Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Dec 2019, at 01:35, Kathleen Lu  wrote:
> 
>  
>> 
>> To create an accurate postcode polygon from point features you will need a 
>> lot of them, so probably already a handful of them would be considered 
>> substantial.
> 
>  This logic seems backwards. Since it would require a lot of point features 
> in order to recreate the polygon (and thus something that looks similar to 
> the original OSM database), it should require a *lot* of points to be 
> considered substantial.


it _took_ a lot of address points to create the aggregate postcode polygon. The 
Germans did not survey the polygon, they surveyed addresses

Cheers Martin ___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Dec 2019, at 01:11, matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de wrote:
> 
> I think, that's a moralistic point of view. I'll neither collect a 
> substantial part
> of the whole OSM database, nor you could proof that there was big investment 
> made to
> collect the data. Since the users are working for free, the only investment 
> are the
> servers.


you believe the mappers are working for “free” because they do not get paid? 
One can see their contributions as donations, they are donating their time and 
knowledge, and the value is what it would cost if they were paid according to 
the work they are doing. It is out of question that an immense investment had 
to be made for OpenStreetMap to come to the point where it is now, in survey 
time, data input, software development, and infrastructure.

“substantial” does not mean it has to be a certain percentage of the whole db, 
you can see this from the substantial guideline, which has fixed limits that 
are not growing with the db. “substantial” means it’s more than one or two 
features (OpenStreetMap-Foundation has declared they see a total of 100 
features as substantial, although it is not completely clear what a feature is, 
for example you could go to an extreme point of view and see the whole border 
of Germany as a single feature (I am not) while a more credible interpretation 
would see every border point as a feature, so that the border of Germany would 
be thousands of features). 


Cheers Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

it will contain a lot of postcode information from the original
> OpenStreetMap database, in adapted/translated form.


This doesn't seem correct to me. In the final set, each point will only
tell you yes/no whether it was in a particular postcode. That's not very
much info at all.

>
> To create an accurate postcode polygon from point features you will need a
> lot of them, so probably already a handful of them would be considered
> substantial.
>

 This logic seems backwards. Since it would require a lot of point features
in order to recreate the polygon (and thus something that looks similar to
the original OSM database), it should require a *lot* of points to be
considered substantial.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[matthias . straetling]

> Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Dezember 2019 um 01:00 Uhr
> Von: "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
>
> it will contain a lot of postcode information from the original OpenStreetMap 
> database,
> in adapted/translated form. Whether the amount is sufficient to be considered 
> substantial
> will have to be evaluated based on the actual db that is created/the actual 
> numbers.
> To create an accurate postcode polygon from point features you will need a 
> lot of them,
> so probably already a handful of them would be considered substantial.

There are 5,650,789,072 nodes in OSM database. But the EU database directive 
wants to
protect the investment (in money). If it was damn hard to collect the nodes 
belonging
to the postcodes, only a few thousand nodes might be more substantial.

I think, that's a moralistic point of view. I'll neither collect a substantial 
part
of the whole OSM database, nor you could proof that there was big investment 
made to
collect the data. Since the users are working for free, the only investment are 
the
servers.

Like I said, that's a moralistic point of view.

I've got an offer today to get the data for about 3,500 Euro. This allows me to 
select
the data and even publish the postal code and the merged postal geometries with 
attribution.
It's another non-free dataset, but it solves my problem.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Dec 2019, at 00:04, Kathleen Lu  wrote:
> 
> But what that says is not just "create a new database" but one "that contains 
> the whole or a substantial part of the original OSM database." His new 
> database will contain very little if any of the original OSM database


it will contain a lot of postcode information from the original OpenStreetMap 
database, in adapted/translated form. Whether the amount is sufficient to be 
considered substantial will have to be evaluated based on the actual db that is 
created/the actual numbers.
To create an accurate postcode polygon from point features you will need a lot 
of them, so probably already a handful of them would be considered substantial.

Cheers Martin 
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

But what that says is not just "create a new database" but one "that
contains the whole or a substantial part of the original OSM database." His
new database will contain very little if any of the original OSM database.

