[OSM-legal-talk] apple petition
Hi all, We need only 6 more signatures for the apple petition : http://www.change.org/petitions/apple-inc-uphold-the-terms-of-cc-by-sa-2-0-license please sign and share! If you ask yourself what use it is, the point is that we can try and put public pressure onto apple. mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 Free Software Foundation Europe Fellow http://fsfe.org/support/?h4ck3rm1k3 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
I have a question concerning the ability of someone creating produced works from an ODbL-licensed database to license that produced work for use by others. Strictly speaking it's a question about the ODbL, rather that OSM, but since it will have a significant effect on OSM users, I thought I would try asking here. For reference, the ODbL license text can be found at http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ I understand that if someone creates and then publicly uses a produced work from an ODbL-licensed database then they are required to add some text to the produced work saying that it came from such a database (ODbL 4.3), ensure that any derivative database created along the way are under a suitable license (ODbL 4.4) and also meet the requirements for providing the final database or algorithm used to produce it (ODbL 4.6). That's all fine. My question is: how can that produced work then be licensed to others? Are there any restrictions placed on what license someone could offer the produced work under? Do they have to ensure that other users and creators of derivative works maintain the attribution back to the original ODbL database? Or could they offer the work under something like the CC0 license? Do they have to share-alike the produced work? Or can they keep it all rights reserved? This would seem to be quite an important question for OSM data users who are producing map tiles, and I can't see anything to specifically address this in the ODbL itself. Except perhaps in clause 4.3, which could be taken as a viral attribution requirement on any re-uses of the produced work. However, 4.3 only refers to the produced work itself, and not any derivative works arising from it. My understanding is that you don't have to share-alike produced works and can keep them all rights reserved if you want (though the other requirements listed above may mean that others could replicate your work quite easily, so it may not be that effective to do so). I also don't think there's anything to stop people CC0-ing produced works, but I'm not as confident on this point. So I'd appreciate any clarification and/or reasoning that anyone can give. Many thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi, My understanding (emphases are mine): “*Contents*” – The contents of this Database, which includes the information, independent works, or other material collected into the Database. For example, the contents of the Database could be factual data or works such as *images*, audiovisual material, text, or sounds. ... “*Produced Work*” – a work (such as an *image*, audiovisual material, text, or sounds) resulting from using the *whole or a Substantial part of the Contents* (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database. ... 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that *Content *was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, *and that it is available under this License*. ... 4.8 Licensing of others. You may not sublicense the Database. Each time You communicate the Database, *the whole or Substantial part of the Contents*, or any Derivative Database to anyone else in any way, *the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Database on the same terms and conditions as this License*. *You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License*, but You may enforce any rights that You have over a Derivative Database. You are solely responsible for any modifications of a Derivative Database made by You or another Person at Your direction. *You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License*. If I read these articles correctly, then the Produced Work obtained from ODbL-licensed Database must be licensed under the ODbL license (once you publicly use the Produced Work). But it's not your responsibility to enforce the license on 3rd parties that use your Produced Work. Igor On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question concerning the ability of someone creating produced works from an ODbL-licensed database to license that produced work for use by others. Strictly speaking it's a question about the ODbL, rather that OSM, but since it will have a significant effect on OSM users, I thought I would try asking here. For reference, the ODbL license text can be found at http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ I understand that if someone creates and then publicly uses a produced work from an ODbL-licensed database then they are required to add some text to the produced work saying that it came from such a database (ODbL 4.3), ensure that any derivative database created along the way are under a suitable license (ODbL 4.4) and also meet the requirements for providing the final database or algorithm used to produce it (ODbL 4.6). That's all fine. My question is: how can that produced work then be licensed to others? Are there any restrictions placed on what license someone could offer the produced work under? Do they have to ensure that other users and creators of derivative works maintain the attribution back to the original ODbL database? Or could they offer the work under something like the CC0 license? Do they have to share-alike the produced work? Or can they keep it all rights reserved? This would seem to be quite an important question for OSM data users who are producing map tiles, and I can't see anything to specifically address this in the ODbL itself. Except perhaps in clause 4.3, which could be taken as a viral attribution requirement on any re-uses of the produced work. However, 4.3 only refers to the produced work itself, and not any derivative works arising from it. My understanding is that you don't have to share-alike produced works and can keep them all rights reserved if you want (though the other requirements listed above may mean that others could replicate your work quite easily, so it may not be that effective to do so). I also don't think there's anything to stop people CC0-ing produced works, but I'm not as confident on this point. So I'd appreciate any clarification and/or reasoning that anyone can give. Many thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ 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] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Igor Brejc wrote: 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that *Content* was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, *and that it is available under this License*. The it in this sentence refers to Content (i.e. the extract from the ODbL-licensed Database) rather than the Produced Work as a whole. Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence. Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this implies a downstream attribution requirement too (reasonably calculated to make any Person... exposed to the Produced Work) - besides, in practice, why wouldn't you want to? - but I think Robert disagrees with me on this. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Licenses-for-Produced-Works-under-ODbL-tp5732278p5732291.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] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence. Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this implies a downstream attribution requirement too (reasonably calculated to make any Person... exposed to the Produced Work) - besides, in practice, why wouldn't you want to? - but I think Robert disagrees with me on this. OK, how about this scenario: 1. I download the OSM extract from Geofabrik, Cloudmade or some XAPI server. 2. I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished, closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM attribution text.. 3. I publish the PDF map on sites like http://www.istockphoto.com claiming full copyright and sell it as royalty-free vector graphics. Questions: 1. Is this possible? 2. What are my obligations in terms of ODbL license? What (if anything) do I have to provide, publish etc.? 3. Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? 4. Can the buyer of such a map then password-protect his own resulting work (which includes that map)? Thanks, Igor ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
2012/10/22 Igor Brejc igor.br...@gmail.com: Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? there are 2 ways to put graphics into a PDF: those with vectors embedded and those with a raster inside. The first is to treat like a SVG and the second like a PNG (always asuming you didn't password protect the PDF). cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 22 October 2012 10:44, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence. Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this implies a downstream attribution requirement too (reasonably calculated to make any Person... exposed to the Produced Work) - besides, in practice, why wouldn't you want to? - but I think Robert disagrees with me on this. I can certainly think of cases where you might want to release produced works on a more liberal license -- for instance creating public domain map tiles. However, my interest in this is actually related to determining whether potential source data under certain licenses can be incorporated into an ODbL database. If the source license requires a strict viral attribution, then I think the answer has to be no, since the produced work attribution from ODbL need only point to the ODbL database, not to the source data (even if the data from the particular source dominates what's in the produced work). If the license requires only some sort of attribution chain back to the source, then it may or may not be ok, depending on whether attribution must be maintained in derivatives of produced works. As to whether ODbL requires attribution in derivatives of produced works, I'm not entirely sure. Richard's interpretation above is certainly not unreasonable. However, if the authors of the ODbL had intended there to be viral attribution on produced works, I'm surprised they didn't make it more explicit. I was also wanting to check if there were any other relevant clauses I'd missed. So if anyone else has any thoughts, please do jump in... Thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi, On 10/22/12 12:07, Igor Brejc wrote: 2. I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished, closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM attribution text. 1. Is this possible? Yes (assuming that the PDF is not a database). 2. What are my obligations in terms of ODbL license? What (if anything) do I have to provide, publish etc.? Recipients of the PDF, i.e. anyone who views iStockPhoto, would have the right to ask you to hand over the database on which the map is based. You would then have the option of saying it's plain OSM, simply download it from X, or actually give them the data. If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. 3. Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? I don't think so. 4. Can the buyer of such a map then password-protect his own resulting work (which includes that map)? Yes. You will have sold him the work under the condition that he continues to attribute OSM, but other than that he has no obligations (unless you put some in). If you sell the work with an OSM attribution but without the condition to perpetuate that attribution, you may be in breach of ODbL or you may not; this depends on how you interpret the suitably calculated to make anyone ... aware clause. Bye Frederik -- 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi, Thanks for your clarifications, everybody. I was under the (looks like wrong) impression the produced work must also be available under the ODbL license. One issue still bugs me though: If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. What does pre-processed or augmented data really mean? OSM data has to be preprocessed to get to the form suitable for rendering. Some examples of preprocessing: 1. Importing it into PostGIS and flattening the geometries (like Mapnik does it). 2. Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a certain map scale. 3. Finding suitable label placements. 4. Extracting topology from the data (like multipolygon processing, merging of polygons, road segments etc.). 5. Running other complex algorithms on the OSM data. This preprocessing can be done on-the fly or (in case of Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step. Igor On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 10/22/12 12:07, Igor Brejc wrote: 2. I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished, closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM attribution text. 1. Is this possible? Yes (assuming that the PDF is not a database). 2. What are my obligations in terms of ODbL license? What (if anything) do I have to provide, publish etc.? Recipients of the PDF, i.e. anyone who views iStockPhoto, would have the right to ask you to hand over the database on which the map is based. You would then have the option of saying it's plain OSM, simply download it from X, or actually give them the data. If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. 3. Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? I don't think so. 4. Can the buyer of such a map then password-protect his own resulting work (which includes that map)? Yes. You will have sold him the work under the condition that he continues to attribute OSM, but other than that he has no obligations (unless you put some in). If you sell the work with an OSM attribution but without the condition to perpetuate that attribution, you may be in breach of ODbL or you may not; this depends on how you interpret the suitably calculated to make anyone ... aware clause. Bye Frederik -- 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-talkhttp://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] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 22/10/12 16:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2012/10/22 Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net: You have an obligation to make your derivative database available, if you made one. or describe the details and release the code, how you did it, in this case you don't have to release the data. Oops, yes, I over-simplified. But you don't have to describe the details AND release the code, you can do either/or. Unless, and I'm assuming you don't intend this, it was accurate enough to be used as data - for example, if you labelled the lat/long of the bounding box accurately and included high enough resolution vector data. I think you won't have to judge on how high the resolution would have to be, neither must the image be georeferenced: with any translation/modification/alteration a database would still remain a derivative database under the ODbL. Frederik wrote some time ago he believes it might depend on the intent with which you use the work. According to this you might probably use the same work as work and as database, and according to your use, different terms would apply. What is important here is that the recipient of the work gets notice of the obligations in case he would reuse the work as a database. So actually the license with which you release your produced work is not comparable to having the full copyright. I'm not quite sure what you mean by full copyright, copyright is a right which you get from creating something (at least in English law) and it definitely applies to maps. I suppose you mean the case where you're the sole original author and aren't bound by the license conditions of some database you used. Anyway, the ODbL is explicit that an image is an example of a produced work, so for anyone creating them, their responsibility is clear: include the notice required for produced works. It's also explicit that a produced work is not a derivative database (4.5b), so it follows that a map image does not have to be licensed using ODbL. So, the hypothetical person wishing to publish on a stock art website only has to decide whether they wish to impose ODbL or some other restriction on their work, or not. Not imposing any restrictions on an image is clearly allowed. (In which case a database derived from the image would not be bound by ODbL.) What's muddy is whether a vector image is, or might in some circumstances be, a database. In the absence of a clear definition, my guess is that it depends how much usable geodata is in there. That's surely more measurable than intent. So my answer to the question about can I publish an OSM-derived map as SVG is yes, but make sure no OSM XML tags get carried over into the SVG XML, then there will be no doubt that it's a produced work not a derivative database. At least this is what I hope ;-) . I am not sure if legally there is maybe the requirement for an explicit restriction to not re-engineer / re-construct the database from produced works in order to prohibit it, in this case this would be a loophole. I think it's clear that creating a new database from a produced work (that isn't a database) is not prohibited by ODbL. But I don't think it's really worth worrying about; reverse engineering an image, or an SVG file that doesn't include the original lat/lons would result in such an inaccurate database that I can't imagine anyone would want it. You only have to look at what trouble Apple have been getting into with their various not-quite-matching datasets. (Aside: I went to SotM Scotland this weekend, and Apple Maps advised me to abandon my car on Waverley Bridge and continue by foot into Princes St Gardens, as that is where Apple believes Edinburgh is located for the purposes of driving directions!) J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi, On 22.10.2012 18:45, Igor Brejc wrote: What does pre-processed or augmented data really mean? OSM data has to be preprocessed to get to the form suitable for rendering. Some examples of preprocessing: 1. Importing it into PostGIS and flattening the geometries (like Mapnik does it). osm2pgsql does that, not Mapnik, and ODbL gives you the option of specifying the algorithm that produces the data from the source instead of handing out the data itself. So in this case, while the osm2pgsql database is clearly a derived database that falls under ODbL, when someone asks you for the data you can say: Get it from OSM, run it through osm2pgsql with the following options, and you're done. 2. Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a certain map scale. Same process - either you share the generalized data or you share the algorithm that produces it. If, for example, you were to import with ImpOSM which does generalisations when importing, that's all you'd have to say. 3. Finding suitable label placements. 4. Extracting topology from the data (like multipolygon processing, merging of polygons, road segments etc.). 5. Running other complex algorithms on the OSM data. This preprocessing can be done on-the fly or (in case of Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step. The boundary between what is done as a separate step, leading to a derived database, and what is done on the fly as part of the rendering process may sometimes be muddy but I guess in these situations they are pretty clear. Another interesting question is how easy the algorithm you specify must be. It is clear that the algorithm cannot include buy some Navteq data and then do this, or buy ArcGIS and then do that - but what if the algorithm includes run this code, it will take 1000 days, or make sure your machine has at least 1 TB of RAM, then continue as follows Bye Frederik -- 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 11:53 AM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL Another interesting question is how easy the algorithm you specify must be. It is clear that the algorithm cannot include buy some Navteq data and then do this, or buy ArcGIS and then do that - but what if the algorithm includes run this code, it will take 1000 days, or make sure your machine has at least 1 TB of RAM, then continue as follows I see nothing that requires the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm) to be easily run or rely on freely available or open-source software. So although Navteq is out (being additional contents), I see nothing wrong with relying on ArcGIS to process the data. For example, suppose someone wanted to import OSM into an oracle database and then ran some post-processing oracle-specific scripts on it. They could hand over their scripts and the code used to import it into the DB but neither would run as-is unless you also had an oracle license. A copy of the database could be even less useful, but that's clearly a copy of the entire derivative database in machine readable form. I see long-running or computationally resource intensive algorithms coming up in two ways. The first is when whatever you're doing just takes that long to run and there isn't a faster way. I spent 30 days importing to an apidb, but outside OSM some databases become truly massive. I could see the release for a scientific database being: here's the exact code we ran, but it took two months on our supercomputer cluster. In a case like that, it's meeting the license. Some data just takes a long time to process. The second is a more interesting case. You might have a case where you have two methods of making the alterations, one of which is quick and the other of which is computationally intensive. My reading of the ODbL is that you have to provide the one you used because it calls for _the_ method, not _a_ method. So, back to the examples you gave, provided they used a machine with at least 1 TB of RAM, they'd be fine releasing a method that relied on having that much RAM. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: 2. Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a certain map scale. Same process - either you share the generalized data or you share the algorithm that produces it. If, for example, you were to import with ImpOSM which does generalisations when importing, that's all you'd have to say. 3. Finding suitable label placements. 4. Extracting topology from the data (like multipolygon processing, merging of polygons, road segments etc.). 5. Running other complex algorithms on the OSM data. This preprocessing can be done on-the fly or (in case of Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step. The boundary between what is done as a separate step, leading to a derived database, and what is done on the fly as part of the rendering process may sometimes be muddy but I guess in these situations they are pretty clear. Another interesting question is how easy the algorithm you specify must be. It is clear that the algorithm cannot include buy some Navteq data and then do this, or buy ArcGIS and then do that - but what if the algorithm includes run this code, it will take 1000 days, or make sure your machine has at least 1 TB of RAM, then continue as follows The first question is what is the purpose of that method description? If the purpose is to enable _anyone_ repeating the same process, then I see a big problem with this interpretation: it effectively means you cannot use closed source software to generate publicly distributed maps. In one case you might not be the owner of the source code (ArcGIS as an example), so you cannot really describe the actual algorithm behind it. In another case, if you're the owner of the code, you'll either be forced to write length documents describing your algorithms, or release the source code. And BTW under what terms/license that document/source code is released? What prevents a company XYZ then using that source code to do processing of completely different Databases (not OSM's)? I don't see how this this clause can be enforced is the scenarios I've mentioned. Here are some possible outcomes: 1. The owner of the code has to open-source the code (which could mean tossing away a large investment in time money and giving it free to the competition). Who ensures that the source code is complete enough to enable the repetition of the process? 2. The owner writes a crappy document describing the algorithm that no one can follow (I've seen a lot of such scientific articles). Who will ensure that such documents are usable? 3. The owner releases a derivative DB which (since the processing is done in-memory) is just an binary (almost) random stream of data, difficult to read and process for anyone without the original source code. Does he need to release the documentation of the data format? Maybe I'm missing something, I don't know. Igor ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 4:25 PM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Cc: talk...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US Fair point. Still - I would ask what is the purpose of this protection and how does it benefit OSM on this particular level? OSM clearly benefits of being used. The usage of OSM data in maps has been clarified, I believe the ability to unencumberedly leverage OSM data to create produced works is a huge benefit for OpenStreetMap as a whole as it creates more versatile map styles, (and yes, abilities to monetize them) and in turn have more map users and thousands of micro incentives of improving our common map. Important similar incentives are routing or geo coding. The latter is where I think the shoe starts to hurt. In my mind there's much to be gained by giving better incentives to contribute to OSM by clarifying the geocoding situation and little to be lost by allowing narrow extracts of OSM. I believe we can do this within the letter of the ODbL and within the spirit of why the ODbL was adopted. Well, by using a share-alike license you are rejecting some uses, just like if you use LGPL with a library. The issue is that a library has clear interfaces and there is more extensive case law about what is protected by copyright whereas the case law and precedents are unclear for geodata. Where I see the license as trying to prohibit is mixing OSM + other data and then marketing it as OSM, but better without sharing the other data. You could be confident that commercial geodata providers would like to do this for the road network, where they may have poor coverage in areas that OSM has good coverage. When our address data gets good enough in areas where they have poor coverage, you can bet they'll look for any ways to do the same. BTW, I don't want to know how many people out there have used Nominatim for geocoding without having any idea... Well, for most of the world they're likely fine. I cannot imagine local courts holding any copyright protection to apply to the output of Nominatim and I expect they would see the contact provisions (if enforceable) to apply to the operator of the server, not to the person using it. Of course the same is likely to apply to anyone offering a geocoder based on data from a commercial data provider. The lesson for this? When seeking to enforce your rights on geodata that covers the world, pick the right country to do so in. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
