Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Again and again we hear, make it easier for people to geocode their proprietary databases and OSM can only benefit from it because everyone who saves $$ using OSM somehow magically helps OSM. I'm not convinced of that. One could say the same about the permissive parts of OpenStreetMap today. But there are companies today who're using OpenStreetMap and who are playing an active role to improve the database directly or indirectly (think software, event sponsoring). Interestingly, I have yet to see a company that supports OpenStreetMap as a need of following the letter of the ODbL. There aren't exactly tons of announcements of new ODbL datasets. In addition, even if companies, non profit organizations or governments decide to use but not actively support OpenStreetMap at all, they typically bring OpenStreetMap to broad audiences at a time, and expose OpenStreetMap to more potential individual contributors. What I'm seeing is an attractive OpenStreetMap to participate in, with great reasons to contribute and a growing group of institutional data users with huge opportunities to do so - and already doing so. But right now we're stuck insisting in one very particular way to contribute - and that way isn't defined all too well and it impedes the use of OpenStreetMap for a key use case: geocoding. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: Please review: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/ Geocoding_-_Guideline Alex, you mention it was based on what you've gotten from lawyers. Is there anything that can be shared, either publicly, or with the LWG for when they consider the guideline? Our lawyers' advice is captured in the guideline as shared and posted in this revision: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guidelineoldid=1060775 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Am 28/lug/2014 um 09:07 schrieb Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com: Our lawyers' advice is captured in the guideline as shared and posted in this revision: your lawyers did really say according to their understanding a pair of coordinates is similar to an image or a video, hence a work? The whole interpretation in this example turns around this sentence but it isn't quite self explaining: The guideline Geocodes are a Produced Work by the definition of the ODbL (section 1.) cheers, Martin___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Hello, 2014-07-28 7:19 GMT+02:00 Eric Gundersen e...@mapbox.com: Accuracy is what matters, not skimping on a few $. We have dozens of large companies like this that would love to more tightly integrate their internal data with OSM via goecoding, but because of unclear guidelines are blocked. Well, in fact (IMHO) there's no unclear guidelines, as the license is quite clear in terms of Derivative Database licensing. Whether or not is it is subject to change, at this moment (ODbL v1.0) a Derivative Database has to be an ODbL database. What I'm not clear is if community guidelines are strong enough to able to change it without touching the license itself Or, trying to consider a database with geocoding data a Produced Work makes me wonder what type of substantial (I guess we're talking country-wide at least?) extract of the whole database _isn't_ a Produced Work anymore. Regards, Tadeusz ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Eric Gundersen e...@mapbox.com wrote: Let's not kid ourselves here. The overwhelming number of commercial OSM users are not driven by a motivation to help us, but by a motivation to save money (or perhaps a motivation to escape a monopolist's clutch but that boils down to the same). Frederik, saving money is not the point, it's all about having great data that is supported by a community. Every day I'm talking to commercial companies interested in _paying_ Mapbox because they truly believe we have the best map (power by OpenStreetMap), and the people at these companies believe in a future of open data where the map continues to grow thanks to being open. Mapbox is working with companies from foursquare to Pinterest to the Financial Times to VK.com (https://www.mapbox.com/showcase). These few sites alone are used by hundreds of millions of people looking at beautiful OpenStreetMap data, and location and thus the map, is critical for each app. Accuracy is what matters, not skimping on a few $. We have dozens of large companies like this that would love to more tightly integrate their internal data with OSM via goecoding, but because of unclear guidelines are blocked. +1 Any company I'm aware of interested in OSM is not trying to save money, they're interested in the promise of better quality that you get from a community (of individuals and companies if they're welcome). In fact many companies with plenty of money are hurting for the lack of a truly global geocoder. There is no single source for this, especially outside the US. Try to find one and pay them: you can't. To be clear: OSM is far from ready to provide a high-quality global geocoder. It works pretty well in NYC and I was glad to see how well it worked in Karlsruhe :) but there's a serious lack of address data globally. So the problem is not that it's a great source of geocoding data that we're prevented from using because of licensing. The problem is that there's about to be a lot of resources, effort, and attention focused on this problem, and it would be great to do this within OSM. There are alternatives though such as OpenAddresses. Back to my original comment, if it we're 2010 and I had significant resources to invest in this problem, where would I best do it? Again -- it's fine if it's not OSM, should just come out with a strong statement from the board either way. -Randy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Hi, On 07/28/2014 12:07 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote: What I'm not clear is if community guidelines are strong enough to able to change it without touching the license itself There's a couple sides to this. OSMF is limited to distributing the data under ODbL or CC-By-SA as per the contributor terms; using any other license would require a license change process as outlined in the contributor terms. Now where the ODbL leaves wriggle room, OSMF can to a certain degree interpret the license. Since OSMF are the ones who would have to sue you if you ignore the license, if OSMF say it is our interpretation that so-and-so is ok then you are relatively safe in trusting them. However, if OSMF were to take too many liberties in interpreting the license, and if someone were to make the point that what OSMF distributes the data under is not the ODbL as it was intended, but instead some ODbL with OSMF bells and whistles, then that could nullify the license that OSMF itself has been granted by the mappers. It is quite possible that a lawyer who was asked to assert whether a certain wriggle room exists or not, would not only look at the letter of the license but also at the process that has led to its implementation, or in other words, at the intention that people had when they implemented the license. And that, in turn, is probably why we're talking so much about use cases and do-we-want-this and do-we-want-that... 