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 2:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 16. Dec 2019, at 22:09, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> That's what the guidelines are for!
> We can't cover every possible example because there are too many, but as I
> already said, I think your usecase is covered by the Geocoding Guideline.
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline
>
>
>
> I also believe it is covered by this guideline, but it seems his use would
> trigger share alike according to this guideline:
>
> 2. the Geocoding Results are not used to create a new database that
> contains the whole or a substantial part of the original OSM database
>
>
>
> because he wants to create a new database.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

>> On 16. Dec 2019, at 22:09, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk 
>>  wrote:
> That's what the guidelines are for! 
> We can't cover every possible example because there are too many, but as I 
> already said, I think your usecase is covered by the Geocoding Guideline. 
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline


I also believe it is covered by this guideline, but it seems his use would 
trigger share alike according to this guideline:

> 2. the Geocoding Results are not used to create a new database that contains 
> the whole or a substantial part of the original OSM database


because he wants to create a new database.

Cheers Martin ___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] distance calculations

[Simon Poole]

Am 16.12.2019 um 17:22 schrieb Nuno Caldeira:
> it's a derivated, therefore share alike. I'm glad they trusted OSM data.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

Yes the distances are a Produced Work which, if publicly used, implies
that if a Derivative Database was used to produce the distances that
should be made available, but likely this was unmodified OSM data so no
need to actually do that.

The centroids of the locations of the pupils houses and the school are
clearly a separate database and only serve as inputs to the routing
algorithm, per ODbL 4.5.b only the OSM database  component of a
Collective Database used to generate a produced work needs to be
licensed on ODbL terms.

It would seem that this is actually a school book example of when SA
does -not- apply.

Simon

PS: from the description it is not even clear if the output was publicly
used to start with.

>
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 15:25 ,  > wrote:
>
> Dear IANALs,
>
> I'm sorry to ask an additional question.
>
> A while ago, I've listened to a talk about navigation of pupils
> from their home to the school - it was used to decide whether the
> pupil gets a free bus ticket or not.
>
> The distance calculation was done by a land registry office, which
> didn't have a route-able road & path network, but had trust in the
> OSM data, since they inspected it for quite a while. For
> completeness, they've used their own housing and school locations,
> but didn't use any from OSM.
>
> They routed from the pupil's house to the school on the OSM
> network. Of course, the results were released in public.
> Do such distance calculations also trigger share-alike on the
> non-free data (here: schools & houses).
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
>
> ___
> 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


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] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

> It is kind of unfortunate, because OSM as far as I am informed, wouldn't
> be interested in the specific dataset (of real estate prices) anyway.
>
> If it's not the type of data that OSM would be interested in, then why
doesn't it fall under the Collective Database Guideline?
the non-OSM data adds a particular type of geometry or data for a primary
feature that was not already present within a regional cut, and the added
feature data includes no OSM data;
Wasn't a major reason for that guideline to permit nonsharealike usecases
where the data potentially subject to sharealike would not be useful to OSM
anyway?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

That's what the guidelines are for!
We can't cover every possible example because there are too many, but as I
already said, I think your usecase is covered by the Geocoding Guideline.
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline


> Why doesn't the OSMF write about fundamental stuff then? I think,
> ST_Intersects() is one of the main tools in GIS world. Why don't
> give a clear statement on this?
>
> Since the ODbL has never changed, it's fixed. So there could be
> something like an FAQ or matrix to look up what triggers share-alike
> and what not?
>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[matthias . straetling]

> Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2019 um 17:03 Uhr
> Von: "Tom Lee via legal-talk" 
> 
> This is an admirable impulse, but it is worth emphasizing that those of
> us who participate on OSM listservs are a small and unrepresentative
> fraction of the project's 5.9 million registered users. Lists like this
> one are a great way to find the slice of users who are most interested
> and passionate about a particular issue, and who consequently can be
> expected to have well-informed (and often strongly held) opinions that
> reflect the gamut of possible answers.

I understand this, but the girls and guys here do already have some
knowledge about this topic. I know many OSM mappers, which would never
be able to discuss about this license questions. And many don't even
use a GIS to be able to intersect two different data sources :-)
  
> But if you are seeking consensus, the closest thing available is the
> text of the license itself and guidelines that have been approved by
> elected members of the OSMF board. Usually when there is broad agreement
> on an issue, the answer is memorialized in a wiki page that people find
> before they wind up here :-)_

Why doesn't the OSMF write about fundamental stuff then? I think,
ST_Intersects() is one of the main tools in GIS world. Why don't
give a clear statement on this?

