not equivalent, and human time is another type of
investment. However, cost still remains a relevant factor of consideration.


>
>>
>> All that said, I am still of the opinion that it is not necessary to find
>> the exact line here, because the original use Lars-Daniel proposed was one
>> of a collective database so long as the two sets of ZIP properties were
>> kept in separate columns, which he appeared quite comfortable with.
>>
>
>
>
> are kept in separate columns and are not used in combination/both to
> create a produced work?
>
> Lars-Daniel already said that they are kept in separate columns and not
de-duplicated. There is no requirement that, in order to function as a
Collective Database, data types may not be used together to create a
Produced Work. To the contrary, the guidance is that the most axiomatic
Produced Work, a global map, may be created from multiple Collective
Databases consisting of different data types and/or different countries.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible licensed dataset

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

> Extracting than 100 elements (non repeatable) from the databse accounts

> > for substantial.
>

The licence doesn't say this at all.
The ODbL defines substantial as:
“Substantial” – Means substantial in terms of quantity or quality or a
combination of both. The repeated and systematic Extraction or
Re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the Contents may amount to the
Extraction or Re-utilisation of a Substantial part of the Contents.
The interpretation that OSMF has put forward is that it is NOT substantial
if an extraction has:
 -   Less than 100 Features.
 - More that 100 Features only if the extraction is non-systematic and
clearly based on your own qualitative criteria for example an extract of
all the the locations of restaurants you have visited for a personal map to
share with friends or use the locations of a selection of historic
buildings as an adjunct in a book you are writing, we would regard that as
non Substantial. The systematic extraction of all eating places within an
area or at all castles within an area would be considered to be systematic.
 - The features relating to an area of up to 1,000 inhabitants which can be
a small densely populated area such as a European village or can be a large
sparsely-populated area for example a section of the Australian bush with
few Features.

This does NOT mean than if your extraction ticks up to 101 features, it's
definitively substantial (this wouldn't make any sense under copyright law
either). Rather it means that it's out of the scope of what the OSMF has
given its view on.

Cost is a relevant factor in database protection law, which is one of the
rights covered by the licence. First, a database is not protected unless
there has been "substantial investment" in its making. Second, while users
are prohibited from extracting substantial parts of the database without
permission (aka a licence), users are affirmatively allowed by the law to
extract insubstantial parts (and the database owner actually cannot prevent
it). The precise amount that is considered "substantial" is not defined.
Rather "A lawful user of a database which is made available to the public
in whatever manner may not perform acts which conflict with normal
exploitation of the database or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate
interests of the maker of the database." Considerations of cost would be a
factor for a court to consider in determining this.

As for copyright law, I disagree with Tom's statement that "Copyright law
does come into effect much earlier than database protection." Copyright law
typically protects 1) the contents of a database *if* they are individually
copyrightable, a difficult proposition with geodata, and 2) the arrangement
and selection of a database, particularly creative choices. It would appear
entirely possible, especially when we're dealing with a database of facts,
for an extraction to be substantial but copy nothing copyrightable.
Imagine, for example, the *random* extraction of 25% of the contents of a
database.

All that said, I am still of the opinion that it is not necessary to find
the exact line here, because the original use Lars-Daniel proposed was one
of a collective database so long as the two sets of ZIP properties were
kept in separate columns, which he appeared quite comfortable with.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible licensed dataset

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:16 AM Lars-Daniel Weber 
wrote:

> From: "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk" 
> > In my view, if you are keeping the two zip codes in different columns
> > and not removing duplicates, then essentially what you have is one
> > property that is "OSM ZIP" and one property that is "proprietary ZIP",
> > and they are two different properties that are not used to improve each
> > other, so it is a collective database per
> >
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Collective_Database_Guideline_Guideline
>
> Okay, thanks for clarification. Then the specific column is under ODbL and
> the other columns can be proprietary.
> But I need to tell others, not to compare both ZIPs datasets and get "the
> best of both worlds", right?
>
> Exactly


> > (However, I am doubtful that the ZIPs would be considered
> > nonsubstantial, since that definition is not based on how many columns
> > of OSM is used.)
>
> Ah okay, there's the 100 features directive in OSM, which I didn't know
> about.
>
> The 100 features is *one way* (that is relatively easy to understand) but
not the only way for an extraction to be insubstantial. However, that said,
I would be doubtful that, for example, an extraction of all ZIPs in OSM
could be insubstantial. Where the line is has not been conclusively
established.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

> Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of

> > simplified OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL.
>
> Actually, it's like 40% OSM borders (hard borders, like roads, rivers,
> topography and administrative stuff) and 60% own borders, which don't
> appear in OSM. BUt those borders wouldn't make OSM any better, since
> they're specific for the current task.
>
> My view would be the OSM borders are ODbL. Just because it's one shapefile
doesn't mean all of the data in the shapefile has to be under one license.
If the other borders are not border types that are in OSM that you have
traced, ODbL does not implicate them per the Collective Database Guideline.