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On 7/28/2014 6:31 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 07/28/2014 12:07 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote: What I'm not clear is if community guidelines are strong enough to able to change it without touching the license itself There's a couple sides to this. OSMF is limited to distributing the data under ODbL or CC-By-SA as per the contributor terms; using any other license would require a license change process as outlined in the contributor terms. It's also important to remember that there is also a significant amount of third-party data in OSM under the ODbL or compatible licenses, and the OSMF's guidelines are of limited influence there. This is one reason why I was particularly concerned when companies were failing to meet ODbL attribution requirements[1], as it wasn't just OSM contributor rights which were being infringed, but also the third party rights. [1]: http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_Minutes_2013-12-10#6._Attribution ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
I would like to add my voice to this discussion. I strongly believe that within the intended spirit of the OSM license, geocoding as defined in this proposal should _not_ trigger share alike. I also believe that the legal interpretation proposed has merit, but if legal advice suggests another means in which to capture this spirit, I would support that as well. As a former OSMF Board member and a member of the OSM community for 9 years, I believe my voice should carry weight in this discussion. Other current and former Board members, and prominent members of the OSM community, have also lent their weighty voices to this discussion. That's excellent, this is the purpose of legal-talk, it has been very enlightening on this issue. But what discussion on legal-talk does not provide is a mechanism for ascertaining a representative community opinion on the spirit of the license; nor a legally qualified opinion on interpretation options; nor a governance mechanism for resolving the proposal ultimately one way or another. I'm not aware if any process is defined for making a decision on this use case. (If one does exist, apologies that I missed it, and I'd appreciate anything that could bring clarity.) The OpenStreetMap Foundation, famously, supports but does not control the OpenStreetMap project. In this situation, I believe this would mean devising a governance structure to help answer such questions, and request that the OSMF in one form or another prioritize this issue. I hope that such can take shape soon, so that the topic of geocoding and other topics can be efficiently and finally resolved. Sincerely Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, July 24, 2014 5:04 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: Consider a chain retailer's database of store locations with store names and addresses (street, house number, ZIP, state/province, country). The addresses are used to search corresponding latitude / longitude coordinates in OpenStreetMap. The coordinates are stored next to the store locations in the store database (forward Geocoding). OpenStreetMap.org's Nominatim based geocoder is used. The store locations are being exposed to the public on a store locator map using Bing maps. The geocoded store locations database remains fully proprietary to the chain retailer. The map carries a notice (c) OpenStreetMap contributors linking to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright. In this example, the database powering the geocoder is a derived database. The geocoding results are produced works, which are then collected into what forms a derivative database as part of a collective database. Not following how I can make a Derivative Database from a Produced Work. Once it's a Produced Work it's a Produced Work, right? Sure if I abuse to recreate OSM that's one thing, but at this level? Taking a step back, is the above use case not one we'd like to support without triggering share alike? I'm directing my question to everyone, not just Paul who's taken the time to review my example above. Forward and reverse geocoding existing records is such a huge potential use case for OSM, helping us drive contributions. At the same time it's _the_ use case of OSM where we collide heads on with the realities and messiness of data licensing: Do we really want to make a legal review the hurdle of entry for using OSM for geocoding? Or limit using OSM for geocoding in areas where no one's ever going to sue? How can we get on the same page on how we want geocoding to work and then trace back on how we can fit this into the ODbL? Geocoding should just be possible and frictionless with OSM, no? Shouldn't there be a way to open up OSM to geocoding while maintaining share alike on the whole database? I feel we don't get anywhere by reading the tea leaves of the ODbL - what do we really want for OSM on geocoding? Alex (and yes, when I'm saying geocoding I'm referring to permanent geocoding here, where the geocoding result winds up being stored in someone else's db) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
I would like to add my voice to this discussion. I strongly believe that within the intended spirit of the OSM license, geocoding as defined in this proposal should _not_ trigger share alike. I also believe that the legal interpretation proposed has merit, but if legal advice suggests another means in which to capture this spirit, I would support that as well. As a former OSMF Board member and a member of the OSM community for 9 years, I believe my voice should carry weight in this discussion. Other current and former Board members, and prominent members of the OSM community, have also lent their weighty voices to this discussion. That's excellent, this is the purpose of legal-talk, it has been very enlightening on this issue. But what discussion on legal-talk does not provide is a mechanism for ascertaining a representative community opinion on the spirit of the license; nor a legally qualified opinion on interpretation options; nor a governance mechanism for resolving the proposal ultimately one way or another. I'm not aware if any process is defined for making a decision on this use case. (If one does exist, apologies that I missed it, and I'd appreciate anything that could bring clarity.) The OpenStreetMap Foundation, famously, supports but does not control the OpenStreetMap project. In this situation, I believe this would mean devising a governance structure to help answer such questions, and request that the OSMF in one form or another prioritize this issue. I hope that such can take shape soon, so that the topic of geocoding and other topics can be efficiently and finally resolved. Sincerely Mikel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
