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
> I was aware of this and just wanted to get a consensus by the data
creators: the users.
This is an admirable impulse, but it is worth emphasizing that those of us
who participate on OSM listservs are a small and unrepresentative fraction
of the project's 5.9 million registered users. Lists like
> if the way you use the data is more in a database-like fashion or more in
the form of a finished product ready for human consumption
This raises more questions, doesn't it? I think everyone agrees that a map
contained by a PNG file is a produced work. But such a file is merely a
collection of
I'll defer to others on the finer points of how downstream or intermediate
ML products fit into the licensing picture, but this did catch my eye:
> If you need an example: Take a translator for geographic names trained
> using OSM data. This translator in practical use will spit out names
> or
James, I think your list of "definitely OK" sources is a good one.
The rest of your list does a good job of reflecting how complex geodata
rights can be. In most cases, OSM elects to use a conservative
interpretation of the situation in order to avoid any possible danger to
the project.
I will
> This is a desirable goal but don't forget there is another side to
> that - if i as an entrepreneur consider contributing to the OSM
> database it could be important for me that my contributions cannot be
> used by the competition against my interests. Share-alike might play a
> significant
Tobias, the best option for ensuring the data is usable by OSM is an
explicit statement of permission for the OpenStreetMap project to
incorporate and use the data under the project's terms. This is generally
considered preferable to a dataset that is ODbL-licensed without such a
statement.
I think this conversation is suffering from a few confusions.
First, the EU Database Right and copyright are related but distinct. One or
both can apply to a work. From the ODbL: "Database Rights can apply even
when there is no copyright over the Database." German copyright's notion of
"fading"
misunderstanding there, CC by is not going to be an
>> option as long as we have a licence with a share-alike component. The
>> only thing that we are discussing for now is attribution only input
>> licences.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> > if it were compatibl
> > That said, the data they have released isn't raw data, it's only
> > imagery + raster basemaps, not sure if that makes a difference.
> >
> >> It would therefore probably be safer if you could get
> >> an explicit statement that they're happy for the data to be
Andrew, I am not a member of the LWG, but insofar as:
- questions regarding CC-BY 3.0's compatibility with ODbL hinge on the
impracticality of downstream compliance with the license's attribution
requirements in a geo context
- the rightsholder has made it clear that they understand downstream
longs in OSM: the iD editor, paired with
a microtasking tool and open imagery, would be a great way to put those
points in their correct locations.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/13/2015 06:12 PM, Tom Lee wrote:
> >
nce Simon introduced. If I'm not mistaken,
the LWG and larger community have acknowledged this to be an open issue for
some time.
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Tom Lee <t...@mapbox.com> wrote:
> &
> I think I agree with everything but this - I still don’t think it’s good
enough. Of course, I also want it to be better - but that cogent argument
thing you mentioned is missing either way.
I and many others have been investing considerable energy into the
OpenAddresses project because of
people would be glad to dive into, if OSM was a better home for
geocoding.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote:
> Tom
>
> Isn’t the problem one of imports? The debate on importing 200M points
> would be entertaining.
>
> Steve
>
> On
Allow me to gently suggest that we try to keep this thread grounded in
concrete concerns. I am always up for some flag-waving about sharealike
versus PD, but I think it would be best housed in a new thread or the talk
list (it's a general enough principle that the larger community deserves to
dback yet?
>
> Simon
>
>
> Am 14.07.2015 um 16:22 schrieb Tom Lee:
>
> I'll add that I've been in touch with CC's US affiliate and they've
> expressed interest in resolving the compatibility question (either with
> formal guidance that applies to 4.0 or in preparation for the next
> In a way I would actually support [geocoding results being considered
non-substantive extracts] if geo-coding was a clearly and tightly defined
process, which, as I've pointed out earlier, it isn't.
Are you referring to this thread, Simon, or a larger conversation
elsewhere? If the latter, I'd
>
> I mean, nobody cares about a single on-the-fly geocoding result (this
> easily falls under the "substantial" guideline) but if you repeatedly
> query an ODbL database with the aim of retrieving from it, say, a
> million lat-lon pairs to store in your own database, then how in the
> world could
>
> why wouldn't you want to provide OSM with a list of addresses that you
> tried to geo-code (successfully and non-successfully)
To use an extreme but hopefully illustrative example, consider the queries
used to create the thematic map on this page:
gt; wrote:
>
>
> Am 23.09.2015 um 15:32 schrieb Tom Lee:
>
> why wouldn't you want to provide OSM with a list of addresses that you
>> tried to geo-code (successfully and non-successfully)
>
>
> To use an extreme but hopefully illustrative example, consider the qu
i...@poole.ch> wrote:
>
>
> Am 23.09.2015 um 19:16 schrieb Tom Lee:
> > I'm not sure what basis there is for thinking a service provider will
> > necessarily reuse clients' data. Maybe!
> Not "maybe" but dead certain, see for example geocoder.ca and I hope yo
Thanks, Steve, for pushing this in a productive direction; and apologies to
you, Simon for letting my frustration through.
I should emphasize: I don't think that I'm suggesting a license change at
all, and I don't mean to suggest that sharealike is broadly impractical.
I'm suggesting that a
This strikes me as a fair and useful framework. I'll take a crack at it,
with geocodes-as-produced-works in mind:
SPIRIT: Surely it's possible to avoid creating a sharealike backdoor by
clarifying that geocodes become substantial only when combined to reverse
engineer the map.
HARM: The evidence
Martin,
Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal
point of view, how it should be interpreted?
Correct--it's currently unclear how the license applies to many important
use cases. Partly this is because it's untested: OSM is the only important
user of ODbL (with
> Turning this around, when do you think share-alike should apply in a geocoding
context?
I think there are two goals that a successful geocoding guidance should
meet:
1. Enable greater use of OSM data for geocoding, including scenarios in
which sharealike provisions must not be applied (e.g.
Frederik's perspective on question 4 seems correct to me. Speaking
imprecisely (by necessity, given national differences on these questions),
IP rights attach to the creative form that expressions of fact take; and,
in the EU, the collective form of those facts when arranged into a
database. The
If it would be useful, I'd be happy to try to get in touch with the GADM
people. Sending emails like that is a substantial part of my workday :-) I
would just need clarity around what, specifically, we'd like to ask for
this time.
Simone, the factual nature of geodata and its effect on copyright
Well, I'll withdraw the suggestion; I wasn't party to those conversations
and I'm finding them to be essentially unsearchable due to the license
transition conversations around CC-BY-SA.
I will note that CC itself soft-pedaled the significance of the attribution
change in 4:
Having spent a lot of time doing work like this at the Sunlight Foundation,
I will suggest keeping things as simple as they can be, as Simon suggests.
Efforts like opendatacommons.org are admirable, but for an overwhelmed or
disengaged government, they still offer more detail than is desirable.
Which nicely illustrates that should the OSM database not
be found to be worthy of sui generis database protection (a distinct
possibility), the ODbL would clearly be enforceable based on contract law.
Of course you're right that contracts can be used to create obligations
outside of copyright
As the name of this list says it is legal talk (aka yapping without
consequence)
... not get-help-from-the-OSMF
I'm sorry to see this practice discouraged. The archive description[1] says
this is the list for discussion of all legal matters relating to
Openstreetmap, including licensing and
Apologies for the delay in my response.
Any sucess/feedback?
Not from their general inquiry address; I've put another line in via a
shared contact.
I've been meaning to ask if you could clarify a bit further, and/or correct
my understanding of the situation.
You wrote:
The actual
My, very conservative, reading of CC-BY 4.0 would indicate that it has
additional issues over just the attribution problem for databases.
CC-BY 4.0 contains the following (4.b):
if You include all or a substantial portion of the database contents in
a database in which You have Sui Generis
Tom,
Licenses like CC and ODbL can only apply to copyrighted material, which
must generally be a specific creative expression in a fixed medium. You
can't copyright facts, nor opinions.
Assuming you don't have some crazy natural language processing workflow in
mind, you'll only be using the
35 matches
Mail list logo