Since the ODbL has never changed, it's fixed. So there could be
something like an FAQ or matrix to look up what triggers share-alike
and what not?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] distance calculations

[matthias . straetling]

> Von: "Nuno Caldeira" 
> it's a derivated, therefore share alike. I'm glad they trusted OSM data. 

So the distance calculations are derivated, of course.
But what about their points of interests? They've interacted with the roads.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] distance calculations

[Nuno Caldeira]

it's a derivated, therefore share alike. I'm glad they trusted OSM data.

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 15:25 ,  wrote:

> Dear IANALs,
>
> I'm sorry to ask an additional question.
>
> A while ago, I've listened to a talk about navigation of pupils from their
> home to the school - it was used to decide whether the pupil gets a free
> bus ticket or not.
>
> The distance calculation was done by a land registry office, which didn't
> have a route-able road & path network, but had trust in the OSM data, since
> they inspected it for quite a while. For completeness, they've used their
> own housing and school locations, but didn't use any from OSM.
>
> They routed from the pupil's house to the school on the OSM network. Of
> course, the results were released in public.
> Do such distance calculations also trigger share-alike on the non-free
> data (here: schools & houses).
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
>
> ___
> 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] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Tom Lee via legal-talk]

> I was aware of this and just wanted to get a consensus by the data
creators: the users.

This is an admirable impulse, but it is worth emphasizing that those of us
who participate on OSM listservs are a small and unrepresentative fraction
of the project's 5.9 million registered users. Lists like this one are a
great way to find the slice of users who are most interested and passionate
about a particular issue, and who consequently can be expected to have
well-informed (and often strongly held) opinions that reflect the gamut of
possible answers.

But if you are seeking consensus, the closest thing available is the text
of the license itself and guidelines that have been approved by elected
members of the OSMF board. Usually when there is broad agreement on an
issue, the answer is memorialized in a wiki page that people find before
they wind up here :-)
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 16. Dez. 2019 um 16:03 Uhr schrieb <
matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de>:

> Now, I neither can use your data, nor add my dataset to yours. A
> lose-lose-situation :-(
>


the problem is that "your dataset" is not yours, otherwise you could add
it, and you could also decide whether to use OSM in combination or not. But
you don't have the right to re-publish / re-license the dataset you have
acquired because they only sold you the right to use it.

It is kind of unfortunate, because OSM as far as I am informed, wouldn't be
interested in the specific dataset (of real estate prices) anyway.

Cheers
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 16 December 2019, matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de wrote:
> >
> > The usual view is that share-alike provisions do not make something
> > non-free or non-open because they are meant to protect and extend
> > the freedom and only constrain users of truly non-free data.  But
> > anyone can have a different opinion on that of course.
>
> Sorry to say this, but I don't feel like you want to protect your
> data. It feels like you want to grab all the data, your data comes
> into contact with. "Viral" is the right term here - do you know the
> Borg? :-)

There is a long history of discussion about the benefits of
viral/share-alike licenses in the open data/free software movement.  In
OSM we have had this discussion extensively before the license change.
I tried to provide a bit of insight about why we have share-alike but
people here in general are fairly reluctant to reiterate that
discussion because it rarely brings any new insights.

Apart from the mentioned importance of share-alike for the social
contract between mappers and data users it is also doubtful that OSM
would still exist as a single homogeneous project as we know it today
if in 2012 we would have chosen a non-share-alike license.  It is very
likely that OSM would have split off several proprietary forks with
which corporate data users would have tried to distinguish themselves
from the competition by creating improved versions of the OSM database
adding proprietary data without feeding it back into the openly
licensed public database.

Please keep in mind that the image of a viral license is partly
misleading because everyone has the free choice to not use the data and
not 'be infected' while a biological virus does not typically give you
that freedom.

> > Both share-alike and attribution play an important role in OSM in
> > the social contract between mappers and data users.  In return for
> > being able to use the results of the work of the mappers for free,
> > data users are required to share improvements of the data or the
> > results of producing something of additional value in combination
> > with other data under open license terms.
>
> If attribution would pay a role, than "(c) Non-Free data, selected by
> using OSM data ..." would be possible. That might be an idea for
> future license drafts.

The viewpoint communicated by Kathleen would mean data sets partly
derived from OSM through spatial operations without containing
substantial amounts of the original data in original form (that is
essentially the case we are talking about here in abstract form) would
require neither share-alike nor attribution since they are neither a
Derivative Database, a Collective Database nor a Produced Work.