> > Now, it sounds like you're not tracing very much, so it's possible that
> > you have traced fewer than 100 features in which case your tracing is
> > insubstantial
> >
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
>
> Actually, I've traced more than 100 features, but the "extraction is
> non-systematic and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria" - okay,
> not on my one, but on the one who draw the overlay with the pen.
>
> It's possible that your extraction is insubstantial, though I can't say
definitively. But I don't think that you need a definitive answer on
whether it's insubstantial, since if your usecase is as a filter to select
POIs, then you can do that whether the borders make up a substantial
extract or not, and you are willing to provide attribution anyway, so you
do not need to conclusively avoid ODbL.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible licensed dataset

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

In my view, if you are keeping the two zip codes in different columns and
not removing duplicates, then essentially what you have is one property
that is "OSM ZIP" and one property that is "proprietary ZIP", and they are
two different properties that are not used to improve each other, so it is
a collective database per
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Collective_Database_Guideline_Guideline
(However, I am doubtful that the ZIPs would be considered nonsubstantial,
since that definition is not based on how many columns of OSM is used.)

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 6:09 AM Lars-Daniel Weber 
wrote:

> Dear users,
>
> I'm often intersecting geodata with a license, which is in a
> non-ODbL-compatible license, with OSM data to enrich this data. Normally,
> I'm doing this for internal (private) use only, but I want to publish such
> a dataset now.
>
> For example, I'm getting postal ZIP codes from OSM and add these to other
> POI data. I'm keeping the original ZIP codes from the source and the ZIP
> codes from OSM and I'm not completing the ZIP codes by each other - they
> don't interact, I'm not removing duplicates and they're in two different
> columns. Of course, ZIP codes don't seem to be a substantial part, but the
> data is related by each other, since I've intersected (joined) both
> datasets.
>
> Is the joined result a "Collective Database" or a "Produced Work", since
> it only contains a non-substantial part (only one string column) from OSM?
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Lars-Daniel
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

In my mind, the tile license (CC-BY-SA) sits on top of the database
license, as the license to a produced work by the OSMF. So if what is
extracted is solely what was in the database, then the extraction is not
material that the tile license covered (the tile license cannot actually
change the license of the data, which is ODbL, as that would be
impermissible under ODbL). This is the same principle, that if you use a
CC-BY song in a music video that is licensed as CC-BY-SA, and then someone
comes along and rips the song from the music video, the song is still
CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA.
Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of simplified
OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL.
Now, it sounds like you're not tracing very much, so it's possible that you
have traced fewer than 100 features in which case your tracing is
insubstantial
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 8:08 AM Lars-Daniel Weber 
wrote:

> From: "Simon Poole" 
> > I'm not ruling out the first interpretation either and potentially both
> > licenses would have to apply in full (which isn't possible without
> > conflict).
>
> I would like to clarify once again that I really do want to attribute OSM.
> But it's damn difficult for me to find out under which license my work
> falls.
> I know lots of people, loading OSM tiles in QGIS and draw stuff on it. So
> I'm pretty confused that there aren't any guidelines discussed.
>
> > But if the shape files are simply used for display purposes as a
> > tendency I would find that they are still being used as a produced work
> > as per
> >
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Produced_Work_-_Guideline
> > Which from the ODbL pov requires attribution and a pointer back to the
> > data source, which you can provide without being in conflict with CC
> > BY-SA terms that you would have to adhere to.
>
> No, the shapefile will be used for further geoprocessing: selection of
> POI, which are non-free, but fall into the border I've digitized upon the
> OSM background map.
>
> Would you recommend
> 1. to use another datasource as background map or
> 2. draw all borders on an OSM extract once again?
>
> Since neither the drawing, nor my digitalization uses OSM data, I'm really
> asking myself if it's not a trivial act at all?
> Wouldn't "Drawn on OSM tiles in CC-BY-SA 2.0, based on OSM data in ODbL"
> be enough as attribution?
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Houston, TX, open data policy license compliance

