Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using OSM data without modifying - are there any guidelines?
Simon Poole wrote: As the name of this list says it is legal talk (aka yapping without consequence) ... not get-help-from-the-OSMF. With my list admin hat on, I think that's a little harsh. Often, as you say, queries can be resolved by pointing to the relevant published guidelines and there's no reason why the community can't do this on this list - or on help.osm.org, or wherever - rather than burdening LWG with the task of fielding so many routine enquiries. legal-talk@ is not a bad first port of call. It is indeed only a -talk list but we don't necessarily need to bite people who come to talk. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Using-OSM-data-without-modifying-are-there-any-guidelines-tp5848948p5849030.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using OSM data without modifying - are there any guidelines?
Naturally, in a perfect world, you are correct. Unluckily experience shows (both here and on help) that the responders don't point to the guidelines and the other relevant material (at best they refer to outdated pre-licence change wiki pages) they offer their own, not clearly identified as such, opinions. Now if the people asking the questions were aware of that and took the answers with multiple grains of salt, you could say: ok, let the armchair lawyers have their fun. Alas what happens is that it simply provides perfect material for the FUD-mongers. For the record, the OSMFs policies are enshrined in the following places: http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines Simon Am 27.06.2015 um 10:23 schrieb Richard Fairhurst: Simon Poole wrote: As the name of this list says it is legal talk (aka yapping without consequence) ... not get-help-from-the-OSMF. With my list admin hat on, I think that's a little harsh. Often, as you say, queries can be resolved by pointing to the relevant published guidelines and there's no reason why the community can't do this on this list - or on help.osm.org, or wherever - rather than burdening LWG with the task of fielding so many routine enquiries. legal-talk@ is not a bad first port of call. It is indeed only a -talk list but we don't necessarily need to bite people who come to talk. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Using-OSM-data-without-modifying-are-there-any-guidelines-tp5848948p5849030.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using OSM data without modifying - are there any guidelines?
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 or database right--but only if the parties enter such a contract. In the Ryanair case, PR Aviation was collecting information from Ryanair's site, and the court held that accessing the site amounted to entering a contractual relationship (as defined by the site TOS). But of course OSM extracts and snapshots are available all over the web, and from interfaces that don't introduce or even mention any contractual relationship with OSMF as a condition of download (whether the user is an OSM contributor or has used OSMF-owned services directly might be relevant here). A lawyer commenting on the post you provided explains the dynamic well: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2015/01/breaking-cjeu-says-that-owner-of-online.html?showComment=1421340621683#c7550848707130069201 Naturally enforceable property rights via the ODbL attach to the data even when there is no contract. But not to data that is excluded from such property rights by law, such as IDs. As you point out, in practice this seems unlikely to matter here: the Fairhurst Doctrine is a useful and thoughtful policy statement from the community about what it intends to do with the property rights it does have, and it seems to clearly indicate that OSMF isn't interested in asserting claims over trivial use of IDs, whether or not the rights underlying such claims exist. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using OSM data without modifying - are there any guidelines?
Am 27.06.2015 um 17:02 schrieb Tom Lee: But of course OSM extracts and snapshots are available all over the web, and from interfaces that don't introduce or even mention any contractual relationship with OSMF as a condition of download (whether the user is an OSM contributor or has used OSMF-owned services directly might be relevant here). A condition of having a valid licence to use OSM data is providing a suitable way of pointing out the conditions of use of said data to your users/customers/etc (which is relaxed a bit for produced works). Don't provide that, you don't have a valid licence with all the related consequences. If you have information that this obligation is not being fulfilled by distributors of OSM based products, please report it to the OSMF/LWG. In any case the point was, and that was the matter of longish debate prior to the licence change, that both copyright and similar rights and the contractual terms would be brought forward in the case that there was actual dispute and having one does not weaken the other. As you point out, in practice this seems unlikely to matter here: the Fairhurst Doctrine is a useful and thoughtful policy statement from the community about what it intends to do with the property rights it does have, and it seems to clearly indicate that OSMF isn't interested in asserting claims over trivial use of IDs, whether or not the rights underlying such claims exist. The Fairhurst doctrine is, at this point in time, not a formal policy of the OSMF nor has it actually been turned in to useful language yet. There is an effort under way by yours truly to do exactly that, but it is quite a long way away from being approved by the OSMF board which would actually put it in place as an underlying principle. Simon PS: I really don't think the OSMF will go after anybody for publishing a list of OSM ids :-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
