[OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
The ODbL that we now use for OSM data technically only applies to the database, and not to individual contents contained within it. For that, the ODbL says you need a separate licence [1]. I was under the impression that for OSM's data this licence was the ODC's Database Contents Licence (DbCL) [2]. It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper at [3], which said that uncertainty over the content licence was a problem for downstream users. When I went to check what the content licence was, I was unable to find any definitive information where I would expect to find it; i.e. at http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright or http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ or http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License . The latter two seem to suggest that the OSM Contributor Terms [4] act as a content licence, but I don't see how that's possible, since the Contributor Terms are concerned with people giving rights and assurances to OSMF, rather than OSMF providing rights to data users. The Contributor Terms themselves mention the DbCL as one of the possible licences OSMF can use, but don't actually say that OSMF are using it for current data downloads. So can I enquire as to exactly what the content licence is for OSM's geodata, and suggest that it is made clearer on the pages linked above? I guess some people may argue that the individual data items in OSM are facts and so aren't copyrightable anyway. However, it's not obvious to me that this is necessarily the case for all the data items (there are certainly some things in OSM that are subject to creative judgement) and it would seem that uncertainty over the content licence is a real issue for data users. Even if an explicit content licence may not be necessary, it would surely be good to soecify one like the DbCL anyway. Thanks, Robert. [1] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ [2] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1-0/ [3] http://spatiallaw.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-odbl-and-openstreetmap-analysis-and.html [4] http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
On 29/10/2014 09:05, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper ... What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin to write a paper supporting their commercial point of view re the licensing of OpenStreetMap data. Does it really deserve any more attention than that? Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
2014-10-29 12:32 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin doesn't seem to be a nobody in this field though: Kevin is the Executive Director of the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy and a lawyer focusing on the unique legal and policy issues associated with spatial data and spatial technology. These issues include intellectual property rights, licensing, liability, privacy and national security. He writes and speaks extensively on spatial law and technology. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Open Geospatial Consortium and is active in other geospatial associations... so regardless that by asking 2 lawyers about geodata and licenses you'd typically get 3 different interpretations (so I am told), this bloke at first glance looks like an expert for this topic... cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
I am unpaid nobody in the context of last two emails on this thread. In my opinion, it sure would be nice for users (not contributors alone) if there was lot more clarity. I imagine, from my point of view, that contributors and other stakeholders might also benefit from commercial users if the license is clear that only data gathered from OSM be shared alike leaving derivative or collective out of share alike if possible. Thank you for giving me a voice. On Oct 29, 2014 7:34 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-29 12:32 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin doesn't seem to be a nobody in this field though: Kevin is the Executive Director of the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy and a lawyer focusing on the unique legal and policy issues associated with spatial data and spatial technology. These issues include intellectual property rights, licensing, liability, privacy and national security. He writes and speaks extensively on spatial law and technology. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Open Geospatial Consortium and is active in other geospatial associations... so regardless that by asking 2 lawyers about geodata and licenses you'd typically get 3 different interpretations (so I am told), this bloke at first glance looks like an expert for this topic... 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] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 08:19:10PM -0400, Alex Barth wrote: Good call on geocodes - geocoding results. That's clearer. On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: What do you think the status of a database of geocoding results is under the interpretation in column 1? According to the interpretation in column 1, the ODbL doesn't imply any specific licensing for geocoding results, they are Produced Works. alex, please read 4.6 of odbl, which basically says there is no difference between derivative db and produced work with regards to database rights. michal ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- michal palenik www.freemap.sk www.oma.sk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
2014-10-29 13:47 GMT+01:00 Sachin Dole sd...@genvega.com: ... if there was lot more clarity. I imagine, ..., that contributors and other stakeholders might also benefit from commercial users if the license is clear that only data gathered from OSM be shared alike leaving derivative or collective out of share alike if possible. actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share alike licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact with the share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/10/14 07:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share alike licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact with the share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself. It's congenital, not viral. It propagates by inheritance, not contagion. ;-) - - Rob. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUUPtbAAoJECciMUAZd2dZ91cH/1jbALOpOXN2kjNmTI1WkpuO nk4HYxHMkuuGhJTjQ9FYFAAhDMw89DJ7AUMCP6AdjPCxQzlysgiOCyE5I/398MJi qo3QWDlaWoV7MMiUzZuICwzbH3+LJAqFx886LLr/GSaH0pLkI0FsS0jZ1oMg+yaC g7vu44F0KG4EPXZlfeJNp5ameCQTl4FqTBH6aB8ru35+Tu4w2TMbbbFDS/+XQg1A Wc7uhOzUUA8ktTqZFPdH9dlbHE5Y9an9y140K+MoBXYvId9UEaLhV6PeOA/kYOA7 luYbUePtjX9EALbqtipslaAXVGQdfmtaJd159AHKEdRGX8wX4tOWCWSmxl6C2V4= =ejQk -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 29/10/14 04:32 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: On 29/10/2014 09:05, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper ... What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin to write a paper supporting their commercial point of view re the licensing of OpenStreetMap data. Does it really deserve any more attention than that? Uncertainty is simply a term of art that means obvious impediments to my sense of entitlement. Likewise, lack of clarity means haven't read the contributor terms. - - Rob. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUUP19AAoJECciMUAZd2dZJXMIAJLhG+9jU8qf82oxH2b3T5XU jgCGd7ZovjUZmANZTZ9yjhjm4Um5Ch4iv6rAG2SftF4wEadzV4fVVbY4dE/QbEUr 8Z7hNW48Qs888ifXR7jrekbtKFox1jTKAWmQcZAUW9zMsKPzyVPk/dLTd1gBg+d0 vVNSAmdexOUZAbCksrHUTp4fdJhm8l+qwPlb43hVm4bLxp3WpIv32Mlb7PoWPgt8 /LIn+roW1R7ryFjcTaSZEseKNIX3rpo78p6UxbBFyRTdrufI7+YT4Zbf/M2tk+UX ePwEcjuTpWhoNOKA7Gng51T2zTBhfDY+Fw6EhzfowbDZ9162yod8vg98/qv61XE= =nOHH -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: I'm wondering if we should replace geocodes with geocoding results throughout the page. I think it improves clarity as to what is being discussed, and geocodes is not a term in common use for what we are discussing. Thoughts? It shouldn't change the meaning. Updated: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License%2FGeocoding_-_Guidelinediff=1102233oldid=1076215 ___ 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, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: A geocoding result is not the same as a database of geocoding results. Column 1 says the former is a produced work, but is silent on the latter. I updated the guide to be explicit about this case: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License%2FGeocoding_-_Guidelinediff=1102235oldid=1102233 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Hey Michal - On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk wrote: alex, please read 4.6 of odbl, which basically says there is no difference between derivative db and produced work with regards to database rights. 4.6 talks about disclosure standards in cases where share-alike applies (offer copy of entire database or alteration file). Not sure how this relates? http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1-0/ ___ 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 Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 04:03:03PM -0400, Alex Barth wrote: Hey Michal - On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk wrote: alex, please read 4.6 of odbl, which basically says there is no difference between derivative db and produced work with regards to database rights. 4.6 talks about disclosure standards in cases where share-alike applies (offer copy of entire database or alteration file). Not sure how this relates? if you publicly use a produced work (which is the indented case here) 4.4.c. Derivative Databases and Produced Works. A Derivative Database is Publicly Used and so must comply with Section 4.4. if a Produced Work created from the Derivative Database is Publicly Used. which say, that it does not matter whether you declare geocodes produced work or derivative db. if this didn't exist, i could declare anything a produced work (things like any enhanced database) and the whold odbl would not exists. produced work is always based on a derivative db or collective db (if they are used independetly) 4.6. restates this. so the real question is, which part is derivative db (and not whether it's produced work) http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1-0/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- michal palenik www.freemap.sk www.oma.sk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