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Ah, apologies, Jan, I was too hasty in my assessment. If you click on the
CC-BY link, you will see that only the "School District" dataset is CC-BY.
If you do inquire, I would first ask if the dataset you are interested in
is in the public domain, as that is possible under US law, and would be
most fitting for the description of open data in
http://www.houstontx.gov/adminpolicies/8-7.html as "freely used, shared and
built-on by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose."
And to Simon's point about third-party rights, while there are no
guarantees, the policy does mention "Exempt Data" as including data to
which there are contractual limitations, so it appears that the city at
least made some effort to exclude third-party data from open data.
-Kathleen

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 2:42 PM Kathleen Lu  wrote:

> Hi Jan,
> Specifically, here's is an example of the Geographic Boundaries page that
> indicates a CC-BY license:
> http://data.houstontx.gov/group/geographic-boundaries
> On the left side, at the bottom of the list of information. I would
> surmise that this applies to all the geographic boundary datasets, but you
> can ask them for clarification.
> Best,
> Kathleen
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 4:43 AM Simon Poole  wrote:
>
>> While the policy is undoutably good, it does not follow that all data
>> published actually conforms to it (for example third party rights in
>> existing data could be an issue).
>>
>> In any case on data.houstontx.gov the licence is specified for 7
>> datasets, so I assume the intent is to do that for all over time (you
>> should ask).
>>
>> The related problem is that you will need to obtain a waiver for CC BY
>> material as CC BY is in many ways more restrictive than the ODbL (see
>> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/).
>>
>> Simon
>> Am 13.08.2019 um 08:24 schrieb JS:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> The city of Houston has published several open data sets at
>> data.houstontx.gov and cohgis-mycity.opendata.arcgis.com/. While the
>> data sets and open data websites do not contain any licensing-related text,
>> there's a general open data policy at
>> http://www.houstontx.gov/adminpolicies/8-7.html.
>>
>> Am I right to assume that this policy, in particular the definition of
>> "open data" at No 6, is sufficiently clear so as to use the data without
>> further permission?
>>
>> Thanks for your opinions!
>>
>> Best,
>> Jan
>> --
>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
>>
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing 
>> listlegal-talk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Houston, TX, open data policy license compliance

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi Jan,
Specifically, here's is an example of the Geographic Boundaries page that
indicates a CC-BY license:
http://data.houstontx.gov/group/geographic-boundaries
On the left side, at the bottom of the list of information. I would surmise
that this applies to all the geographic boundary datasets, but you can ask
them for clarification.
Best,
Kathleen

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 4:43 AM Simon Poole  wrote:

> While the policy is undoutably good, it does not follow that all data
> published actually conforms to it (for example third party rights in
> existing data could be an issue).
>
> In any case on data.houstontx.gov the licence is specified for 7
> datasets, so I assume the intent is to do that for all over time (you
> should ask).
>
> The related problem is that you will need to obtain a waiver for CC BY
> material as CC BY is in many ways more restrictive than the ODbL (see
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/).
>
> Simon
> Am 13.08.2019 um 08:24 schrieb JS:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> The city of Houston has published several open data sets at
> data.houstontx.gov and cohgis-mycity.opendata.arcgis.com/. While the data
> sets and open data websites do not contain any licensing-related text,
> there's a general open data policy at
> http://www.houstontx.gov/adminpolicies/8-7.html.
>
> Am I right to assume that this policy, in particular the definition of
> "open data" at No 6, is sufficiently clear so as to use the data without
> further permission?
>
> Thanks for your opinions!
>
> Best,
> Jan
> --
> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing 
> listlegal-talk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

The produced work guideline goes down the slippery slope of trying to
> define a produced work though the intention of the creator.  This was
> always a highly questionable approach.  Not only because intention in
> general is hard to determine objectively but also because the ODbL does
> not require the creator of a produced work to put any contraints on how
> the produced work is used so the intention of the creator does not have
> any bearing on how users actually use this work.
>
> If a user misuses a produced work, that is the fault of the user (and
perhaps a breach of the license by the user), not the work producer.
I don't this is a slippery slope, but rather a principled decision. But the
guideline is what it is, and I suppose you could lobby the Board to change
it, but I personally would view such a change as unwise.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Agreed, my opinion is that generally a scenery generating program should be
considered a produced work.