So while your willingness to attribute is admirable this kind of
attribution for mixed and processed data without share-alike is not
something that the ODbL considers a separate scenario.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] update to mailing list description (was use OSM data to select proprietary data)

[Mikel Maron]

On Monday, December 16, 2019, 07:35:08 AM EST, Simon Poole  
wrote:

> Just to be clear: you asked a question on an unmoderated, publicly accessible 
>mailing list on which everybody can voice their opinions however unfounded 
>they are or not, and now you are unhappy with that you got a cacophony of 
>conflicting opinions, which is exactly what you should have expected.

Looks like this was clear to the poster, but I don't think it would necessarily 
be clear to a random person joining the list.

Suggest we modify the list description on 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk to 

"The list for discussion of all legal matters relating to Openstreetmap, 
including licensing and copyright. For official information on the license from 
the OSM Foundation, see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence;

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] distance calculations

[matthias . straetling]

Dear IANALs,

I'm sorry to ask an additional question.

A while ago, I've listened to a talk about navigation of pupils from their home 
to the school - it was used to decide whether the pupil gets a free bus ticket 
or not.

The distance calculation was done by a land registry office, which didn't have 
a route-able road & path network, but had trust in the OSM data, since they 
inspected it for quite a while. For completeness, they've used their own 
housing and school locations, but didn't use any from OSM.

They routed from the pupil's house to the school on the OSM network. Of course, 
the results were released in public.
Do such distance calculations also trigger share-alike on the non-free data 
(here: schools & houses).

Regards,
Matthias


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[matthias . straetling]

Christoph.

> Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2019 um 12:03 Uhr
> Von: "Christoph Hormann" 
>
> This is definitely a better approach than trying to find loopholes in
> the license with brute force and wishful thinking.  Even if that is
> possible and you can present an interpretation of the wording of the
> ODbL that supports your use case without share-alike this was clearly
> not the intention of the OSM community when adopting the ODbL to do so.

It never was my intention to brute force a hole. I just thought, OSM data can 
be used, as long I don't mix anything or fill my missing data. I thought, 
proper attribution like "selected by using OSM data ..." would be fine for your.

> > I didn't expected OpenStreetMap to be such non-free and permissive
> > :-(
>
> The usual view is that share-alike provisions do not make something
> non-free or non-open because they are meant to protect and extend the
> freedom and only constrain users of truly non-free data.  But anyone
> can have a different opinion on that of course.

Sorry to say this, but I don't feel like you want to protect your data. It 
feels like you want to grab all the data, your data comes into contact with. 
"Viral" is the right term here - do you know the Borg? :-)

> Both share-alike and attribution play an important role in OSM in the
> social contract between mappers and data users.  In return for being
> able to use the results of the work of the mappers for free, data users
> are required to share improvements of the data or the results of
> producing something of additional value in combination with other data
> under open license terms.

If attribution would pay a role, than "(c) Non-Free data, selected by using OSM 
data ..." would be possible.
That might be an idea for future license drafts.

Regards,
Matthias

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[matthias . straetling]

Simon,

> Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2019 um 13:33 Uhr
> Von: "Simon Poole" 
>
> Just to be clear: you asked a question on an unmoderated, publicly
> accessible mailing list on which everybody can voice their opinions
> however unfounded they are or not, and now you are unhappy with that you
> got a cacophony of conflicting opinions, which is exactly what you
> should have expected.

I was aware of this and just wanted to get a consensus by the data creators: 
the users.
Looking at the opinion of the mass it shows me, that my approach of using OSM 
as a source of selecting the data doesn't seem to be fine. More of you are 
saying "share-alike", so I have to deal with this.

Like I sad before:
I would have been fine at attributing OpenStreetMap as selection. Now, I 
neither can use OSM data, nor add my dataset to yours.
A lose-lose-situation :-(

> The official guidance on geo-coding from the OSMF can be found here
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline

I think that is what Kathleen tried to explain, but got confused by others.
I'm sad that paying a lawyer is more expensive than paying for other datasets 
:-)

Regards,
Matthias

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[matthias . straetling]

I don't care about the money it costs, I even would pay for OpenStreetMap. I just wanted to use OSM, since the data quality is pretty high in the area I need it.

 

In a future license it would be better to allow attributions like "Data: (c) Non-Free, selected using (c) OpenStreetMap under ODbL...".

Now, I neither can use your data, nor add my dataset to yours. A lose-lose-situation :-(

 

Gesendet: Montag, 16. Dezember 2019 um 10:34 Uhr
Von: "Nuno Caldeira" 
An: "Licensing and other legal discussions." 
Betreff: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data






that's unfair, it is free, you don't have to pay for it. it just has a license, or else map companies would use our data 
 






___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Simon Poole]

Just to be clear: you asked a question on an unmoderated, publicly
accessible mailing list on which everybody can voice their opinions
however unfounded they are or not, and now you are unhappy with that you
got a cacophony of conflicting opinions, which is exactly what you
should have expected.

The official guidance on geo-coding from the OSMF can be found here
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline


Simon

Am 16.12.2019 um 03:18 schrieb matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de:
>> Von: "Christoph Hormann" 
>>
>> The idea that your process of intersecting non-OSM data with OSM based
>> admin polygons results in a collective database is not realistic.  To
>> me this kind of operation would be a textbook example of something
>> generating a derivative database - you combine OSM data with non-OSM
>> data to generate something of additional value compared to either of
>> these data sets alone.  This is exactly the kind of scenario
>> share-alike is meant for and why it was chosen as license for OSM.  But
>> there are of course fairly strong economic interests for this not being
>> subject to share-alike so people think of ways to interpret the ODbL
>> accordingly.
> Okay, I'll canceld all plans to use OpenStreetMap for this task.
> I've contacted several commercial data providers and hope to get offers 
> tomorrow.
>
> I didn't expected OpenStreetMap to be such non-free and permissive :-(
>
> ___
> 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] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 16 December 2019, matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de wrote:
>
> Okay, I'll canceld all plans to use OpenStreetMap for this task.
> I've contacted several commercial data providers and hope to get
> offers tomorrow.

In general (not necessarily specifically in your case - i don't know
enough about it to make that assessment) i think this is a good
approach if you have troubles with the share-alike provisions of the
ODbL.  If you want or need to keep a proprietary data set proprietary
it is natural that you have limitations in using it together with open
data with a viral license.

This is definitely a better approach than trying to find loopholes in
the license with brute force and wishful thinking.  Even if that is
possible and you can present an interpretation of the wording of the
ODbL that supports your use case without share-alike this was clearly
not the intention of the OSM community when adopting the ODbL to do so.

You need to be aware of course that the big corporate data users will
keep looking for loopholes - real or imagined - to achieve a
competitive advantage.  Like in the tale of the frog and the scorpion:
It is in their nature.  So if you respect the spirit of share-alike in
the ODbL you will always be potentially at a competitive disadvantages
to the corporate data users who simply don't give a damn.

The even better approach is of course to adopt the spirit of open data
and use OSM data together with other data sources embracing
share-alike.  Unfortunately so far the OSMF has not provided much
guidance on how to correctly do that, i.e. how to share share-alike
data sets practically.  The LWG unfortunately currently focuses on
guidance on how to avoid share-alike and attribution as much as
possible.

> I didn't expected OpenStreetMap to be such non-free and permissive
> :-(

The usual view is that share-alike provisions do not make something
non-free or non-open because they are meant to protect and extend the
freedom and only constrain users of truly non-free data.  But anyone
can have a different opinion on that of course.

Both share-alike and attribution play an important role in OSM in the
social contract between mappers and data users.  In return for being
able to use the results of the work of the mappers for free, data users
are required to share improvements of the data or the results of
producing something of additional value in combination with other data
under open license terms.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Nuno Caldeira]

that's unfair, it is free, you don't have to pay for it. it just has a
license, or else map companies would use our data

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, 02:19 ,  wrote:

>
> I didn't expected OpenStreetMap to be such non-free and permissive :-(
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 16. Dez. 2019 um 03:19 Uhr schrieb <
matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de>:

> Okay, I'll canceld all plans to use OpenStreetMap for this task.
> I've contacted several commercial data providers and hope to get offers
> tomorrow.
>
> I didn't expected OpenStreetMap to be such non-free and permissive :-(



It depends on your definition of "free". It is free and open in a viral
way, i.e. it also frees the data with which you combine it, at least this
is the conceptual idea behind it (share alike).

Cheers
Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk