[OSM-legal-talk] Licensing of works containing geocodes pinpointed on OSM data
Greetings, My company is currently considering using OSM maps for pinpointing (geocoding) our own data, and then commercially selling a) printed maps produced with these pinpoints, and b) digital feeds incorporating these geocodes. These pinpoints would form a small part of a large database of otherwise fully copyrighted data. I've read through the license and this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases#Use_Cases_regarding_the_extraction_of_data_from_OSM_for_various_purposes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases#Map_composite_from_OSM_and_commercial_data My understanding is that data created by pinpointing on OSM maps is also covered by ODBL, this use most likely qualifies as Substantial, and the resulting works will be made Public. Hence: a) The printed maps would be Produced Works. Any work containing them has to be tagged with an ODBL notice, and we'd have to provide the OSM-derived geocodes used on each map -- but nothing else? -- on request. b) The digital feeds would be Derivative Databases and need to be tagged as containing ODBL data. However, does the inclusion of some OSM-derived geocodes mean that the *entire thing* is now licensed under ODBL, and once sold could be legally redistributed in entirety by the customer? Or can we constrain the ODBL data to those geocodes alone? Any advice would be appreciated, as I still have a faint flicker of hope that we can get this past the corporate legal team and possibly even contribute back to OSM! Cheers, -jani ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing of works containing geocodes pinpointed on OSM data
Jani Patokallio wrote: Any advice would be appreciated, as I still have a faint flicker of hope that we can get this past the corporate legal team and possibly even contribute back to OSM! On this specific issue: I'd suggest you consider whether your combination of OSM-derived data and other data is a Derivative Database (has to be shared) or a Collective Database (doesn't have to be shared). As a rough guideilne, we say that it's Derivative if you've adapted the two datasets to work with each other, Collective if you haven't. On the broader issue: I'd be interested to see a discussion as to how we should define 'Substantial', and 'Collective' vs 'Derivative', for geocoding (in terms of principles). I think it's reasonably uncontroversial to say that geocoding an unsystematic set of self-collected points is a less substantial use of OSM data than distributing the roads as part of a connected dataset. But I've not got much further in my thinking than that. I may go and hunt for some relevant case law (*shudders at thought of William Hill vs BHB*)... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Licensing-of-works-containing-geocodes-pinpointed-on-OSM-data-tp5730883p5730991.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] displaying results of processed OSM data
I think i know what you are talking about and ide love more information. Not only is this topic something i have thought to myself but i also have more ideas on this subject as you probibly do too. On Oct 16, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, what I'm offering here is my personal interpretation and not legal advice. I hope others will chime in. On 16.10.2012 19:04, David Prime wrote: I'm in the process of starting a service that uses, amongst other sources, OSM data to compute various travel time metrics from a location. It sounds as if your time travel metrics thereby become a database that is derived from OpenStreetMap data. You then publicly use that data by displaying it to someone. If that is correct then the license requires, in addition to proper attribution, that you, if requested by anyone who is a recipient of your public use, make the full database of time travel metrics available to them unter the terms of ODBL 1.0. (*) You do not have to make available the other sources, only the derived database. If you have a long processing chain where you create several interim databases, like (OSM+other sources) = interim DB 1 interim DB 1 = interim DB 2 interim DB 2 = interim DB 3 interim DB 3 = public use then the make available requirement applies to the last in the chain of interim databases, in this case, interim DB 3. To avoid confusion: 1. You do not have to make your data available proactively; you can wait until someone asks you for it. Depending on your audience, of course, making it available proactively could be easier. 2. You do not have to make your data available to *everyone* - just those who are the recipients of your public use. So if you were to e.g. sell your analyses to an elite circle of clients, only those would have the right to request the data. (With the data being under ODbL, of course, they could then pass it on to others.) Bye Frederik (*) The license also has alternatives to making the data available; you could also make the process available that leads to the data. But I assume this is not an interesting option for you. -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing of works containing geocodes pinpointed on OSM data (Richard Fairhurst)
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:49 AM, legal-talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net On this specific issue: I'd suggest you consider whether your combination of OSM-derived data and other data is a Derivative Database (has to be shared) or a Collective Database (doesn't have to be shared). As a rough guideilne, we say that it's Derivative if you've adapted the two datasets to work with each other, Collective if you haven't. Thank you for the response. For the feed, basically we'd be looking at a list of points of interest in this format: poi PROPRIETARY DATA PROPRIETARY DATA PROPRIETARY DATA location latOSM/lat longOSM/long /location /poi Would this be adapted or not? If yes, what if we store the geocodes in a separate file and cross-reference the two, like this? Closed: poi PROPRIETARY DATA PROPRIETARY DATA PROPRIETARY DATA location1/location /poi ODBL: geocodes location id=1 latOSM/lat longOSM/long /location /geocodes On the broader issue: I'd be interested to see a discussion as to how we should define 'Substantial', and 'Collective' vs 'Derivative', for geocoding (in terms of principles). I think it's reasonably uncontroversial to say that geocoding an unsystematic set of self-collected points is a less substantial use of OSM data than distributing the roads as part of a connected dataset. But I've not got much further in my thinking than that. I may go and hunt for some relevant case law (*shudders at thought of William Hill vs BHB*)... Yes, this would be very interesting for us as well. Cheers, -jani ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