It's possible the program reads from a derived database, depending on
whether map features were added, but that *database* could be made
available under ODbL. The program being GPL shouldn't block that
(otherwise, you couldn't have a photo processing program that was GPL, for
example)

-Kathleen

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 7:54 AM  wrote:

> Considering the Produced Work - Guideline: Is the result of Osm2city
> in your opinion a product or a derived database?
>
> If it is a product, then you can choose your own license, but you
> still have comply with the conditions of No. 4.3. ODbL .
>
> If it is a derived database then you have to comply especially with
> the conditions of No. 4.2 and 4.4 ODbL (but not only). Your derived
> database will still be under ODbL.
> If it's a derived database , then it also raises the question of
> whether ODbL (Open Data License) and GPL (Free Software/Open Source
> License) are compatible with each other, No. 4.4 a. iii. ODbL.
>
> Falk
>
> Zitat von merspieler :
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've got a question about licensing.
> >
> > I'm using a program called Osm2city [1] that generates scenery for the
> > flight gear flight simulator(FGFS) [2].
> >
> > To be on the safe side, I've currently released the results under the
> > WTFPL which isn't a big deal for me but FGFS is GPL2 only and it's
> > impossible, to get anything packaged with it, that's not GPL2.
> >
> > So my question: May I release the results under the GPL2 (if needed with
> > dual licensing)?
> >
> > This may affect others as well, as I'm not the only one, who's
> > generating any scenery but I haven't seen any licensing statement for
> > their work.
> > A list of this work is available on our wiki[3].
> >
> > Example results can be downloaded as well from the wiki page[3].
> >
> >
> > [1] https://gitlab.com/fg-radi/osm2city
> > [2] http://www.flightgear.org/
> > [3] http://wiki.flightgear.org/Areas_populated_with_osm2city_scenery
> >
> >
> > regards,
> >
> >
> > merspieler
>
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 6:32 PM merspieler  wrote:

> I'd consider the work a produced work.  I will apply 4.3. ODbL.
>
> Thank you for your help.
>
> newsgr...@pirschkarte.de:
> > Considering the Produced Work - Guideline: Is the result of Osm2city in
> > your opinion a product or a derived database?
> >
> > If it is a product, then you can choose your own license, but you still
> > have comply with the conditions of No. 4.3. ODbL .
> >
> > If it is a derived database then you have to comply especially with the
> > conditions of No. 4.2 and 4.4 ODbL (but not only). Your derived database
> > will still be under ODbL.
> > If it's a derived database , then it also raises the question of whether
> > ODbL (Open Data License) and GPL (Free Software/Open Source License) are
> > compatible with each other, No. 4.4 a. iii. ODbL.
> >
> > Falk
> >
> > Zitat von merspieler :
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I've got a question about licensing.
> >>
> >> I'm using a program called Osm2city [1] that generates scenery for the
> >> flight gear flight simulator(FGFS) [2].
> >>
> >> To be on the safe side, I've currently released the results under the
> >> WTFPL which isn't a big deal for me but FGFS is GPL2 only and it's
> >> impossible, to get anything packaged with it, that's not GPL2.
> >>
> >> So my question: May I release the results under the GPL2 (if needed with
> >> dual licensing)?
> >>
> >> This may affect others as well, as I'm not the only one, who's
> >> generating any scenery but I haven't seen any licensing statement for
> >> their work.
> >> A list of this work is available on our wiki[3].
> >>
> >> Example results can be downloaded as well from the wiki page[3].
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://gitlab.com/fg-radi/osm2city
> >> [2] http://www.flightgear.org/
> >> [3] http://wiki.flightgear.org/Areas_populated_with_osm2city_scenery
> >>
> >>
> >> regards,
> >>
> >>
> >> merspieler
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > legal-talk mailing list
> > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copy information from official business website (WAS: Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data)

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

There is fairly limited case law on what constitutes "substantial
investment" under the database law. Here is an article discussing a couple
of cases where significant investment was rejected, and one where it was
accepted (sadly all in the context of sports, not geodata) -
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ddc63c34-a49f-4876-86d5-aaec83d65ed1
Best,
Kathleen



On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 1:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 11. Jul 2019, at 20:23, Kathleen Lu  wrote:
> >
> > "Substantial investment" may not be a black and white standard, but it
> is a meaningful one. I hypothesize that Tesco would have difficulty proving
> "a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or
> presentation of the contents." (Note that investment in creating/setting
> the hours does not count.)
>
>
> It may have come along as sarcasm the way I have written it, but the idea
> is actually appealing: significant investment wrt the database could
> eventually be dismissed for those databases, which are more or less the
> result of some related operation/work, a byproduct, rather than being set
> up to gather and analyze data without being required in the operation. The
> investment would be the operation, while the db as a byproduct would be
> almost “free”. The OpenStreetMap database would still be protected under
> perspective, but a lot of databases would not be protected automatically
> any more.
>
> The maps the GIS department releases are definitely requiring a
> significant investment, but the lists of streets a municipality releases
> would probably not be covered by the sui generis rule because there is not
> much specific investment behind such a compilation, it is a byproduct of
> their operation as a public administration. Or the post code lists of the
> postal service: the effort is not specifically put into the db, they only
> have to print what they already know from planning and organizing the
> postal service.
>
> Is there already case law with examples where a claimed significant
> investment has been rejected? I would suspect that almost any database
> could be seen as having required a lot of investment for the creation and
> updates, or not, according to how you put it.
>
> From a practical point of view I agree I would not be worried about
> copying opening hours (or addresses, or phone numbers) from a retail
> company’s website, e.g. Tesco. It’s more likely they would pay you for this
> than sue you.
>
> Cheers Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copy information from official business website (WAS: Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data)

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

I understand the inclination to sarcasm, but your second statement is
simply not a logical one. A state's records of it's plans to build and
maintain roads aren't a map, and a typical map has many things on it other
than just roads. The plans by themselves may not be a protected database
under EU law, but governments discuss quite publicly the costs and efforts
of their GIS departments. "Substantial investment" may not be a black and
white standard, but it is a meaningful one. I hypothesize that Tesco would
have difficulty proving "a substantial investment in either the obtaining,
verification or presentation of the contents." (Note that investment in
creating/setting the hours does not count.)
Best,
Kathleen


On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 12:34 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 10. Jul 2019, at 18:35, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > I do not think that a retail store chain could successfully argue that
> it makes a "substantial investment" in maintaining a list of its own
> stores' hours. Since the store sets the hours, the effort of obtaining,
> verification, and/or presentation should be fairly trivial.
>
>
> Along the same reasoning you could say: “I do not think that a state makes
> a substantial investment in mapping the roads they maintain. Since the
> state plans, builds and maintains the roads it should be fairly trivial for
> them to make a map.”
>
> Cheers, Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copy information from official business website (WAS: Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data)

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

For a single store I believe the answer is yes, since you're
> extracting un-copyrightable facts. But if there are a significant
> number of stores (as in this case), then the information becomes part
> of a database, which is by default protected by database rights (at
> least in the EU). You then can't use a significant amount of the
> information without an appropriate licence. Moreover, you can't safely
> take details from a single store from a chain's website, as there's a
> danger that lots of other mappers might do that independently for
> different stores, resulting in an infringement for OSM as a whole.
>
>
Mateusz posted this to the other thread (Proposal for a revision of
JA:Available Data) which seemed to have ended up on the same topic.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009#d1e757-20-1
says of the database right

"Member States shall provide for a right for the maker of a database which
shows that there
has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in
either the obtaining,
verification or presentation of the contents to prevent extraction and/or
re-utilization of the
whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or
quantitatively, of the contents
of that database."

I do not think that a retail store chain could successfully argue that it
makes a "substantial investment" in maintaining a list of its own stores'
hours. Since the store sets the hours, the effort of obtaining,
verification, and/or presentation should be fairly trivial. (I would also
question the sanity of any store chain making such a claim, since the whole
point of making a list of store hours is available online is to inform
shoppers, and that information being in OSM would only help inform more
shoppers.)

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copy information from official business website (WAS: Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data)

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Re the "misleading" license - I do not think that anyone at Tesco who wrote
that to cover the entire website was thinking of how it would specifically
apply to the hours of shops, as opposed to, for example, a phishing site
that attempted to emulate the Tesco site.
The different with the Sacramento open data portal is that clearly they
intended to apply CC-BY to the data. Now, that said, I doubt that the
Sacramento data administrators knew that CC-BY and ODbL are not fully
compatible. This is a case where one might write in and obtain a waiver.


On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:04 AM tomoya muramoto 
wrote:

> I understand that dominant opinion is the fact data published on the
> official website is available to OSM.
> It's good for the OSM community to be clear about available data.
>
> I would like to ask again about similar cases that I do not understand
> enough.
>
> Assume that TESCO has published the shop data under the CC BY license.
> Then can I use that data for OSM?
> I think that data is not available because CC BY license is incompatible
> with ODbL as OSMF has stated.
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/
>
> However, current data published by TESCO under the "misleading" terms is
> considered as available.
>
> It seems unreasonable for me that open data is not available and
> "misleading" terms data is available.
>
> And another case.
> Many municipalities have published open data under CC BY license. For
> example, Sacramento County has published the location data of the drainage
> pumps under CC BY license.
>
> https://data-sacramentocounty.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/37cc6535316e43dbab8e1942ef1d7313_3
> Can I use this data for OSM without additional permission?
> I think that it is not available because it is incompatible with ODbL.
> However, drainage pumps are managed by Sacramento County, and their names
> and locations are fact data, so they can be considered as available. Which
> is correct?
>
> After this discussion I would like to make an OSM wiki page as an
> agreement by the OSM global community.
> wiki/Available_Data is fine for it?
>
> Thanks.
>
> muramoto
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to get geolocation without problem into Wikidata

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

I think what's key for each individual Wikidata editor to know is that it's
possible for even an individual to engage in a "systematic attempt to
aggregate" per the Geocoding Guidelines, which is not allowed without
triggering sharealike. Copying single lat/longs is permitted without
sharealike.

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 5:47 PM Shu Higashi  wrote:

> I wanted to tell Wikidata community in Japan how to get geolocation
> from OSM without problem(trigger share-alike).
> It will be a kind of guideline for them and each Wikidata editor may
> do so individually.
>
> Shu
>
> 2019-05-14 8:08 GMT+09:00, Martin Koppenhoefer :
> >
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 14. May 2019, at 00:14, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> If by "Each wikidata people repeat this operation manually." you mean
> that
> >> each individual Wikipedia editor makes their own decision about whether
> to
> >> copy the lat/long, and it is not a coordinated or automated effort (not
> a
> >> "systematic attempt to aggregate" per the Geocoding Guidelines), then it
> >> is allowed.
> >
> >
> > how could Wikidata not be considered a coordinated effort? I mean he is
> > asking here, people are making plans how to proceed, how can this be „not
> > coordinated“? Isn’t a plan to operate „individually“ already a kind of
> > coordination (purposefully crafted to circumvent the licensing
> provisions)?
> >
> > Cheers, Martin
> > ___
> > legal-talk mailing list
> > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> >
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to get geolocation without problem into Wikidata

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi,

If by "Each wikidata people repeat this operation manually." you mean that
each individual Wikipedia editor makes their own decision about whether to
copy the lat/long, and it is not a coordinated or automated effort (not a
"systematic attempt to aggregate" per the Geocoding Guidelines), then it is
allowed.

(The Substantial Guideline concerns the same underlying principle, but only
gives as an example a different bright line rule, so I do not think it is
useful guidance in your case. If an activity is allowed under the Geocoding
Guideline, it does not matter if the Substantial Guideline would have
already permitted it (and vice versa).)

Best,
Kathleen

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 7:35 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> provided you do it for a substantial part of OpenStreetMap data, from my
> understanding you would trigger ODbL, i.e. you would be creating a
> derivative database.
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
>
> Cheers, Martin
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Usage of OSM URLs in combination with proprietary set of URLs

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hello Gian and Sandro,
IMO, from an ODbL it is definitely okay or you to extract URLs and crawl
them, and publish the crawled data (though you'd need to attribute OSM for
the URLs).
But if you are combining OSM URLs with proprietary URLs, and then
publishing both, then there's the question of whether you are making a
derivative database that would mandate sharing back your proprietary URLs
(making them available under a compatible license to be added into OSM).
Your use case is not really a map one, so it's a rather odd scenario. I
think the safest course would be to make the rest of the URLs available
under a compatible license (e.g., ODbL).
Best,
Kathleen


On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 6:27 AM Brunner Gian  wrote:

> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
>
>
> Our names are Gian Brunner and Sandro Santoro, we are Students in Systems
> Engineering at NTB Buchs (Switzerland).
>
> At the moment we are working on our Bachelor thesis and have a request
> about using OSM data.
>
>
>
> Our Case: We would like to extract URLs from OSM data, combine them with
> other URLs from a proprietary source, download and crawl sites from both
> groups of URLs, extract menu information and publish it together with the
> URLs (In the Future we might provide this service commercially).
>
> Is it legal to use OSM data for this purpose?
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance and best Regards,
>
> Gian Brunner & Sandro Santoro
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk