Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License clarification

[Paul Norman]

On 2018-06-07 12:19 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:

The idea that you can produce a data set using both OSM and non-OSM data
in a meaningful way without there being either a collective or a
derivative database seems fundamentally at odds with the basic concept
of the ODbL.  The only way this could fly from my point of view would
be if you could argue the use of OSM data is insubstantial - for which
i see no basis in either law or the Substantial Guideline:


There's another case - when it isn't part of a collection of independent 
databases or doesn't have an alteration of OSM data, but it's just OSM 
data unmodified. This is the "this database" part of 4.2, talking about 
"this Database, any Derivative
Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database." 4.2 doesn't 
talk about the fourth case, which is is insubstantial, where the law 
either provides no database (or similar) rights, or the ODbL waives them.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Interesting use case of combining OSM with proprietary data

[Paul Norman]

On 1/11/2018 7:30 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:

My interpretation of the ODbL here is that this is a share-alike case
that would require the combined data sources to be made available.  But
you could probably also look at it differently.  I would like to hear
opinions on this.  In particular if you think that is legally possible
without share alike how this interpretation looks like.


Has anyone requested the derivative database their produced work is 
based on? It'd give us their interpretation.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OpenStreetMap usage limits

[Paul Norman]

On 8/3/2016 5:04 AM, stones_edite...@cosoluce.fr wrote:


Hi,

Our company is developping a web application.

Scenario is :

·The web application will be sold to many clients (one application for 
each)


·The web application will be hosted on our web server most of the time 
(and in some specials cases on client’s web server)


·Clients are charged with annual fees (licence) to be allowed to use 
their web application


·Clients have to login to enter in the web application (not public)

Now we have a plan to add maps and geocoding functionnalities.

That’s why I was visiting your web site.

I had a look to varous post in the Help Forum.

But I still need to clarify some points about Usage restrictions :

·Is our application a commercial application ? (I guess yes)

·Is our application is distributed ? (I guess yes)

·Do we have any usage limit ? Requests per month ? Requests per second ?

Thanks for your help.

Alain.



http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tile_usage_policy and 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nominatim_usage_policy are the two 
usage policies most likely to be relevant. The key point is 
OpenStreetMap data is free for everyone to use, but the services running 
on our servers are for people editing the map.


You should not base an application your are selling on our servers, as 
they may change at any point. Even if your usage is low enough to not be 
an issue, the OSMF servers have no SLA or other guarantees.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Paul Norman]

On 7/22/2016 12:28 AM, Ilya Zverev wrote:

Consider a simpler experiment. I remove nodes based on an obscure algorithm. I 
then publish the rest of the database and a list of removed nodes under an open 
license. Do I have to open the algorithm?


The database would be a derivative database and you would have to 
publish one of


a) the entire derivative database; or
b) A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database or the 
method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm), 
including any additional Contents


If you are publishing the database, this falls under a) and you don't 
need to do anything else. Someone could compare the databases, find out 
what you removed, and possibly run some analysis. If you don't want to 
publish the database (e.g. size reasons), then b) means you have to give 
enough information for someone to generate a).




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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC BY-NC (was FYI Collective Database Guideline)

[Paul Norman]

On 6/10/2016 9:48 AM, Tom Lee wrote:
Protecting commercial interests by limiting reuse is generally not a 
goal of open licenses*. If someone owns proprietary data and wants to 
extract rents from it, they probably shouldn't contribute it to an 
open data project like OSM.


* obviously there are exceptions -- CC-BY-NC exists, though it's 
little-loved both in terms of adoption and its creating organization 
-- but I think it would be a stretch to say the ODbL was designed for 
this purpose


The ODbL is an open license. CC BY-NC, like all NC licenses, is not.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] share-alike on generalized data?

[Paul Norman]

On 2/6/2016 9:41 PM, Tobias Wendorff wrote:

I mean, this won't be enough, will it?
- get OSM data extract from 2016-02-07
- filter streets
- get LMA data extract from 2015-12-31
- open in generalization tool XY with parameters XY


When publicly using a derivative database (or produced work from one) 
you need to share either the derivative database, alterations to the 
original database that form the derivative database,  or contents plus 
method to perform the alterations. The tool isn't really an issue here, 
as you've indicated the external data isn't available under an open license.


It sounds like you have two databases, one the landuse data, the other 
the roads data, together which form a collective database. This might be 
in one file, or more than one file. Because both databases are derived 
from OSM data, by design you have to release them (or another option 
under s 4.6).


Alternately, you might have one database with both landuse and roads 
data, which might be in one file or more than one file, but the results 
are the same.


What you don't have to do is release the original proprietary database 
from the LMA, but it would be able to be partially reconstructed from 
what you do release. Again, this is by design.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing a combined OSM adapted and CC-BY derived work

[Paul Norman]

On 11/22/2015 6:19 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:

On 23 November 2015 at 13:06, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

>To comply with the OSM data's ODBL license, my published results
>contain a notice that it is "based on data (c) OpenStreetMap
>Contributors under the Open Database License
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright;.

...and I offer my adapted work under the ODbL.


CC BY 3.0 doesn't allow you to do this, as it requires you to impose 
conditions not present in the ODbL.



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

[OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Paul Norman]

I'm trimming the cc list and taking this to a new thread, since it's 
independent of the metadata guideline.


On 9/22/2015 4:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike 
interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal 
intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to 
specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike to third party data 
elements intermingled with OSM data elements of the same kind. E. g. 
mixing OSM and non-OSM addresses should not extend ODbL to non-OSM 
addresses, mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs should not extend the ODbL to 
non-OSM POIs and so forth.


Turning this around, when do you think share-alike should apply in a 
geocoding context?


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal status of certain mapping activities

[Paul Norman]

On 9/16/2015 6:03 AM, Toggenburger Lukas wrote:

Case 1:
Is it legal/desired to look up the address of a particular POI on online maps 
like Bing map (https://www.bing.com/maps/), search.ch (http://map.search.ch), 
Google Maps (https://www.google.ch/maps/) or Swiss cantonal geoportals to 
determine in which building a POI is situated? The coordinates would not be 
copied digitally, instead the now identified building would be traced and added 
to the OSM database using sources such as Bing Aerial Imagery in JOSM/iD and 
the POI data would then be added.
Systematic extraction of locations from these sources could infringe 
database rights. In the case of Google, they explicitly prohibit this.

Case 2:
Assuming the website of the POI is showing a picture of the POI itself. Is it 
legal/desired to look for the POI on aerial imagery and determine the correct 
building, e.g. by outline, surroundings, or roof-color? (Case 2a: Aerial 
imagery is from Bing; Case 2b: Aerial imagery is from another service mentioned 
above.)
Using aerial imagery without a suitable license isn't an option. Not 
sure on 2a

Case 3:
If the building where the POI is situated is not present in the OSM database 
yet, but the person who wants to add the POI knows its exact position, is it 
legal/desirable that the POI is added anyway?
Yes, adding POIs is desirable. For example, I added the local library 
from my knowledge of where it is, acquired through living in the area.



Case 4:
My understanding is that we in OSM take a very cautious approach when using 
sources other than (our own) surveys, local knowledge and sources with explicit 
permission. Assuming there is a website of a POI containing information we 
would like to map. Let's say: phone number, postal address, e-mail address, 
operator's name, a link to the operator's Facebook page and a hand-drawn map 
(alternatively: a copyrighted map with a marker)
A hand-drawn map is a copyrighted map, and would presumably also have a 
marker, so there is no difference here.

  from which we can derive the POI's building (as in case 2).

Case 2 was talking about a photo, not a map.

  Wouldn't we need to ask every single POI/website operator for permission 
before mapping these things? If no, what's the difference to case 1? (This may 
seem as trolling but actually came up as rationale in a recent discussion.)

The difference is in database rights.

My view on the 4th case is that you should not use the map on the page, 
but only add information to a POI where you know the website you're 
looking at is the website of the POI, e.g. add contact information after 
doing a survey. You shouldn't use it as the sole source of information 
to add a POI.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?

[Paul Norman]

The problem is that they have specified a license with attribution that is 
unreasonable for geodata (CC BY 3.0 and earlier).

Neither OpenStreetMap.org or most data consumers (e.g. MapBox) would meet the 
CC BY 3.0 and earlier attribution requirements.

There are a few options for permission. The easiest might be to get them to 
grant permission to everyone under the CC0 license. This would meet the needs 
of us, as well as anyone else who would want to use their data

Another option is to educate them about data licenses. I'd only go this route 
if you can't get the data under CC0. They've talked about concern about their 
data being used under less-free license. Leaving aside what less-free means, a 
feature of attribution only licenses like CC BY is that you are allowed to do 
this.

On Aug 30, 2015 5:41 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:


 On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de 
 wrote:

 Hello Steve,

 On 30.08.2015 17:14, Steve Bennett wrote:

 I wonder if there are any expert licence negotiators here who might be
 able to get involved in the discussion.


 I'm no such expert, but they just require attribution. Did they state any 
 specific way of doing so? If not, then maybe just mentioning in the wiki is 
 fine for them?

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors


 Right. You don't need DELWP to give you any statement or permission in order 
 to import their data to OpenStreetMap or derive data  for OpenStreetMap from 
 their data.
  
  
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?

[Paul Norman]

Sent from my Cyanogen phone
On Aug 30, 2015 6:04 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 Huh. Really? Did I completely misunderstand this? 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission

 My understanding was that when you import data into OSM, you assign special 
 permission to the OSMF to re-license the data under ODbL, so you need more 
 than just CC-BY licensing to begin with. Did something change, or have I just 
 been mistaken for a long time?

http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License#I_would_like_to_import_data_XYZ.2C_can_I_just_go_ahead.3F

The license needs to be compatible, or you need permission. Obviously 
compatible licenses are CC0, PDDL, ODC-By, and the ODbL itself. Obviously 
incompatible licenses are any non-commercial or no derivative license.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] GADM license - any news?

[Paul Norman]

On 8/25/2015 3:55 AM, Simon Poole wrote:

- in dire circumstances and with a very large effort, as Paul has
pointed out, three and a half years ago I managed to get hold of the
responsible person  with GADM and get explicit permission for a handful
of datasets that had been imported in violation of the import guidelines
and in principle should have been deleted
- the situation is documented here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#GADM_.28Global_Administrative_Areas.29
For a number of other data sets explicitly said they were unable to 
grant permission for non-commercial use. Since some of the data was 
coming from government agencies, it's possible the non-commercial 
requirements for those datasets are set down in law.

- AFAIK I'm the last person that managed to get hold of the GADM people
and I don't see anybody volunteering to try again


About a year later I tried to get into contact with anyone involved in 
GADM and couldn't get a reply.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] GADM license - any news?

[Paul Norman]

On 8/21/2015 7:41 AM, Simone Aliprandi wrote:

Do you know if any news have come in these six years? Do you know if
OSM received a sort of direct permission to include those data in
the OSM database?


GADM is still under a non-commercial license. I don't know who said they 
were going to investigate, so you'd have to ask them, but I doubt 
anything came of it. Independently of that, we got permission for some 
datasets from GADM after the fact of a bad import, but this does not 
mean we can import anything new.



Another interesting issue is that Naturalearthdata.com
(http://www.naturalearthdata.com/) includes the GADM dataset as a
source of data (see
http://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-cultural-vectors/10m-admin-1-states-provinces/).
But Naturalearthdata.com release ALL ITS DATA as public domain. So...
something is missing in the workflow. Any ideas/suggestions?
I don't see anything that says the admin 1 theme is derived from GADM. I 
can see it listed in resources, but that's not a list of sources.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal requirements of permissions to import into OSM

[Paul Norman]

On 7/27/2015 9:00 AM, Tom Lee wrote:
3. if they balk at this, ask for an attribution license, most likely a 
pre-4.0 version of CC-BY
Pre-4.0 CC BY attribute requirements are clearly incompatible with 
common attribution for multi-source maps, practices of data consumers 
(including Mapbox), and both the CC 4.0 and ODbL 1.0 attribution 
requirements.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using a WMS imagery with CC-BY4.0

[Paul Norman]

On 7/13/2015 3:09 AM, Simon Poole wrote:

It is, as you may have seen from previous discussions, not clear if the
CC 4.0 licences are compatible (with the exception of CC0 naturally)
with the ODbL and this is likely not an issue that will be resolved
short term.


To clarify a bit, any CC licenses that are ND or NC are non-open and 
clearly incompatible with the ODbL or any open license. CC BY SA 4.0 is 
currently incompatible, but Creative Commons could change that.


CC BY 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 are clearly  incompatible, thanks to the 
attribution requirements that can't be met.


CC BY 4.0 has some open questions about compatibility.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Suspicion of site using OSM data without proper credits?

[Paul Norman]

On 5/23/2015 1:25 PM, Anders Anker-Rasch wrote:


Hi,

Who do I contact regarding investigations about a site potentially 
using OSM data without proper credits?


Best regards,

Anders



If you don't want to contact them yourself, you can forward the 
information to le...@osmfoundation.org


Please include an example area which consists of non-imported data.

If possible, it would be good to know

- If it is CC BY-SA or ODbL data
- If they are using a commercial provider for their maps
- Any contact information
- Anything else you found out



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM based GPS navigations and ODbl license of OSM data

[Paul Norman]

On 1/7/2015 7:21 PM, Stephan Knauss wrote:
We could start merging 3rd party ODbL into OSM 
We can do so right now from a legal perspective. In fact, there are 
imports of ODbL data that have taken place.

But then have a hard time to fulfill attribution requirements.

No - we'd attribute the same way we attribute other sources.
And an even harder time to get rid of the data in case of another 
license change in the future.
See 
http://osmfoundation.org/wiki/License#Can_third-party_ODbL-licenses_data_be_imported.3F. 
It works like any other imported data.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM based GPS navigations and ODbl license of OSM data

[Paul Norman]

On 1/6/2015 11:01 AM, Karel Charvat wrote:
Are the developers of Be-On-Road fullfilling their ODbl license  
obligations by providing their data only in files with unknown format?
It depends. If they are not adding any data, they can simply point to 
the source (planet.osm.org).


If they are adding data, they need to provide the entire derivative 
database (4.6.a) or an alteration file (4.6.b) with the new contents. 
Based on my experience, I would be surprised if they had non-OSM data in 
a derivative database. Far more common is to layer OSM data with other data.


It would be nice if be-on-the-road documented their format and provided 
open-source tools to use it, but this is not a legal requirement. The 
ODbL is concerned with preserving the openness of the data, not of the 
data format.


They of course need to meet the other obligations of the ODbL (e.g. 
attribution).


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Working Group news

[Paul Norman]

On 11/18/2014 10:11 AM, Luis Villa wrote:


On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz 
mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:


I would also like to highlight that we also now welcome associate
members who can help us occassionally or want to work on a
specific topic that fires you up. This involves no specific
formalities nor duties. 



Hi, Mike, others-
Is there a formal description somewhere of the roles/responsibilities 
of the WG? That would help me evaluate to what extent (if at all) I 
can participate in WG activities.
The scope of the LWG is listed at 
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group


The day to day work is answering routine license enquiries, generally by 
pointing to osm.org/copyright, the guidelines, or the FAQ. That's not 
particularly where help is needed - not that more help would be minded - 
it's the larger items we'd like to take on.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BWn372ow_1tnTdQja76mthS8V-ZQ5PCL_RWLR1CBzkw/pub 
has some of the work we'd like to take on in the near future.


We haven't worked out a precise framework for the scope of individual 
associate members - it's not expected that all associate members would 
participate in all parts of the LWG's work.


If associate members not having a vote would allow people to help who 
would otherwise be in a conflict of interest, that could be done too.


If you have any suggestions, none of this is set in stone.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Paul Norman]

On 10/27/2014 4:47 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
Picking up on Paul's offer to help along the discussion here [1]. Also 
copying Steve here as he's renewed his call for better addressing in 
OpenStreetMap - which I entirely agree with [2].


Feedback from this thread is incorporated on the wiki [2] - thanks 
particularly to Frederik for this work. However, we have two competing 
visions for how to interpret geocoding. Column 1 of the wiki page 
interprets the information queried from OpenStreetMap in a typical 
geocoding request as Produced Work, thus not extending share alike 
provisions to geocoded data. Column 2 interprets the content pulled 
from OpenStreetMap in a geocoding process as a Derivative Database but 
the database this content is inserted to as a Collective Database.


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.


Given the lack of mention of a *database* of geocodes, as it stands I 
don't think column 1 helps with any standard use cases, where you will 
have many geocodes in a database. What do you think the status of a 
database of geocoding results is under the interpretation in column 1?


Those who I've talked to believe that in principle column 2 supports 
their use cases - it is just a matter of bringing clarity to it.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Paul Norman]

On 10/27/2014 5:19 PM, Alex Barth wrote:


According to the interpretation in column 1, the ODbL doesn't imply 
any specific licensing for geocoding results, they are Produced Works.


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.


Under most jurisdictions a geocoding result is likely to be ineligible 
for any protection, where as a database of them generally is.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Paul Norman]

On 7/28/2014 12:07 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com 
mailto: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
Just to clarify, the above is what your lawyers sent you, except for 
formatting changes to place it into a Wiki format?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Paul Norman]

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

[Paul Norman]

On 7/10/2014 7:52 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
Please review: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline
The next step is probably to update this page to represent what there is 
consensus on out of the discussions and remove what there isn't 
consensus on. Anyone want to have a go?


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?


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Voting as Associate Member

[Paul Norman]

On 2014-07-23 8:29 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote:

Hi all,

Could anyone provide some insight into voting as a Normal Member vs as
an Associate Member of the Foundation? Reading (76) of the AoA
(http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association) this would
cover most voting situations I have encountered, but can anyone give
an example of a situation where I would be entitled to vote as a
Normal Member but not as an Associate Member?

See membership types here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Membership
I'm going from memory, but I believe the companies act sets out some 
types of votes which are for members, and associate members are not 
members in the companies act sense.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Paul Norman]

On 2014-07-15 4:26 AM, Mikel Maron wrote:


As long as the purpose of a geocoder is geocoding, and not reverse 
engineering OSM,

then it sensibly fits within the notions of an ODbL produced work.
A geocoder isn't a produced work or a derived database - it's software. 
Do you mean a geocoding result, or a database of geocoding results?


What I wonder is how we will move to decision making on the proposal? 
What's the OSMF process?
First we need to wait for discussion to be settled. After that, it'd be 
the same process as the other guidelines - to LWG for review, then the 
board.


Also, everyone should remember the guidelines are on the wiki right now, 
so don't be afraid to edit the body of them, not just add examples.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Paul Norman]

On 2014-07-14 8:15 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote:

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
This is also how I'm reading this. Obviously the sticky point is the 
definition of what's a database in this sentence: systematically 
recreate a database from the process. You can't abuse geocoding to 
recreate OpenStreetMap without triggering share alike. 
The definition of 'substantial' is key here, isn't it? In one of the 
examples I added, the result of OSM-based geocoding actions would 
potentially be stored on a client in a collection of 'favorites' 
together with other favorites that may be the result of tainted 
geocoding. There's really two questions here - 1) is this collection 
of favorites 'substantial' and 2) does this mixed storage trigger 
share alike in an of itself?


Given that any database of geocoding results is going to be clearly 
based upon the Database [OpenStreetMap], and that any interesting uses 
of OSM are probably going to substantial, I don't see the definition of 
it mattering.


In most of the cases raised in the wiki page, there's a derivative 
database of geocoding results and some other non-derivative database of 
something not taken from OSM, e.g. non-OSM POIs with just an address. 
You then take this collection of data sources and create a produced 
work, e.g. a page showing what the user has showed.


Once you start taking actual POI information from OSM, not just 
addresses, then your POI database will also be a derivative of OSM.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Paul Norman]

On 2014-07-14 11:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
Also if we assume geocoding yields Produced Work the definition of 
Substantial doesn't matter.
A database that is based upon the Database, and includes any 
translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other 
alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents is 
a derivative database. This doesn't exclude databases where the items in 
the database are produced works, e.g. a database of geocoding results.


If you are extracting insubstantial parts of the database (keeping in 
mind that repeated insubstantial can be substantial) than the ODbL 
imposes no requirements, not share-alike nor 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

[Paul Norman]

On Jul 11, 2014, at 04:11 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:

What I'm looking for a is a clear interpretation by the community,
supported OSMF, an interpretation that is a permissive reading of the
ODbL on geocoding to unlock use cases. 
 

Guidelines need to be accurate and supported by the ODbL and shouldn't be 
advanced to support a particular viewpoint and the process is not a way to 
weaken share-alike.

I'm working my way through the examples. 


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. This derivative 
database is then used to create a produced work (the locator map).

4.4.c provides that this database of geocoding results is publicly used and is 
licensed under the ODbL. 4.6 requires offering the recipients of the produced 
work the derivative database itself or alterations file. In the specific case 
of this example, the alterations is trivial - you just say you were using 
unaltered OpenStreetMap data processed with Nominatim.___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Paul Norman]

On Jul 10, 2014, at 07:54 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:

I just updated the Wiki with a proposed community guideline on geocoding.

In a nutshell: geocoding with OSM data yields Produced Work, share alike does 
not apply to Produced Work, other ODbL stipulations such as attribution do 
apply. The goal is to remove all uncertainties around geocoding to help make 
OpenStreetMap truly useful for geocoding and to drive important address and 
admin polygon contributions to OpenStreetMap.

This interpretation is based on what we hear from our lawyers at Mapbox. As 
this is an interpretation of the ODbL, grey areas remain and therefore, seeing 
this interpretation adopted as a Community Guideline by the OSMF would be 
hugely helpful to create more certainty about the consensus around geocoding 
with OpenStreetMap data.

Please review: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline
 
That a geocoding result is not a derived database is fairly obvious and not 
that interesting. It was produced from a derivative database, but isn't a 
database itself so can't be a derivative database. 

In my reading of the definitions, a database of geocoding results is a 
derivative database of the database used to power the geocoder. That database 
will then frequently be part of a collective database where the other 
independent databases are typically proprietary databases of some kind. That 
collective database is then generally used to produce works that are a produced 
work of the database of geocoding results as part of a collective database.___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reliefweb as data source for OSM?

[Paul Norman]

On 2014-06-29 1:33 AM, Lukas Sommer wrote:

Hello.

Reliefweb is a service of the United Nations, that contains maps, 
mostly concerning regions where have been desaster and where 
humanitairian aid is necessary.


Their permission can be found here: http://reliefweb.int/map_permission

Is it possible to use this for OSM?

Specially 2 points are interesting:

– ReliefWeb maps cannot be used for advertising, marketing or in ways 
which are inconsistent with the Organization's mission (see “About 
ReliefWeb” for details).


– All maps must be credited as follows: “Based on OCHA/ReliefWeb”

Is this really acceptable for OSM?


If by use you mean upload content to the API based on it, then yes.

The attribution clause might be a concern, but is unclear enough that it 
might not.


The discriminatory clause prohibiting marketing and ways that are 
inconsistent is inherently non-open and incompatible with release under 
any open license. If you're using in the original form, there are 
further issues (prior permission required, etc)


Although not significant, given the above issues, I do note they also 
don't give any permissions for use on mobile devices like Garmins, use 
with audio, or anything else that's not print or online.


If you're aware of any ReliefWeb content that has been imported into 
OSM, please let the Data Working Group know at d...@osmfoundation.org 
and we'll look into it.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reliefweb as data source for OSM?

[Paul Norman]

On 2014-06-29 3:12 AM, Paul Norman wrote:



Is this really acceptable for OSM?


If by use you mean upload content to the API based on it, then yes.



Whoops - s/yes/no/

Writing messages late at night.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reliefweb as data source for OSM?

[Paul Norman]

On 2014-06-29 3:21 AM, Lukas Sommer wrote:
I’m not aware of content that has been imported, but I found 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Uganda/Data_Sources#Relief_Web 
and wasn’t sure about if this is possible or not.


So we can resume that it is not allowed to upload content (that is 
based on ReliefWeb) to the OSM database?



Correct, you cannot upload content from ReliefWeb to the OSM database 
based on the permissions on their website.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Imports] N50 imports from Kartverket (The Norwegian Mapping Authority)

[Paul Norman]

On 2014-06-21 3:00 PM, Tor wrote:

21. juni 2014 kl. 23:03 skrev Paul Norman penor...@mac.com:


I've been looking for some statement that CC BY 4.0 is compatible with ODbL (Or 
ODC-BY). COuld you provide details on the compatibility?

As a reminder, CC BY 3.0 and earlier are incompatible for reasons related to 
the attribution requirements.

Kartverket has stated that it’s enough to credit them on a single page
like http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright. The e-mail from
Kartverket confirming this was forwarded to the Norwegian OSM community
mailing list, and can be found here:
http://lists.nuug.no/pipermail/kart/2013-July/004099.html (Sorry, it's
in Norwegian only.)
Are they okay with attribution meeting the minimum of 4.3 of the ODbL? 
Remember, that's the attribution we can offer, not a guarantee of 
listing on osm.org/copyright.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Imports] N50 imports from Kartverket (The Norwegian Mapping Authority)

[Paul Norman]

On 2014-06-12 3:01 PM, Tor Mehus wrote:


BACKGROUND
In September 2013 the Norwegian Mapping Authority (Kartverket) released various data 
sets under an OSM compatible licence (CC BY 4.0; 
http://www.kartverket.no/Kart/Gratis-kartdata/Lisens/).
I've been looking for some statement that CC BY 4.0 is compatible with 
ODbL (Or ODC-BY). COuld you provide details on the compatibility?


As a reminder, CC BY 3.0 and earlier are incompatible for reasons 
related to the attribution requirements.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines (was Re: Attribution)

[Paul Norman]

 From: Luis Villa [mailto:lvi...@wikimedia.org] 
 Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 3:17 PM
 To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines (was Re: Attribution)

  The LWG has spent considerable time discussing the geocoding issue, so
  it is not as if we've ignored the subject.
 
 Didn't mean to imply that work hasn't been done! I've read all the 
 public threads I can find :) But the wiki doesn't reflect that, and the 
 wiki is where most outsiders are going to go to try to figure out the 
 question, since it is most googleable, linked to from many places, etc. 

One of the big differences between Wikipedia and OSM communications is 
that we don't generally use the wiki for discussion, we use it for 
documentation. Ideally when something is settled the documentation will 
get updated accordingly, but the discussions and work themselves won't 
appear on the wiki. Of course, as with most projects, documentation 
often lags behind... 

  So, yes, I think it might be fair to say that the LWG has punted on the
  geocoding issue at least for now, to spend its time on issues which are
  more likely to be resolved.
  
 I think it would be helpful if the wiki at least reflected that. If 
 there were links from there to the relevant mailing list threads, it 
 would (1) warn people that this is a tough issue and (2) they might find 
 some useful analysis/background in them. 
 
 Normally I'd try to organize some of that myself, but since I'm a lawyer 
 for an organization that will likely consider some sort of geocoding at 
 some point in the future I'm extremely reluctant to put words in 
 anyone's mouth or in anyone's wiki. 

It's important to remember that the wiki is the community edited and not 
an official OSMF position. Obviously you need to be comfortable that 
you're okay in any edits you're doing, but from an OSM side I don't see 
any issues with the edits you've described, particularly since you're 
not stating what the share-alike implications of geocoding are, but 
you're linking to existing discussions of the matter. 

When it comes to writing guidelines, I know I'd love it if someone else 
were to submit well written guidelines that agree with the ODbL and what 
we want to say. Obviously the LWG wouldn't simply copy/paste without 
reviewing and probably modifying text. 

As an aside, my last job involved writing guidelines on interpretation 
of health and safety regulations for the local health and safety 
regulator. It takes a specialized skillset and way of thinking.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial

[Paul Norman]

From: Luis Villa [mailto:lvi...@wikimedia.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:09 AM
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial

 Without going further into the details of the many drafting shortcomings 
 of ODBL (which, to be clear, are partially my fault!) suffice to say 
 that I think that the interactions of 6.0 and 2.2(c) are not 
 well-defined, especially in jurisdictions where there is no applicable 
 statutory law, and/or where applicable caselaw says there are no 
 database rights. 

I view 6.0 as equivalent to 2.a.2 from CC 4.0 licenses, which state that 
you do not need to comply with the license where fair use or similar 
applies. In the ODbL case you might be dealing with a jurisdiction where 
fair use type rights don't exist because data-type licenses are only 
under contract law. I haven't seen this as a practical issue for three 
reasons: 


1. The ODbL doesn't impose requirements in a number of use cases (4.5 and 
   6.2 most obviously), making it a moot point in those cases

2. Most of the interesting use cases wouldn't be fair use anyways, dealing 
   with using most or all of the database for commercial purposes in a 
   public manner

3. I live in BC, where was a case involving someone doing essentially what 
   I do for OSM mapping and it was covered by copyright. The OSMF is in the 
   UK, where database rights exist. 
 
 I agree that in practice, courts are likely to find ways to work around 
 it. But the EU CJ was quite explicit in BHB about comparing to the 
 entire size of the dataset, so best not to rely on that as a primary 
 tool. 

Something else that hasn't been touched on is the crowd-sourced nature 
of OSM and use of other databases. Regardless of the exact threshold for 
substantial, I can easily imagine a scenario where a sub-set of OSM is 
not a substantial part of OSM, but is entirely from a smaller 
third-party database and is a substantial part of that third-party 
database. 

I frankly don't have a clue how this would be considered. I'd expect the 
third-party database owner would have no problem suing in case of a 
license violation (e.g. failure to attribute), but could the OSMF? 

For that matter, how does this work with Wikipedia? Say a European 
Wikipedia contributor assembles a database and then inputs that into 
Wikipedia. How are those database rights treated? 

 While I don't like the 100 feature reference (it seems awfully arbitrary 
 to me, and small) it could be salvaged if one explained _and justified_ 
 that in the common case, mapping 100 features is likely to represent a 
 substantial investment of time, effort, etc., in gathering the data. I 
 just don't know enough to know if that is doable. 

Is 100 features qualitatively substantial? I'd say, it depends. 100 
place=village nodes with no other tags mapped from aerial imagery is
probably not qualitatively substantial. 100 POIs tagged in great detail 
might be.

Does the fact that mappers do not receive compensation from the OSMF 
influence what qualitatively substantial is? Does the small OSMF budget?


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

[OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial

[Paul Norman]

See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guidelin
e for guideline text.

 The Open Data License defines a term 'Substantial' which is then used 
 in the License to define a threshold about when certain clauses come 
 into effect. 

Substantial is a term defined in the relevant law, similar to fair use 
or fair dealing under copyright law. We're not referencing the law at 
all in the guideline. If the use is insubstantial, than the ODbL doesn't 
come into play at all as you need no license. 

Is there any relevant case law on substantial?

 Less than 100 Features

I'm not sure that 100 features will always qualify as insubstantial. As 
an example, consider a restaurant chain with a database of restaurants, 
and they have less than 100 locations. If we accept this definition of 
insubstantial as being true for geospatial databases in general, then 
their entire database could be extracted. If its true for OSM but not 
all other geospatial databases, we need to explain why.


 The features relating to an area of up to 1,000 inhabitants which 
 can be a small densely populated area such as a European village or 
 can be a large sparsely-populated area for example a section of the 
 Australian bush.

This doesn't really work in sparsely populated areas. I think it'd 
allow extraction of all of Antarctica! It'd basically give no protection
to well mapped remote natural areas.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial

[Paul Norman]

 From: Luis Villa [mailto:lvi...@wikimedia.org] 
 Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 3:10 PM
 To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial
 
 Reminder that Simon has pointed out here quite recently that ODBL claims 
 to be a binding contract that can apply when no license is necessary.

So, there's two cases here. One is in Europe. You might have trouble 
enforcing a contract which restricts you from acts permitted in the 
directive. I'm not sure of this interpretation, but won't further 
consider it because the point is moot, since 6.0 explicitly says that 
the ODbL doesn't restrict the rights you have under the exceptions to 
the database right. 

The other more complicated one is outside Europe, where you'd be looking 
at the ODbL as a copyright license or contract. In that case, we still 
want the guideline to be in harmony with the database directive for a 
few reasons 

1. The ODbL defines the terms with the same text as the database 
directive and directly references the EC directive. 

2. Different definitions of substantial would result in different 
allowable actions depending on where you are. To some extent this is 
going to happen anyways, but if we can avoid additional cases that's 
good. 

3. Europe is probably the only place where the courts have considered 
the definitions of substantial and insubstantial used in the ODbL. 

4. I find it's generally easiest to look at the ODbL as a license 
database right, rather than a license of copyright or a contract 

 This strongly suggests that a European court would evaluate 
 substantial in the quantitative sense with regards to the entire 2B 
 records in OSM, not with regards to the database the information was put 
 into. It would be interesting to see what courts around Europe are 
 finding as substantial in this sense; I see one reference to a French 
 court that found that taking 15% was not quantitatively substantial, and 
 the GRADE paper linked to from the wiki suggests it would have to be 50%.
 But I suspect this would vary a lot based on the facts of the case, 
 and that a skilled lawyer could raise or lower the number. And of course 
 in the case of a database as large as OSM a court might try to change 
 their mind. 

OSM has ~250M features. The difference from 2B is for technical reasons 
to do with the data model. Seeing the percentages that are being used 
for substantial, I think anything that is quantatively substantial will 
be qualitatively substantial. 

I also suspect that OSM has two key differences from anything else 
considered. One is the size and worldwide scope - Great Britain is ~2% 
of the planet-wide data, but anyone trying to work with all of Great 
Britain is hardly likely to not consider it substantial. 

Another is applicability to database of geographic information. I'd 
defer to someone who's more familiar with them, but I believe the 
Ordinance Survey treats *much* smaller extracts of their data as 
substantial. 


 For qualitative, the key passage of BHB is:
  [S]ubstantial part, evaluated qualitatively, of the contents of a 
  database refers to the scale of the investment in the obtaining, 
  verification or presentation of the contents of the subject of the act 
  of extraction and/or re-utilisation, regardless of whether that subject 
  represents a quantitatively substantial part of the general contents of 
  the protected database. A quantitatively negligible part of the contents 
  of a database may in fact represent, in terms of obtaining, verification 
  or presentation, significant human, technical or financial investment. 
 (Para 71) 
 
 In other words, a small chunk of a large database can be qualitatively 
 substantial if the cost of obtaining, verification, or presentation of 
 that small chunk was substantial. The court goes on to say that it 
 doesn't matter if the small chunk is, by itself, valuable - what matter 
 is the work done to put it into the database. What qualifies as a 
 substantive investment is left as an exercise for the lower courts. 
 (One German case I've found seemed to presume that 39,000 Euro was a 
 substantive investment, but that was not the primary point being argued 
 in that case so I wouldn't rely on the number being that low.) 

Putting BHB into an OSM context, what seems to matter is mapping effort. 
That makes sense - 100 detailed POIs are worth more than 100 points with 
only building=yes. Of course mapping effort is harder to measure...

 Some pretty decent summaries of BHB and other relevant caselaw, FYI:
Thanks for the links - they're on my to-read list.

 Few other comments:
 * It might be helpful to link to 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_features 
   when talking about Features, assuming those are the same concept,
   which I admit I'm still not 100% sure about?

It's a data model issue. OSM's data model is designed for crowd-sourced 
editing, and polygons are composed of multiple elements. 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Review of IndianaMap as potential datasource

[Paul Norman]

If they want to release it under public domain they should just stick a CC0
or PDDL license on it. This would be far simpler than trying to figure out
how a grant of rights to a third-party organization affects us, and would
allow the use of the data by anyone, including Wikipedia, without any
further work.

 

From: Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 1:10 PM
To: Stephan Knauss
Cc: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Review of IndianaMap as potential datasource

 

Oh i almost forgot. Well look, they could use the otrs for marking it as
public domain. I am sure you can modify the otrs text to include a special
text for osm as well.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates

so just add in the osm text as well as the creative commons. make it multi
licensed. 

you might want to send them things about open public data initiatives :
http://sunlightfoundation.com/opendataguidelines/
http://project-open-data.github.io/
http://wiki.civiccommons.org/Open_Data_Policy

  mike

 

On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de
wrote:

If the data is creative commons we can't use it. We can't neither fulfill
the attribution nor is it compatible with the contributor terms which allows
changing the license. 

Stephan 

 

On April 19, 2014 5:19:54 PM CEST, Mike Dupont
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:

 

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

Well no, Mike, I don't think so.  What rights a publisher grants to
Wikipedia has nothing to do with what rights a publisher grants to
OpenStreetMap.  Wikipedia has no ownership interest in OpenStreetMap,
nor vice-versa.

 

If wikipedia is granted rights, it is not exclusive, if the data is under a
public domain or creative commons then osm can use it. There is no data on
wikipedia except fair use pictures that cannot be used in osm. 

mike







-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org
Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com
Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using Google Street View to perform virtual survey

[Paul Norman]

 From: Paulo Carvalho [mailto:paulo.r.m.carva...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2014 8:51 AM
 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Using Google Street View to perform virtual
survey
 
 Dear fellow mappers,
 
 Let me present myself to you. I'm a OSM mapper from the Brazil community 
 and a question rose there which caused a split in the group regarding 
 Google Street View to perform virtual surveys, such as taking notes of 
 house numbers and plotting them in the maps. 
 
 [...]
 
 Your thoughts, please 

The Google TOS restrictions on use[1] prohibit [using] the Products to 
create a database of places or other local listings information. My 
recollection is that previous versions of their terms contained similar 
provisions, but were not as clear. 

Using Street View as you describe would definitely be a violation of 
Google's TOS. When it happens the Data Working Group redacts the data to 
remove it from the OpenStreetMap database. 

[1]: https://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/help/terms_maps.html


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] Nouvelle licence de données ouvertes au Québec

[Paul Norman]

CC BY 3.0 and earlier had onerous attribution requirements for data. I believe 
4.0 fixes this. I don't think anyone has suggested contacting a data provider 
who's licensed under CC 4.0 licenses to clarify attribution.

The issue with 3.0 attribution are not purely theoretical, there have been 
providers who have objected to how we have attribution and we've been unable to 
use their data.

Sent from my iPad

 On Feb 21, 2014, at 1:58 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@gondwanaland.com wrote:
 
 Asking for a clarification that provided attribution is OK seems over the top 
 too, at least for CC-BY, especially CC-BY-4.0, given You may satisfy the 
 [attribution conditions] in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, 
 and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. If every attribution 
 needs to be clarified with the licensor to determine if it is OK, then 
 attribution licenses truly are a fail. But that practice is certainly not the 
 intent of such licenses.
 
 IMO, IANAL, etc etc.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements

[Paul Norman]

 From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
[mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
 Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 4:47 AM
 To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements
 
  The thing is that for us, for OpenStreetMap, the attribution is our main

  remuneration. We give our data away for free but in return, we expect 
  to get at least a little bit of exposure, a little help in building our

  brand to borrow some marketing speak. 
 
 So, what exactly means free for you : no money only ? This is how OSM 
 started: Not free as in beer, but. . finish yourself (probably forgotten 
 by most) OSM is not asking for a little bit of exposure, but for a 
 substantial deviation of free. 

For the meaning of free/open there's a few sources to look at. When it
comes to data there's opendefinition.org, but if you look at free/open 
outside of data  there's the Open Source definition
(http://opensource.org/osd) 
and the DFSG (http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines). 

All of these allow attribution and share-alike requirements. For the 
ODbL, the requirements are

 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 [OpenStreeMap], and that it is available under [the ODbL].

For CC BY and CC BY-SA, our old license, the requirements are

 You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give 
 [OpenStreetMap] credit reasonable to the medium or means You are 
 utilizing by conveying the [pseudonym OpenStreetMap]; the title of the 
 Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform 
 Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated 
 with the Work ... and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit 
 identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., French 
 translation of the Work by Original Author, or Screenplay based on 
 original Work by Original Author). Such credit may be implemented in 
 any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a 
 Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear 
 where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at 
 least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit. 

Many of the companies failing to meet attribution requirements are using
OpenStreetMap data for the majority of their map data, and sometimes have
no attribution at all. The OpenStreetMap requirements are less onerous than
alternative commercial sources, and our attribution requirements are the
same as or less onerous than most open data from governments.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use of maptiles

[Paul Norman]

 From: Schröders, Alexander [mailto:alexander.schroed...@sensis-gmbh.de] 
 Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 12:48 AM
 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] use of maptiles
 
 Hello,
 i develop a commercial application which makes use of the tile material 
 from osm. I read „Heavy use (e.g. distributing an app that uses tiles 
 from openstreetmap.org) is forbidden without prior permission from the 
 System Administrators. See below for alternatives.“ in 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tile_usage_policy.
 
 Now i ask my self the question what is heavy use of tile materials.

First of all, I do not speak for the system administrators. They make 
the decisions on what to block, and how. What I write is based on my 
experience seeing what has caused load problems in the past 

There is not a level at which your use is guaranteed to never be 
considered heavy use or guaranteed not to be blocked. If that is a 
requirement, you need to enter into a contract with a commercial 
provider who will set out pricing terms. Also remember that if your use 
does become heavy use, you can change to a commercial service right 
away, because you didn't hardcode the tile.openstreetmap.org location 
into your app, since the terms prohibit that. 



The following are generally heavy use 

- Downloading tiles by area for later offline use 

- Consuming a noticable portion of resources (see 
http://munin.openstreetmap.org/openstreetmap/tile.openstreetmap/index.html
and 
http://munin.openstreetmap.org/openstreetmap/render.openstreetmap/index.html
) 

- Distributing a smartphone map app targeted at consumers that uses 
  tile.openstreetmap.org by default. 

- A commercial map-based website in production 

- Anything that neglects or tries to get around the usage policy 
  technical requirements 

The following are typically not heavy use 

- Use on an about page indicating the location of a head office or 
  similar location 

- Use in development 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Open Government License - Canada

[Paul Norman]

I got word back indicating that the OGL - Canada 2.0 is ODbL and 
CC BY compatible. This makes it easy for us to use.

I want to offer my profound thanks to the federal government and the 
people I talked to in it for being willing to answer questions about 
licensing.


 -Original Message-
 From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com]
 Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 8:29 PM
 To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
 Cc: 'Levene, Mark'; 'David E. Nelson'; talk...@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Open Government License - Canada
 
 cc'ing to a few people who I have talked about this with in the past.
 
 Some governments in Canada have released data under the Open Government
 Licence - Canada, version 2.0. This is yet another new license. Some
 people have asked if we can use datasets available under this license.
 
 http://data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-canada contains the full
 text of the version the Federal government is using. It is an
 attribution license and in a perfect world would be ODbL compatible. Of
 course we've seen plenty of attribution licenses screw something or
 other up.
 
 What is not obvious is that they expect other levels to modify the
 license to localize it with the information of their attribution
 statement and local laws, but let's start with the Federal one first.
 Once that's done we can look at BC, AB, Nanaimo, Vancouver... etc.
 
 One of the statements in the consultation on this license was The
 change of the attribution statement from OGL v1.0 to be one specific to
 the federal government reduces the ability to reuse this license by
 other jurisdictions (e.g. provinces) and will increase the number of
 licenses that have to be analysed.
 
 The origin of this license is the OGL 1.0, a UK license.
 
 The principle difference between UK and Canadian law is that database
 right does not exist in Canada.
 
 http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ lists OGL Canada 2.0 as an Open
 Definition conformant license.
 
 The question that matters for OSM is, can OGL Canada 2.0 datasets be
 released under the ODbL.
 
 One issue raised as problematic in some versions of the license is
 Personal Information
 
 For OSM, I do not see this as an issue. Personal Information is
 information about an identifiable individual, but datasets we would be
 interested in are information about places, not individuals.
 
 Third-party rights are a rights-clearing issue and something we'll need
 to check before using any source.
 
 Names, crests, etc and other IP rights would not be found in datasets of
 interest to OSM.
 
 Attribution is an odd one because they refer to information providers in
 the plural, but define it in a way so that it is only singular, so it's
 not clear which part of the attribution requirements applies. The ODbL
 requires that any copyright notices be kept intact for derivative
 databases. Produced works require a notice reasonably calculated to make
 any Person [...] aware that the content was obtained from [the
 database]. Attribution looks ODbL compatible, provided we figure out
 what statement to use.
 
 I'm not really sure where to take it from here in terms of an analysis.
 
 
 ___
 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

[OSM-legal-talk] Open Government License - Canada

[Paul Norman]

cc'ing to a few people who I have talked about this with in the past.

Some governments in Canada have released data under the Open Government 
Licence - Canada, version 2.0. This is yet another new license. Some 
people have asked if we can use datasets available under this license. 

http://data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-canada contains the full 
text of the version the Federal government is using. It is an 
attribution license and in a perfect world would be ODbL compatible. Of 
course we've seen plenty of attribution licenses screw something or 
other up. 

What is not obvious is that they expect other levels to modify the 
license to localize it with the information of their attribution 
statement and local laws, but let's start with the Federal one first.
Once that's done we can look at BC, AB, Nanaimo, Vancouver... etc.

One of the statements in the consultation on this license was The 
change of the attribution statement from OGL v1.0 to be one specific to 
the federal government reduces the ability to reuse this license by 
other jurisdictions (e.g. provinces) and will increase the number of 
licenses that have to be analysed. 

The origin of this license is the OGL 1.0, a UK license. 

The principle difference between UK and Canadian law is that database 
right does not exist in Canada. 

http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ lists OGL Canada 2.0 as an Open 
Definition conformant license. 

The question that matters for OSM is, can OGL Canada 2.0 datasets be 
released under the ODbL. 

One issue raised as problematic in some versions of the license is 
Personal Information 

For OSM, I do not see this as an issue. Personal Information is 
information about an identifiable individual, but datasets we would be 
interested in are information about places, not individuals. 

Third-party rights are a rights-clearing issue and something we'll need 
to check before using any source. 

Names, crests, etc and other IP rights would not be found in datasets of 
interest to OSM. 

Attribution is an odd one because they refer to information providers in 
the plural, but define it in a way so that it is only singular, so it's 
not clear which part of the attribution requirements applies. The ODbL 
requires that any copyright notices be kept intact for derivative 
databases. Produced works require a notice reasonably calculated to make 
any Person [...] aware that the content was obtained from [the 
database]. Attribution looks ODbL compatible, provided we figure out 
what statement to use. 

I'm not really sure where to take it from here in terms of an analysis.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License / Copyright - OSM data for commercial use artistic map

[Paul Norman]

OpenLayers is very distinct from any map layers. OpenLayers is a piece of 
software, a map layer is generally a set of images.

 

I don’t see OpenLayers in use on the site you linked at all. Assuming the 
Papercraft map linked there is using recent ODbL data, there needs to be an 
attribution statement on the paper, and if they’re adding data to their local 
copy of the OSM dataset before rendering, they’d need to license that under the 
ODbL. As a practical matter, I highly doubt anyone would add data to their 
local copy for a low-zoom map of Stockholm. This doesn’t mean that they have to 
release the software they’re using to render the map, to display it in such a 
weird way, or to release their cartography.

 

From: Beri Dániel [mailto:daniel.b...@evk.hu] 
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 3:25 AM
To: Jonathan Harley
Cc: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License / Copyright - OSM data for commercial use 
artistic map

 

Hi Jonathan!

Thank you very much for clearing things up, and explaining the difference 
between the treatment of data sets and other things I would put on the map.

The treatment of OSM data, and the alteration of it is fine, understood, and 
obviuosly I can live with it.

Although, the licensing/copyright of the layer which I would ask my programmer 
to define in OpenLayers and which then would be filled with images is still a 
bit fuzzy. Aren't these two statements opposite to each other:

1.  OpenLayers uses the FreeBSD license which places no limitations on use 
other than that you must distribute it with its license intact.
2.  you can retain all rights on your other data, images and published 
maps

What would Point1 include in itself? Maybe I misunderstood the whole concept of 
the word layer. I thought that the visual outlook of the map what makes it 
a map, what people see (and in may case consists of the collection of images 
put together) is on a layer and hence should be distributed accordingly?

This would imply that I could I ask the author of this projec 
http://nordpil.com/go/products/stockholm-papercraft/ t to distribute the 
layer he defined? (Obviously I don't want to, as I cheer for Point2 to be true 
in case of my project as well :)

Thanks in advance again!

Daniel

 

 

On 21 October 2013 11:25, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote:

On 19/10/13 11:11, Beri Dániel wrote:


Dear All,

I would like you to have a look at my question I posted in the OSM forum 
yesterday. It is not an urgent matter, I'm duplicating it here as well because 
I would like to avoid any mistreatment of the OSM licenses.

Below you can read my post from the forum, or just simply have a look at it in 
the forum itself: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=22948


Thanks in advance!

Daniel

 

Hi Dániel, overall your project does sound like what's presented to users would 
be a produced work and there is no problem with commercial use. AFAIK 
OpenLayers uses the FreeBSD license which places no limitations on use other 
than that you must distribute it with its license intact.

The only part which would constitute a derivative database is your altered OSM 
data (point 2). This altered data will clearly be derived from OSM's data and 
you would need to publish this under ODbL. If you store the data about where 
your users live (point 5) in a database, and if this data is derived from the 
OSM map (users drop a pin on your map based on what they see on it, or where 
the OSM-based search server said they are), then this is also a derivative 
database and must also be made available under ODbL.

Note that a database here just means a data set - the set of data that was 
derived from OSM. The ODbL license does not extend virally to any other data 
sets you may happen to store in the same database management system. The 
derived data is the only thing you must distribute freely (if asked to), and 
you can retain all rights on your other data, images and published maps.

HTH - Jonathan





Dear All,

This might have been discussed several times, hence sorry for raising this 
question again, but I really would like to make sure that I'm in compliance 
with the rules of the OSM license. (Also, I'm not a programmer, so, sorry for 
formulating the details of my envisaged project with lack/inproper use of the 
programming jargon.)

So, here is the list of things I am planning to do:

I would like to create an artistic map

1) *based on OSM data* - I would need a world map, with territories of 
countries and potentially subdivisions as well
2) *I would alter the OSM data* by defining new, custom subdivisions in certain 
areas, like cutting half a country (or continent, like Antarctica) not along 
any currently available line, but according to my wish
3) I would like to *put copyrighted images* onto these subdivisions (with 
OpenLayers)
4) I would *remove uneccessary detail by not rendering some types of features*, 
ie. I don't want any other data to 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] Baltimore County GIS Data is now public domain

[Paul Norman]

 From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com]
 Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 2:11 PM
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Baltimore County GIS Data is now public domain
 
 Your use of public domain in the subject is potentially confusing,
 since there is no reliable method for you to declare that the data is
 in the public domain.

Although this is true for an individual, it is more complicated for a 
government. There are a few ways that a dataset might be public domain.

- The government could view the material as data which does not qualify
  for copyright protection in the US. This puts the dataset in the same
  state as one created by the federal government - there is nothing 
  protected by copyright.

- The government could be barred by a statute or regulation from 
  restricting the dataset's use under copyright. The situation here is 
  more complex because they may be copyright holders, but are prevented
  from acting like they were.

I generally accept that when a government makes a statement about releasing
data in a particular way that they have the legal ability to do so. Their
lawyers presumably know the law applicable to them and have a basis on
which to make their statements.

 It would be wonderful if you would choose and attach the following
 license(s) to the data, and your web site on which they are published.
  ODC PDDL (preferred, because it is specific to data), CC-Zero.

In the US there are no database rights so CC0 does an adequate job of 
releasing the rights that do exist. It's when you start to not 
unconditionally release rights that the CC licenses and ODC licenses
differ in the US.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed

[Paul Norman]

 From: Stephan Knauss [mailto:o...@stephans-server.de]
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed
 
 Not understanding what the definition of LIDP is makes it so difficult
 for me to understand the license.
 Martin replied earlier and he did interpret it as not suitable for OSM.

You can't really interpret part of a license. LIDP is probably a term 
defined elsewhere. I doubt a tracing is a LIDP, on the other hand, I don't 
see permission for non-literal imagery derived products (IDPs).

  Can you provide the full license so that we can see what the classify
  tracings as?
 Unfortunately that was all license text available. It comes from HOT
 context. I noticed that a lot of imagery and data available for that
 humanitarian context comes with a clear non-commercial clause.

I checked the HOT tasking manager and the license presented to users can 
be found at http://tasks.hotosm.org/license/1 (OSM OAuth signin required)
but the usage terms refer to the NextView (NV) License) and it's not 
clear if that's the same as the usage terms.

I've cc'ed hot@ because they should be able clear up these confusions. 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Which legislation applies: server or data location?

[Paul Norman]

 From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
 Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:24 AM
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Which legislation applies: server or data
 location?
 
 
 Ian has already given a good answer. So just a couple of further notes:

Some more notes, from a slightly different perspective

- The UK has as strong or stronger IP protection for map data than other
countries, rendering the question moot most of the time.

- As this question originated with an import, any such questions *should* be
raised in the import proposal. My guess is that the DWG would tell the user
to not import until they get clearance from the LWG.

- What OSM does is flat out illegal in some places (North Korea being the
typical example, but not the only one). I don't think anyone is particularly
concerned, although contributors in such countries may be. Similarly,
distributing non-official boundaries may be a problem, and it's impossible
to satisfy countries on both sides of some boundaries at the same time.

- When dealing with government data, the concerns have mainly been if it is
legal in that country. Local governments near me will not license database
rights because no such concept exists to them.

I had more, but paused and forgot it.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed

[Paul Norman]

 From: Stephan Knauss [mailto:o...@stephans-server.de]
 Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 11:33 AM
 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed
 
 Hello,
 
 I need some help in understanding a license for using imagery.
 
 Is a license called NextView compatible with OSM contributor terms
 (and ODbL)?
 
 My understanding of Literal Imagery Derived Products is that this is
 the vector data we create by tracing from imagery. I'm a bit uncertain
 about the exact meaning. I'm no native speaker and have problems
 translating the word literal in combination with Imagery.
 
 ...
 
 I worry:
 OSM data can be used for any purpose, including commercial ones. The
 license above explicitly forbids commercial gain: At no time should
 this imagery or LIDP be used for other than USG-related purposes and
 must not be used for commercial gain.
 
 Will it harm OSM if we have larger scale data from this source included
 in the database?

Without a link to the full license it's impossible to interpret, but if a
LIDP was something like a reprojection or other transform of the imagery, 
it would not necessarily be an issue.

Can you provide the full license so that we can see what the classify 
tracings as?

All that's clear from your extract is that you couldn't charge someone to 
view the imagery. That doesn't imply anything for the data you create from
it. 
You probably couldn't get paid to trace from it either, but I'm not 100%
sure of that.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger

[Paul Norman]

 From: John Bazik [mailto:m...@johnbazik.com]
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger
 
 On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:46:30PM -0700, Paul Norman wrote:
  What do you mean by fields?
 
 I mean columns in RDBMS tables.

I don't believe you can make any general comment about columns 
in a RDBMS table. For example, you could use a RDBMS as a k-v 
store and store both OSM data and a completely unrelated set 
of photos in it. On the other hand, you could use a schema which 
is in 3NF and then the OSM database is over many different tables.

As a practical matter, most data consumers probably want an 
un-normalized table because they are only reading.

I had thought about saying something about tables in un-normalized 
forms, but I'm not sure if it's general enough.

I still believe it's best to avoid talking about a technology-specific 
way of storing databases, particularly when the OSM database comes as 
an XML file, which is closer to a set of flat text files than an RDBMS
in many ways.

I also found when I shifted my thinking to avoid using any terms from a 
particular way of storing databases the database directive became clearer.

  One description for the OSM map database (planet.osm) is a database of
  georeferenced shapes (including points) with associated data (what the
  shape
  represents) and meta-data (time edited, user edited by, etc). I am
  very
 
 And OSM excludes *some* of that meta-data from what it considers to be
 derived - fields like user edited by.

I'm not sure what you mean. The meta-data included in planet.osm is part of 
the OSM map database, although most consumers drop the user-related metadata
because it unnecessary for most applications.

 In RDBMS terms, might one expect to use a SELECT to produce a derivative
 database, excluding non-derivative data?

Well, in RDBMS terms SELECT produces a rowset which is closer to a table,
not a database.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger

[Paul Norman]

 From: John Bazik [mailto:jba...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 10:19 PM
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger
 
 What consitutes substantial?  I've read many threads on this, but I 
 find myself no more able to determine what that might be.

If there's ambiguity about the term substantial, it's coming from the
relevant laws. The ODbL is just echoing the database directive.
Insubstantial is much like fair use. The license should not attempt to
define these terms.

I don't see substantial as relevant for most use-cases discussed on the
list, they have been substantial in quantity.

 And the sharealike trigger is pulled whether the substantial data is 
 already in OSM or isn't, but could be.  Technically, any data that 
 references an OSM foreign key could be in OSM.

It sounds like you're confusing computer science and RDMS databases with the
legal concept of a database. For the rest of this message, I'm talking about
the legal concept of a database.

 Routes, in some cases, are of interest.  What if the only meta 
 information associated with routes is the users of another service and 
 their opinions?  Giving up user account information is obviously 
 problematic for any organization, commercial or non-profit.

Well there's a pretty strong precedent by the largest user of OSM data to
not consider user data part of the same database as the map data: osm.org
itself. osm.org users are more closely tied to the map database then any
external service is likely to be, but they're treated as a collective
databases.

If they were one database then the user info would have to be distributed
under the ODbL, or if the user data couldn't be distributed due to other
laws (e.g. privacy laws), then the map data couldn't be distributed at all.

Off hand, I can think of several databases stored in the same RDMS
database 
on osm.org

- user database
- notes database
- map database
- GPX database
- message database
- oauth client database

 I fear the definition of a derivative work is akin to Justice Potter's 
 famous construction, I know it when I see it.

The real question is when is something one database and when is it multiple
collective databases. The gray area is a lot smaller than some people
believe.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger

[Paul Norman]

 From: John Bazik [mailto:m...@johnbazik.com]
 Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:55 PM
 To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger
 
  Well there's a pretty strong precedent by the largest user of OSM data
  to not consider user data part of the same database as the map data:
  osm.org
 
 I'm glad to hear that.
 
 So, is it fair to say that, as an OSM database user, one can distinguish
 derivative and non-derivative data field by field, without considering
 the schema?  That is, the derivative database is just that collection
 of fields that are considered derivative?

What do you mean by fields?

Keep in mind that databases don't even necessarily involve computers, and
the same law still applies. I really think it's best to avoid any RDMS
terms.

One description for the OSM map database (planet.osm) is a database of
georeferenced shapes (including points) with associated data (what the shape
represents) and meta-data (time edited, user edited by, etc). I am very
tempted to try converting some OSM data from the XML format to a database
made by a set of index cards, instead of the normal database made of a few
tables in a RDMS database.

  This makes it clear that share-alike isn't triggered just by
  associating information (such as user accounts) with the map, but by
  the addition of observed physical features (routes being taken by
  users, perhaps?)
 
 I'm particularly interested in the application of the ODBL, in OSM's
 case, to routes.  How are routes observed physical features?  I
 understand that if one were to create an OSM-derived database of
 roadways that added on-street parking information, that that added data
 is an observed physical feature of those roadways that would trigger the
 sharealike provision.

You appear to of misquoted me, I don't think I said what you have in your
quotation.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Elevation / SRTM data

[Paul Norman]

It’s very important to remember that when the law and license talks about a 
database, they are not using the same definition as in IT or CS. I imagine you 
can have a database that doesn’t involve computers at all. A database could be 
flat files, XML, binary files, or I’m sure other forms.

 

From: Igor Brejc [mailto:igor.br...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:19 AM
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Elevation / SRTM data

 

 

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Peter K peat...@yahoo.de wrote:

Hi Igor,

exactly in those areas I have a problem of understanding the OSM license :)



 If you store the elevation data in the original grid-based form

No, as explained, I do intent to calculate edge weights based on OSM and 
elevation data. Is this a trivial change?

And then I store this mixed weights in-memory but this is only a 
configuration to make it storing on disc. And would it make a difference? I 
read somewhere that storing could be also in-memory with the rise of NoSQL 
databases this makes indeed sense ...

 

The license text is pretty general and there are different opinion on these 
issues. I think the key thing is that once you store combination of a lon/lat 
position (taken from OSM) and an elevation, you end up with a Derivative 
Database, as defined:

 

 “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and includes 
any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration 
of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents. This includes, but is 
not limited to, Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of 
the Contents in a new Database.

 

As opposed to:

 

“Collective Database” – Means this Database in unmodified form as part of a 
collection of independent databases in themselves that together are assembled 
into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Database will not 
be considered a Derivative Database.

 

From my understanding, once you tie the two related pieces of data from two 
separate databases, you can no longer look at it as two independent databases.

 

 

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey

[Paul Norman]

 From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
 Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:58 PM
 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey
 
 Hi Paul
 
 Has anybody from the TR community tried to get permission from HGK (with
 a pointer that the data is freely available elsewhere and that removing
 it would add up to deleting and re-adding exactly the same data)? Having
 such permission would seem to be the best solution right now.

People have tried contacting other agencies, but to the best of my
knowledge, no one has had any success with HGK.

To be clear, it's not the UN who needs to be contacted to get permission,
it's HGK.

 2nd question why would somebody re add the HGK data if the same data is
 available from a different agency? Potentially the solution would be to
 redact and add the OK data at the same time.

We don't have the technical means to do anything but a redaction through the
bot, and I don't see us developing it.

How about this. My understanding of the workflow of the user is that they
took the HGK data (names, object type and location) and then moved it to
agree with imagery, then uploaded, creating v1 of the nodes.

The names obviously have to go, but if they've verified the object type and
location against imagery, could we keep that?

If so, could we then delete the village names but leave the other tags,
redacting the versions of the node with the names?

I'd also want to verify that the nodes were moved by matching against the
original data. Of course, v2 and later nodes might be too complicated to
sort out. About 90% of the nodes are v1, and all the nodes redacted so far
have been v1. It'd likely be possible to apply the same logic to the
already-redacted nodes.

Does this sound legally sound? 




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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey

[Paul Norman]

Clarification on numbers:

 

Assuming every node has been moved, we'd be talking about 26k place or
mountain peak nodes I can definitely keep, about 3k I can restore from the
existing redactions, and about 3k that I'm not sure about.

 

Now, it's entirely possible a bunch of nodes haven't been moved from the HGK
positions, in which case they'd be completely removed. I won't know that
until I go ahead with the SQL to identify the nodes.

 

From: Henning Scholland [mailto:o...@aighes.de] 
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 2:31 AM
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey

 

Am 29.04.2013 11:27, schrieb Simon Poole:

 

I would agree that there is some value in having naked place nodes.
However considering that at best we are talking about 2-3k such nodes
surviving it is a question if doing an  imagery based add a place drive or
similar for Turkey after the redaction wouldn't be more efficient.

Simon

Yes, maybe this would be a better solution.

Henning

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

[OSM-legal-talk] FW: OSM place name data from Turkey

[Paul Norman]

A user in Turkey brought in about 30k place nodes (or mountain peak nodes)
from HGK, a Turkish government agency.

HGK prohibits actions besides personal use[1] and this is clearly
incompatible with the ODbL. As I indicated, this means they need to be
removed,[2] which in technical terms means redacting them. Identifying the
material to be redacted will not be easy.

A couple of people have indicated that there may be other sources available
which have village locations. Unfortunately, this does not change the status
of the HGK data. It is an odd situation where the data is not available
under an open license from one agency, but the exact same data is openly
licensed from another agency. 

== Questions ==

LWG: My understanding is we need permission or a suitable license from the
data source and that finding an alternate source would only allow us to
bring in the new data, not keep the old data. Is this correct?

LWG+DWG: If someone re-uploads the HGK data because they disagree with the
redaction, they will of intentionally and knowingly uploaded copyrighted
material without permission or a license. Does the DMCA oblige us to do
something about this? If they do this, should we do something even if we
aren't required to under the DMCA?

[1]: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-tr/2013-April/000291.html
as well as a Bing translation of their FAQ

[2]: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-tr/2013-April/000293.html

-Original Message-
From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] 
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 8:15 PM
To: 'Suha Ulgen'
Cc: 'OSM Mikel Maron'; 'Schuyler Erle'; 'Mikel Maron'; 'Kate Chapman'
Subject: RE: OSM place name data from Turkey

 From: Suha Ulgen [mailto:m...@suhaulgen.com]
 Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 7:56 PM
 Subject: OSM place name data from Turkey
 
 Paul,
 
 The Turkish OSM community is very distressed about your recent 
 unilateral action. Apparently you are erasing the place names in the 
 Turkish dataset stating that the source data which you identify as 
 belonging to the Turkish General Command for Mapping (Harita Genel 
 Komutanligi - HGK) is not ODbL-compatible.

This issue was raised on the talk-tr@ mailing list. The conclusion, as you
mentioned, was that the HGK data was not ODbL compatible. Not being ODbL
compatible, we cannot distribute it. 

 The counter argument is that Turkish gazetteer data has been submitted 
 by HGK to the UN Group of Experts on Geographic Names (UNGEGN) and is 
 therefore in the public domain.

The list raised the possibility that there might be an alternate source of
Turkish place names. Unfortunately, this doesn't change the status of the
HGK sourced material, which has explicit restrictions against distribution.

Do you anticipate getting permission from *HGK* to distribute their data?

 Please STOP redacting the Turkish place names. I'll talk to the 
 UNGEGN Secretariat tomorrow and revert ASAP.

It should not be technically possible to use the normal revert tools on a
redaction. In any case, do not reintroduce the data downloaded from HGK that
we do not have permission to redistribute.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-ca] DataBC's Open Data - OGL v1.0 and Nanaimo compatibility

[Paul Norman]

The current Nanaimo license is not compatible with OSM. In fact, the current 
Nanaimo license does not permit you to redistribute their data at all!

 

I have some contacts from the Open Data summit and I’ll see if I can make any 
progress on the license issue.

 

Was there a particular dataset you were interested in? It’s always easier if I 
have specific examples I can point to. Also, are you from Nanaimo?

 

From: Tim Whitehead [mailto:spero.shirope...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 10:24 PM
To: Legal-talk OSM
Cc: OSM Talk-ca
Subject: [Talk-ca] DataBC's Open Data - OGL v1.0 and Nanaimo compatibility

 

Hello,

 

In a search I found Open Data on DataBC’s website, the OGL v1.0 
[http://www.data.gov.bc.ca/local/dbc/docs/license/OGL-vbc1.0.pdf] – which to me 
looks promising.

 

On the following page [http://www.data.gov.bc.ca/dbc/about/open_data.page], 
they list a few regions that have an open data policy – At this time I would be 
interested in the City of Nanaimo.

 

Nanaimo has a number of open data formats - http://data.nanaimo.ca/, however 
the wording used on Nanaimo’s license is not clear to me whether at this time 
it would be compatible with OSM.

http://www.nanaimo.ca/EN/main/departments/106/DataCatalogue/Licence.html

 

The City of Nanaimo is currently investigating options for formal open data 
licensing. In the meantime, please treat this as a broad license to use the 
currently published data for your own analysis and applications, subject to the 
following disclaimer:

1.All rights, title and interest (including copyright, patent and other 
intellectual property rights) contained in the Information remain vested in the 
City of Nanaimo at all times.

2.The City of Nanaimo does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy or 
completeness of the Information. Ongoing updates may not be incorporated into 
the Information available on the City of Nanaimo website. Users are urged to 
verify the accuracy of information against copies of actual plans or source 
documents.

3.If there is a conflict between the Information on the web page and 
information contained in any other records of the City of Nanaimo or documents 
that may be prepared by or delivered to the City of Nanaimo, the City of 
Nanaimo reserves the right to rely in all cases upon the record which it 
considers to be the most accurate and complete.

While we would certainly appreciate credit for provision of the data, this is 
not a strict requirement.

 

Would anyone be able to advise me on this? Or would it be best to make an 
inquiry with the City of Nanaimo?

 

Many thanks,

Tim

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Paul Norman]

The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then distribute it as 
some kind of “OSM but better” without releasing the proprietary data is a 
feature of share-alike licenses, not a bug. 

 

The public domain argument is a bit of a red herring. If OSM used a PD-like 
license like PDDL or CC0 then we would be unable to make use of most of the 
external sources that we use, having to drop at a bare minimum 40% of the ways 
in the DB, and likely much more. Even if OSM went with PDDL or CC0 we wouldn’t 
truly be PD, and that could still pose issues.

 

In many ways this is similar to GPL vs BSD license debates from the software 
world, although ODbL is closer to LGPL with its weaker share-alike and produced 
works. Both licenses have their benefits and drawbacks.

 

From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:21 PM
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

 

 

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

I think that the OSM community is already very open towards commercial use;

 

This is bigger than just commercial use. The ODbL is an obstacle to contribute 
to OSM for anyone - business or not - who is bound by the constraints of using 
third party data whose license they can't control or for anyone who's bound by 
law to keep their data in the public domain.

 

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France

[Paul Norman]

 From: Pieren [mailto:pier...@gmail.com]
 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in
 France
 
 Hi all,
 
 I'm submitting here a question about the legality of keeping French long
 hiking routes called GR or GRP or PR  in OSM. All these routes are
 very well known, have sign posts and references on the ground, e.g. the
 GR20 in Corsica (but many are still missing or very incomplete in
 OSM). See these examples in [1a] and [1b]. These routes have been
 created by the national hiking sport federation (FFRP, Fédération
 Française de Randonnée Pédestre). You can see them on the ground by the
 trail marks visible at regular intervals but also on most of the
 commercial maps in France.
 
 But we are facing two legal issues in France. The problems are not new
 but become more critical in my opinion (see below).
 First issue : it is the hiking route names themselves. For all of them
 created by the FFRP, the names are registered trademarks and cannot be
 used without permission (see question below). 

I cannot see that indicating that there are signs with a particular text on
the ground is infringing their trademark. I'd expect most name=* values on
POIs in OSM to be a trademark (although not necessarily registered). I've
tagged Coca-Cola bottling centers, Starbucks, McDonalds and many more
objects with trademarked names. If the mapping is accurate then the
trademarked name is being used accurately and there's no issue. If I started
tagging every coffee shop as a Starbucks regardless of ownership then I'd be
diluting their trademark and it'd be an issue.

Similarly, their trademark would stop someone from creating another hiking
route with the same name, but would not stop someone from saying that they
were heading to hike the GR20 if that's in fact what they were planning to
do.

 Second issue : it is maybe a more specific French issue here because the
 routes themselves can be copyrighted when they are considered as
 original work. A famous case confirmed this with the IGN (publishing
 the FFRP maps) sueing a guidebook editor [5] and confirmed by the
 highest court in France (1ere chambre de la cour de cassation de Paris,
 decision of 30 june 1998 [8]. I don't know if this is the same in other
 countries but a significant part of the OSM community in France would
 consider deleting the FFRP hiking routes completely (and not only the
 trademarks mentionned in Q1).

If the facts on the ground are covered by copyright I cannot see how a
hiking network is different than a road network or a cycle network.
Accepting this would require removing all roads in new suburbs and
developments because they were copyrighted, not just these hiking routes.

I also wonder if the guidebook copied FFRP maps or sent people out with
GPSes. Another subtle point is we don't map what FFRP says is the route, we
map what is marked on the ground.

 Personnaly, I think that a route is not considered as an original work
 (or not enough original) in many jurisdictions. But still, keeping them
 in OSM is raising a legal insecurity in all DB extracts stored or
 distributed on French servers or applications. For these reasons, all
 FFRP hiking routes (represented in OSM by relations of type route,
 route=hiking) in France should be completely removed from the OSM
 database. What do you think ?

In some countries publishing maps requires a permit, but if someone deleted
all the data in those countries I'm sure we'd regard it as vandalism. Other
countries (e.g. China) forbid maps contrary to official ones, but when
people start edit wars over disputed areas claimed by those countries what
is regarded as important is the ground truth, not what the laws of that
country allow to be published.

I don't see that a French court's judgment should determine what goes in
OSM, any more than a Chinese court. Even if the French court believes they
have jurisdiction, they'd have to get any judgment domesticated by a British
court. To accept the French judgment would gut OSM because it would apply to
every hiking or road network in France, or for that matter, outside of
France.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France

[Paul Norman]

[reordered to place copyright matters together]
 From: Pieren [mailto:pier...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:26 AM
 To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes
 in France
 
 Again, you have to understand that this sport organization (FFRP) is
 publishing hiking bookguides and maps of their routes. It is their main
 income (plus some subsidies from the state). The FFRP made this
 trademark and copyright to protect them against commercial competitors
 on their market : their hiking routes.

Oh, I understand why they don't want competition. I'm sure any map publisher
would be happy with less competition.

  we map what is marked on the ground.
 
 This point has been long discussed on our local list. What you see on
 the ground is the trail markers. One problem is that the markers are
 also copyrighted (the colours and shapes) like a logo. Of course, if you
 put the McDonalds logo on OSM maps, McDo will be happy for the free ads
 and maps are not their business. But it might be different if you put an
 OS or USGS logo on your OSM maps. Second problem is that the trail
 markers are present along the route at short intervals. Even if we map
 only the marks, it will be easy to rebuild the whole route by
 extrapolation.

The copyright of the markers isn't really relevant, we're discussing text
like GR20 which would not be protected by copyright anywhere that I'm
aware of. Trademark yes, but not copyright. The problem with any trademark
arguments is if we're accurate, we're describing 

  If the facts on the ground are covered by copyright I cannot see how a
  hiking network is different than a road network or a cycle network.
 
 Perhaps because a road network is in the public domaine. Here we speak
 about a copyrighted route.

What makes it in the public domain as opposed to this route? Both networks
were designed.

  I don't see that a French court's judgment should determine what goes
  in OSM, any more than a Chinese court. Even if the French court
  believes they have jurisdiction, they'd have to get any judgment
  domesticated by a British court. To accept the French judgment would
  gut OSM because it would apply to every hiking or road network in
  France, or for that matter, outside of France.
 
 Would you say the same if the court is in US or Canada ? Of course, we
 can build our mirror of the planet dump files and filter the compromised
 data. 

*Any* court judgment would need to be domesticated to be able to be enforced
against the OSMF. We're talking about a case where if it were the same facts
elsewhere it would be legal. Should the OSMF remove all landuse=military
from Russia because mapping military facilities may not be legal there? If
it were a local case that impacted me, I'd have to consider what I map and
what I distribute in light of the case, but that's about all I can say about
a vague hypothetical case.

 But is is the policy of OSM to ignore copyrights infringements
 outside UK ?

My points were not about copyright infringements outside the UK. I was
talking about data that would not infringe copyright under UK law. The
Wikimedia Foundation uses US law for determining fair use and out of
copyright status and hosts content where it would be infringing copyright
under foreign law.

Also, I think you mean the OSMF, not OSM, as it's the OSMF that would
receive any takedown notices or lawsuits.

If these did need to be removed as copyright violations, they would need to
be redacted and I imagine the legals question would end up at the LWG,
either directly or via the DWG.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Advice regarding terms from an agency

[Paul Norman]

Well any imports would need to go by the imports@ list where hopefully the
license would be reviewed if necessary.

 

From: Pekka Sarkola [mailto:pekka.sark...@gispo.fi] 
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:51 AM
To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Advice regarding terms from an agency

 

Hi,

 

I see here a path: first Ordnance Survey open their geodata, then National
Land Survey of Finland and Dutch Kadastre followed. Next one is Iceland and
other countries. 

 

All those mapping agencies give different license for their datasets. NLSFI
has following:
http://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/en/NLS_open_data_licence_version1_20120501.

 

As far I know, all those mapping agencies will allow OSMers to take their
data sets and import to be part of OSM. 

 

IANAL and IMHO: local OSM mappers should decide if license is ok with OSM
licenses, then add information to Contributor pages and then guideline local
OSMers how to benefit local data sources. And this have to be done in very
fast mode.

 

There is other alternatives, but I prefer mine ;-)

 

Other possibilities:

. OSM Board/OSM Foundation Board/OSM Legal team will read and
accept/deny those mapping agency contracts. They also guide how to use data
and what will be include in Contributor's page. My opinion: we don't have
that kind of legal resource to handle all situations. This is also very
bureaucratic and slow way to do it. Local OSM mappers will use free datasets
with or without permission: this is already happening in Finland.

. We don't care about Contributor's datasets: at least in Finland
OSM will then be marginalized. My opinion: if we can get baseline from
somewhere we can focus to make updates to OSM and keep it as best local
source of the (geo)data.

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

[OSM-legal-talk] GADM and Bolivia

[Paul Norman]

I'm sure we're all overjoyed to have this come up again...

Background/refresher:

GADM is a global administrative boundary dataset under a non-commercial
license. Some people imported data from it into OSM, not realizing (or not
caring) that it was incompatible with CC BY-SA, ODbL as well as any open
license.

At the time of the redaction we found this out and Simon asked about
Ecuador, Ivory Coast, Turkey, Uganda, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya,
Mozambique, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria.

We received permission for Turkey, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jordan,
Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria but GADM couldn't grant the rights in
Ecuador, Uganda,  Rwanda, Kenya, and Mozambique.

While looking at something else I came across an import of administrative
boundaries from GADM in Bolivia. This was not identified at the time by
looking at the wiki, so we never asked GADM about it.

The one changeset I've identified is
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3993096, by LLAQWA, the person
who imported Ecuador GADM data that had to be redacted. Previous efforts to
contact him were unsuccessful, so I see no point in trying again.

Simon is skiing, so what I propose doing is contacting the person from GADM
who replied before, and if they can't grant permission then it'll need to be
redacted. 

I was unable to identify any way of contacting the Bolivian community, or
even if there is one. I don't think that it changes much anyways - if we
can't get permission, we need to redact.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] GADM and Bolivia

[Paul Norman]

Whoops - wrong cc. Too tired + autocomplete. Not that there's anything
secret, just no need to say anything much if we got permission.

Just a random work item from the DWG.

 From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com]
 Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:32 AM
 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] GADM and Bolivia
 
 I'm sure we're all overjoyed to have this come up again...
 
 Background/refresher:
 
 GADM is a global administrative boundary dataset under a non-commercial
 license. Some people imported data from it into OSM, not realizing (or
 not
 caring) that it was incompatible with CC BY-SA, ODbL as well as any open
 license.
 
 At the time of the redaction we found this out and Simon asked about
 Ecuador, Ivory Coast, Turkey, Uganda, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan,
 Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria.
 
 We received permission for Turkey, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast,
 Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria but GADM couldn't grant the
 rights in Ecuador, Uganda,  Rwanda, Kenya, and Mozambique.
 
 While looking at something else I came across an import of
 administrative boundaries from GADM in Bolivia. This was not identified
 at the time by looking at the wiki, so we never asked GADM about it.
 
 The one changeset I've identified is
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3993096, by LLAQWA, the
 person who imported Ecuador GADM data that had to be redacted. Previous
 efforts to contact him were unsuccessful, so I see no point in trying
 again.
 
 Simon is skiing, so what I propose doing is contacting the person from
 GADM who replied before, and if they can't grant permission then it'll
 need to be redacted.
 
 I was unable to identify any way of contacting the Bolivian community,
 or even if there is one. I don't think that it changes much anyways - if
 we can't get permission, we need to redact.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark

[Paul Norman]

 From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com]
 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark
 
 My initial writeup could have been clearer: This RFC _does_ seek to
 replace the currently recommended line (c) OpenStreetMap contributors
 linking to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright with a visual mark
 linking to a future http://openstreetmap.org/contributors. Examples of
 the visual mark can be found on
 http://yhahn.github.com/byosm/examples.html and the suggested
 /contributors page can be found at http://yhahn.github.com/byosm.
 osm.org/copyright would be linked from osm.org/contributors in the
 future, more below.

I question if the hammer is a notice ... reasonably calculated to make any
Person ... aware that the Content was obtained from the Database ... and
that it is available under [ODbL].

The example notice for satisfying 4.3 is Contains information from DATABASE
NAME, wich is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL)

I've cc'ed legal-talk@ because if this is even allowable is a legal
question. 

Regardless I'm not in favour.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using CC-BY as a source for Openstreetmap

[Paul Norman]

 From: Alex Sims [mailto:a...@softgrow.com]
 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Using CC-BY as a source for Openstreetmap
 
 Hi,
 
 I looked at wiki.openstreetmap.org and couldn't find a straight answer
 as to wheter CC-BY data sets can be used as a source for Openstreetmap.
 
 The South Australian State government Department of Transport, Planning
 and Infrastructure has started a small but potentially useful data
 portal at http://dpti.sa.gov.au/data_download_portal/
 
 The data is licensed Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence,
 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en
 
 I'm proposing to use the Suburb boundaries as a basis for mapping and
 the Gazeteer for checking existing placenames.
 
 My understanding is that if attribution is made somewhere in
 wiki.openstreetmap.org then the data can be used.
 
 Or is there more than that?

It's a bit more complicated than that. Use of CC BY data comes down to what
is considered attribution reasonable to the medium or means. OSM provides
attribution via a wiki page,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors. No other attribution can be
guaranteed.

A data provider could consider this inadequate and insist on some more
obvious means of attribution (e.g. showing a dynamic attribution in the
lower-right like Bing imagery, Mapquest.com, Google imagery, etc).

Some of the legwork of confirming this for Australia has been completed
already. CC BY data on data.gov.au is okay, they have explicitly said that
the CC BY geodata sets can be published under ODbL provided that the
attribution is made on the wiki page and the datasets used are listed in the
form they want.
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permiss
ion)

If you asked the SA DOT the same question and said that data.gov.au views it
as acceptable I expect you'd get a yes.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining Creative Commons Licensed Data with ODbL and Redistributing

[Paul Norman]

We've been using CC BY licensed data in OSM. The only potential issue is
that they be satisfied that the attribution is reasonable to the medium or
means You are utilizing.

I would consider that a line saying Hazard Data (C) CC BY foo, Map Data (C)
ODbL OpenStreetMap contributors with appropriate hyperlinks would be
considered reasonable to an online map and they couldn't object. If that's
too long then perhaps (C) foo, OpenStreetMap with a more detailed legal
page.

The issue that comes up with OSM and CC BY is that our attribution is a
listing in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors and for major
sources on a national scale listing on
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright. Someone could potentially not
consider this means of attribution sufficient.

My recollection about effective technological measures is that the
language is DMCA related. It doesn't stop technical measures, it just stops
them from being effective and triggering some of the DMCA provisions.

GPLv3 has similar language stating that no covered work shall be deemed
part of an effective technological measure ... under ... WIPO copyright
treaty, or similar laws...

I think the net effect is that you can break the copy protection on a CC BY
licensed work and doing that by itself is not against the law. Of course
what you do with the work after you've broken the copyright protection could
be, but the mere breaking of copy protection is okay.

IANAL, etc

 From: Kate Chapman [mailto:k...@maploser.com]
 with ODbL and Redistributing
 
 So the hazard database is a scientific model, I don't think it would be
 considered a fact database.
 
 I believe there is some flexibility on asking the owner to pick a
 license, but the intent is they want an attribution only license.
 
 If I understand things correctly the produced work (a printed map) could
 be licensed CC-BY no problem however. I'm just not sure what we do about
 the derived database.
 
 Thanks,
 
 -Kate
 
 On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Shu Higashi
 s_hig...@mua.biglobe.ne.jp wrote:
  So basically right now the hazard database is licensed CC-BY
 
  Maybe different from the intent of the owner of the hazard database,
  it won't be covered by CC-BY if the hazard database consist only of
  fact datasets.
  Though I don't know the exact legal interoperability between ODbL and
 CC-BY.
 
  Shu
 
  2012/11/28, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org:
  On 28/11/12 12:37, Kate Chapman wrote:
  I don't believe that would apply to a derivative work, I think that
  just applies to the work itself.
 
  I'm interested to hear other interpretations though.
 
  It's not particularly coherent given the obvious intent of the
  licence, but I think the anti-TPM clause applies to the work as used
 in adaptations.
 
  I don't remember a definitive answer from CC on this, though, and
  it's not in the FAQ.



___
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

[Paul Norman]

 From: Tobias Knerr [mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de]
 Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 12:14 AM
 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
 
 On 30.10.2012 13:30, Michael Collinson wrote:
  I propose that we base a re-write on: *OpenStreetMap considers **Open
  Data to be a usefully collected set of intelligently or machine-made
  physical observations only.  Purely algorithmic augmentation of data
  and re-casting of data to use, store or transmit it in different
  manners is not part of the data IP. Share Alike may however apply to
  physical observations inside the augmented or re-cast data; in this
  case the physical observations must be provided to the public in a
  commonly used or documented open format as per ODbL clause 4.6b*. The
  wording might be improved, but that is the general idea.
 
 I just want to say that I like this suggestion. It is the first time
 I've seen a possible definition of what would be required to be
 published because of the Share Alike clause - and what wouldn't - that
 draws a clearly understandable line and where I could actually imagine
 that it would be reasonably applicable in practice.

I like that interpretation, the question is if it is supported by the text
of the ODbL. If it isn't then the statement is of no value.

Reading 4.6.b and the paragraph below it there might be some justification
for such an interpretation in the lower paragraph.

The lower paragraph talks about the alteration file (under b.) In my mind,
this is envisioning the file under 4.6.b being a diff of some kind adding
new data, not a file describing a purely algorithmic transformation of data
that includes no new data.

You would of course be required to state how to apply the diff (e.g. take
this .osc and use osmosis to apply it to planet.osm). It could also be
something more complicated (e.g. use this program that reads in the OSM
file, matches the objects against this shapefile and adds extra attributes
from the shapefile).

Additional support for this would be that the act of converting a
copyrighted work (e.g. a map, to the extent that it's protected by
copyright) from one format to another does not generally attract copyright
protection.

Weighing against this interpretation is the broad definition of derivative
database in the ODbL.

I like the proposed text, I just have an itching feeling it might require
ODbL 1.1 to implement.


___
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

[Paul Norman]

 From: andrzej zaborowski [mailto:balr...@gmail.com]
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US
 
 
 A related question is whether any agreement like that can be made within
 the Contributor Terms.  With the thread about the Public Domain OSM
 subset when someone said that the PD declaration had no real meaning I
 asked myself what made that declaration different from other license
 grants (I'm still not sure).  But a license, according to Wikipedia, is
 an agreement not to sue under some conditions.  An agreement not to sue
 under some conditions is a license.  But the OSMF is bound by the
 Contributor Terms to only grant a subset of the two licenses listed in
 the CT, in their specific versions.  So can it make a statement
 declaring that it would not sue under some conditions (e.g. use of the
 results of geocoding) and keep publishing data from current
 contributions?

The OSMF could state that they won't sue under certain conditions and then
someone could use that statement if later sued by the OSMF. I can't recall
the name of the legal principle off-hand, but an appropriately worded
statement by the OSMF would be binding on them. The decision to sue by the
OSMF is discretionary and they would be stating that they were going to use
their discretion in some cases and not sue. This would not be a
copyright/database license. Most importantly, it would not prevent a
contributor from suing on their own.

 It can probably state that it understands the ODbL 1.0 license to allow
 users to do this and that under given conditions, or to not
 *apply* under some conditions in some jurisdiction (for example in USA).

The OSMF could write opinions but they would only have any value if the
court found part of the ODbL ambiguous. The court's idea of ambiguous could
be quite different from the communities.

 But this could also be abused by declaring something that is in contrast
 with what OSM contributors think, an extreme case being a statement that
 says that ODbL is effectively invalid, or that ODbL = PDDL.  That could
 perhaps be treated as an agreement not to sue, i.e.
 license. 

I am not persuaded that a statement like this is a copyright or database
license.

 So what kind of clarifications (if any) can the OSMF make
 about the licenses?

The problem is the same as human-readable versions of licenses. They aren't
authoritative, and in case of a disagreement with the license text aren't
worth anything.

 As has been noted in the Public Domain subset thread, the contributors
 can make license statement that they like, but the OSMF can still
 enforce the database rights.  So a statement by the contributors (e.g.
 on OSM wiki) that is not confirmed by the OSMF is not very helpful to
 the end user.

Not living somewhere where there are database rights, I'm not sure of this,
but if a contributor uploads a database to OSM (i.e. a .osm file) and then
independently grants the rights to someone else, can that other person then
download the database from OSM, remove all other contributions and use it
under the grant from the contributor? For copyright the answer is a pretty
clear yes. 

It's worth noting that the remove all other contributions step is not
trivial. Even a changeset from a contributor is not generally exclusively
their contributions if they have used any existing data.

This is why I don't think a PD declaration from a user, even if legally
binding, is of any practical use. To use it you'd have to remove the
contributions of other users from their uploads and that requires a full
history database for the area


___
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

[Paul Norman]

 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] [Talk-us] press from SOTM US

[Paul Norman]

 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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] importing ODBl data

[Paul Norman]

 From: Pavel Pisa [mailto:ppisa4li...@pikron.com]
 Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:01 AM
 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] importing ODBl data
 
 I (for myself strongly demand) that my former and future change sets can
 be exported from OSM under CC-BY-SA but I have never got any better
 reply than do not fear, there would be no problems (with Wikipedia,
 exports, etc.) or unfair CT or license change.

You can build changesets going back to Nov 2009 from the hourly diffs with 
make_changeset[1]. These would be CC BY-SA 2.0 and unredacted. I intend to make 
it easier to use make_changeset to build multiple changesets at once, but you 
could do it now with a simple shell script to call it for each changeset. If 
you are actually interested in the generation of changesets from diffs, you can 
follow the project on github.

You can get a list of all your changesets from the changeset dump files either 
with grep, or a more sophisticated method would be ChangesetMD[2]

For current changesets you could download them and grant someone additional 
rights, the problem is that you could only grant rights for your portion of the 
.osc file and an .osc file contains information from other contributors.

[1]: https://github.com/pnorman/make_changeset
[2]: https://github.com/ToeBee/ChangesetMD



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] New version of US redaction map

[Paul Norman]

You’d be mixing an ODbL database (new OSM) with a CC BY-SA database (old OSM). 
You’d have to publish the database as ODbL if you were distributing the 
resulting tiles.

 

If you didn’t publish the work and just used it yourself you’d likely be fine, 
but a layer you can’t distribute isn’t really worth it.

 

From: Martijn van Exel [mailto:m...@rtijn.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 1:56 PM
To: Mike N
Cc: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org; talk...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] New version of US redaction map

 

Hi

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote:

On 8/13/2012 11:11 PM, Paul Norman wrote:

It’s all CC BY-SA right now so you’d be okay now, but I think it’d be a
problem in the future under both CC BY-SA and ODbL if you were mix the
data in this way.

 

  I'd think this is not actually importing any information directly from the 
redacted copyrighted CC BY-SA data: it's just using it to set or clear a flag.

  Much as if you were heading out to do a survey, printed Google navigation 
directions, and found that the Google directions are wrong when you get there - 
you'd conclude Mismatch, but still rely only on survey and approved sources 
to create OSM data.

 

 

I would still be using data that is not ODbL licensed together with data that 
is ODbL licensed to create the layer. How that layer is being used by mappers 
to focus their remapping efforts is not in question here I think - the data is 
not directly used to create new OSM data. Anyway, I should probably ask over at 
legal-talk.

 

Martijn

 

-- 
martijn van exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible

[Paul Norman]

 From: Mike Dupont [mailto:jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Please, consider that more people want to
 mark even their future ODBl OSM contributions as CC-BY-SA compatible
 
 Also since we are on the topic, I think that many people who are in the
 USA cannot legally sign the CT anyway because the would have to ask the
 employeer for permission. If you have signed a NDA you might be
 affected, some companies claim all employees copyright. see the
 discussion on the CC list.
 http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2012-August/007283.html

If someone is unable to sign the CTs because they don't hold copyright over
their contributions then they'd be unable to legally contribute to OSM or
any open mapping project regardless of the CTs.

If someone is not working in a GIS field I can't see the courts considering
that mapping they did on their own time as being the property of their
employer. If they worked in a GIS field then it could get complicated, but
none of this depends on the CTs.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work

[Paul Norman]

 From: Rob Myers [mailto:r...@robmyers.org]
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced
 Work
 
 BY-SA doesn't cover databases though (any potential changes in 4.0
 notwithstanding).

It's important to note that this is only true where databases (like OSM) are
not protected in some form by copyright. For significant parts of the world
copyright and only copyright protects OSM.

Also, it neglects the possibility of an implied license, but that would need
to be tested in the courts.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia

[Paul Norman]

 From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org]
 Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 2:30 PM
 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced
 Work maps in Wikipedia
 
 Hi,
 
 On 21.07.2012 21:33, Paul Norman wrote:
  CC 4.0 licenses explicitly include database rights (sec. 1 (b) of
 draft 1).
  How will this work when 4.0 is published and CC BY-SA tiles include
  the database rights?
 
 Also an interesting question but one that would probably have to be
 addressed to the CC people; there are likely many works that are
 currently licensed under CC-BY-SA but where the database rights are not
 included on purpose. I cannot imagine that all these should suddenly be
 upgraded to include database rights without the rights holders having
 further say. That would be, to continue my example, as if CC4 were to
 suddenly include all patent rights, no matter if those who licensed
 something *had* those rights to begin with ;)

I think it's important to distinguish between the case where someone
publishes another's ODbL work and doesn't have any special permissions and
OSMF publishing CC tiles where they clearly can grant database rights under
CC.

The only precedent I'm aware of is GPL v2 - v3 with patents. The FSF has a
FAQ item about this at
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2OrLaterPatentLicense

Clearly, if the OSMF publishes tiles under CC 4.0 it includes the DB rights
where DB rights apply.

The OSMF publishing CC 4 tiles is a more interesting case. An argument
similar to the implied license argument the FSF argues could apply here. I
think this argument would be particularly strong in the case of current CC
2.0 tiles where without an implied license you couldn't carry out what CC
2.0 allows you to do where DB rights exist. In fact, accepting the argument
that has been made that CC 2.0 doesn't give you the necessary permissions
where DB rights exist, it is the only way under which OSM would be usable
right now, so I expect that the courts would be likely to accept that there
is an implied license.

It would also be strong for any CC 4 tiles published after CC 4 is
released. There the OSMF would be publishing under a license knowing that
the terms allow you to change to a license that includes DB rights. To avoid
this OSMF would need to stop publishing CC tiles, with the possible
exception of CC BY-ND which does not allow derivatives.

None of this analysis for the OSMF depends on the ODbL. 

For someone other than the OSMF, the analysis now depends on the ODbL and
exactly what it grants, particularly around any implied licenses. It may be
that the ODbL does not grant sufficient permissions in which case no one
should use CC licenses for works derived from ODbL works.

Of course, if you're publishing in one of the many parts of the world
without DB rights this is a moot point - it's all copyright and no one can
stop you from publishing because of DB rights since they don't exist. If
ODbL gives you the permission to publish as, say, CC BY, then you can take
those tiles and do whatever you want, so long as you preserve attribution.

 If CC4 comes out with such indiscrimante inclusion of database rights
 then my guess is that it will either be automatically impossible to
 licene Produced Works under CC, or we will have to explicitly disallow
 it.

I'm not sure who you mean by we in that statement. If ODbL allowed produced
works under CC4 the only people who could disallow it would be ODC with a
license upgrade. OSMF couldn't stop produced works under CC4 licenses.

And I find some irony in getting involved into the intersection of copyright
laws and other laws which apply more to information when I am doing the
same at work, although not with DB rights.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Insurance for Mapping Party

[Paul Norman]

I actually have some experience in this area, but keep in mind that the
requirements may vary significantly by country.

 

Some form of insurance is likely to be required by some organizations. I
know the group bike rides I used to go on had insurance. On the other hand,
if all you're using their space for is meeting and computer-based activities
they might not require insurance.

 

A risk assessment should be fairly easy, there aren't many risks. The
biggest risk I can think of is if you're outside on roadways subject to the
hazard of being struck by vehicles, and the preventative measures are pretty
easy, wear a high-vis vest (compliant with CSA Z96, ANSI/ISEA 107 or EN 471
as applicable). Depending on what you're mapping, this might not be an
issue. If you're mapping footpaths it wouldn't be, but if you decided to map
highway features by foot it would be.

 

From: Fozy 81 [mailto:foz...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:40 PM
To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Insurance for Mapping Party

 

Hi,


Slightly different legal question than licence issues. Not sure if this is
the right place to ask it, but here goes...


When organising a mapping party do we need public liability insurance in
case of accident and/or disclaimer to be signed?. I am organising a mapping
party in the Scotland. We are using a public building from an organisation
who have kindly let us use their facilities for the day. They have asked if
we have insurance in case of accident and if we have a risk assessment. It
seems health and safety has finally caught up with OSM. In the past, I have
organised mapping events but this issue has not been raised. 


Can anyone provide some advice on this issue?


Thank you,


Tim

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MoU between OSM and NLSF

[Paul Norman]

 From: Pekka Sarkola [mailto:pekka.sark...@gispo.fi]
 Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 9:03 AM
 To: OSM - talk-fi; legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] MoU between OSM and NLSF
 
 Dear Friends,
 
 I have prepared with National Land Survey of Finland Memorandum of
 Understanding (MoU) about usage of their datasets by OpenStreetMap
 activists. Hare is current draft text for everybody to comment:
 
 
 Memorandum of Understanding
 
 This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter MoU) is between the
 National Land Survey of Finland (hereinafter NLSF) and OpenStreetMap
 contributors (hereinafter OSM).

Who would this agreement be between? It can't be between OSM contributors.
It could be between NLSF and *some* OSM contributors who individually agree
to it but it can't be for all OSM contributors.

It couldn't impose any requirements on users of NLSF or NLSF-derived data in
OSM, including OSM contributors.

A MOU is essentially a contract between two parties, but I don't see who the
second party is in this case.

A contract or MOU makes sense in some cases, like if you are purchasing
commercial imagery, but there's two clear parties then.

I suppose you could have a data provider who didn't want to make their data
directly publically available but was willing to let people contribute it to
OSM, but such an import might run into problems following the guidelines.

 OSM are preparing guidelines for all OpenStreetMap data collectors on
 how to include necessary tag-information for the OpenStreetMap data
 features.

I'm not saying this isn't important - you'd likely to do this as part of the
import process - but does it belong in a MOU?


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Triggering ShareAlike in Government

[Paul Norman]

 From: Kate Chapman [mailto:k...@maploser.com]
 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Triggering ShareAlike in Government
 
 Hi All,
 
 I have a question about what would trigger the ShareAlike in the context
 of government. Let's say for example a National Mapping Agency takes the
 OpenStreetMap road data for their area and then improves upon it. Those
 improvements are shared with the Ministry of the Environment. Is that
 redistribution?

Crown copyright is one area where the law really varies from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. Here if one ministry sent data to another I doubt it would be
distribution - anything produced by either ministry is copyright by the
Crown. On the other hand, if it was sent from a ministry to a crown
corporation it would be. I'm not sure how this interacts with FOI laws
either - although I may be asking the FOI commissioner some questions about
copyright and FOI.

However, it's worth considering the practical implications of if it is
considered distribution. If it isn't, then both ministries are part of the
same organization and either could release the changes under the SA license.
If it is, then the second ministry could release the data under the SA
license, so again either could release the changes under the SA license. In
both cases, the effect is the same. 

The second paragraph of
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeSubsidiary talks about
how if moving a copy to a subsidiary is distribution it doesn't in practice
matter.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Triggering ShareAlike in Government

[Paul Norman]

 From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org]
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Triggering ShareAlike in Government
 
 Hi,
 
 The interesting question is, and I don't know if Paul intended to hint
 at that with his FOI reference: What happens if the information is
 leaked, e.g. if the ME has to reveal the derived data as a result of a
 FOI request - does the recipient (who made the FOI request) then gain
 share-alike rights also? I presume they do but I'm not sure. 

FOI and copyrights (or any kind of secrets) gets complicated. When you add
in the complications from GIS data not being a well-explored area of
copyright law it gets even murkier. So here you're combining FOI with
copyright of GIS data with share-alike. 

As a local example, a contract that IBM entered into with the Crown locally
(a copyrighted documented) was considered confidential by the contract. The
FOI office disagreed, ordered its release, and a court case and some appeals
later, it's now released under FOI. In this case the FOI requestors would be
intending to report on the contents of it and copyright wouldn't interfere.
With GIS data generally you want to use the data, not report on it.

 Other kinds
 of leaks are possible; among UK government officials it is customary
 to lose notebooks and hard disks on trains. The GPL FAQ
 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-
 faq.html#TOCInternalDistribution)
 contains the question whether theft of previously un-relesed GPL
 software would trigger share-alike and the answer is no, because the
 sharing did not happen intentionally.
 
 The GPL FAQ also says that company-internal use is not distribution, but
 providing copies to off-site contractors is; if that were true for OSM,
 then if you made a PDF and emailed that to a print shop to make 20
 copies for you that would already be distribution.

I'm not sure on that - I suspect it would depend on where you are, how the
contracts with the contractors are worded, and if they can keep the
materials. Contractors tend to be fairly free with documents supplied to
them (e.g. manuals or instructions), reusing them internally.

 (What happens of the MoD takes an OSM map, draws a little bit on top of
 it and stamps it secret - is that allowed at all, given that the
 current license requires that they must not add any restrictions to the
 material...?)

If they're not distributing - nothing. They don't need any permission from
the copyright holder for that. If they distribute it, then they might be in
trouble, but copyright might not apply here if it's the MoD - there are
plenty of exemptions in most IP law for national security related reasons.
You might be able to stop them from distributing it in another country, but
in that other country the secret might have no effect.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] BC Open Government License

[Paul Norman]

I've added DataBC to the wiki page. I've had a look at the data and I don't
foresee any imports taking place but I do see some of the layers being
useful for references (e.g. names of highway rest areas) as well as for
pointing out where there is something to map.

It looks like the data from the large complex data sets is already included
in datasets we can already use like CanVec.

The origin of the data is well documented and it's all from government
ministries. There's always the chance that they mistakenly included some
third-party data but that's possible with any data source.

I'm still working on trying to get the raw GeoTIFFs from DataBC instead of
just access to the openmaps server.

 From: Michael Collinson [mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz]
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] BC Open Government License
 
 Thanks Paul, this is good news.  These kinds of license are appearing in
 a number of countries and are a great way of providing open geodata by
 governmental organisations.
 
 One small correction, but a positive one:  The license is based on the
 pure UK Open Government License [1] rather than the one used by the UK
 OS OpenData. The Ordnance Survey use an adultered version which is not
 necessarily compatible with OSM; we had to get explicit clarification
 from them to use data.
 
 I've just read through the BC license and my conclusion is also it is
 compatible with our contributor terms in conjunction with ODbL, CC-BY-SA
 or a future license provided that on our official attribution page [2]
 we attribute them (5a) and state that we have not official status (5b).
 The existing OS attribution can be used as a model. A link to a separate
 project web-page describing the data and how we use it would also help
 with 5c.
 
 My only caution is 7c (third party rights) but agree with Paul's
 conclusion. My guess is that this would be more applicable to documents
 that contain specific elements like a photo or map with more restrictive
 licensing. For geodata, just check that if there is suite of datasets,
 that there is not one with more restrictive rights.
 
 
 Mike
 
 [1] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/
 
 [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution
 
 On 03/05/2012 01:17, Paul Norman wrote:
  The BC government has released data under the Open Government License
  for Government of BC Information[1] which is based on the same license
  used for OS OpenData information[2]. OS OpenData can be used in OSM[3]
 
  The OGL BC is, broadly speaking, an attribution only license that
  makes allowances for attribution where combining information from
  multiple sources.
 
  The only potential concerns are under section 7, exemptions, and
  section 10, governing law.
 
  7a and 7b cover information that the FIPPA act prohibits the
 disclosure of.
  The government does not have the authority to grant permission to use
  information FIPPA prevents the disclosure of so even if these clauses
  were not present it would not change what they had licensed.[4]
 
  In practice this is a non-issue since the type of data that would be
  of interest to OSM is not personal information that the government is
  prohibited from disclosing. These terms are also of the BC equivalent
  of the OS terms.
 
  7c states that the government does not license what it doesn't have
  the rights to license. Without this term they would still not be
  granting a license to information they can't license.
 
  7d is not an issue. There is no database directive in BC and otherwise
  the term is the same as the OS term
 
  10 is the same as the OS term.
 
  Given that the OS license is already acceptable I see no reason why
  this license is also not acceptable.
 
  [1]: http://www.data.gov.bc.ca/dbc/admin/terms.page
  [2]:
  http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/licences/os-opendata-
 licence.
  pdf
  [3]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata
  [4]: FIPPA would override the license.
 
 
  ___
  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

[OSM-legal-talk] BC Open Government License

[Paul Norman]

The BC government has released data under the Open Government License for
Government of BC Information[1] which is based on the same license used for
OS OpenData information[2]. OS OpenData can be used in OSM[3]

The OGL BC is, broadly speaking, an attribution only license that makes
allowances for attribution where combining information from multiple
sources.

The only potential concerns are under section 7, exemptions, and section 10,
governing law.

7a and 7b cover information that the FIPPA act prohibits the disclosure of.
The government does not have the authority to grant permission to use
information FIPPA prevents the disclosure of so even if these clauses were
not present it would not change what they had licensed.[4]

In practice this is a non-issue since the type of data that would be of
interest to OSM is not personal information that the government is
prohibited from disclosing. These terms are also of the BC equivalent of the
OS terms.

7c states that the government does not license what it doesn't have the
rights to license. Without this term they would still not be granting a
license to information they can't license.

7d is not an issue. There is no database directive in BC and otherwise the
term is the same as the OS term

10 is the same as the OS term.

Given that the OS license is already acceptable I see no reason why this
license is also not acceptable.

[1]: http://www.data.gov.bc.ca/dbc/admin/terms.page
[2]:
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.
pdf
[3]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata
[4]: FIPPA would override the license.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)

[Paul Norman]

 From: Rob Myers [mailto:r...@robmyers.org]
 Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:08 AM
 To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
 
 On 04/04/2012 01:33 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
  I guess the number 1 requirement for CC4, from an OSM point of view,
  is that it be interoperable with the ODbL.
 
 I recommend that people define compatible and interoperable
 thoroughly when discussing them, as they can mean different things in
 different contexts. GNU GPL compatibility, for example, basically means
 derivatives of the work can be covered by the GPL.
 
 Having read the current 4.0 draft (and IANAL), I think SA 4's proposed
 database right copyleft clashes with the ODbL's:
 
 http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0_Drafts
 http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/c/cc/4point0_draft_1.txt
 
 Section 2 - License.
 
 (a)  Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License,
 Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive
 license to:
 [...]
 (3)   where the Licensed Work is a database, in addition to the above,
 extract and reuse contents of the Licensed Work,
 
 [...]
 
 Section 3 - License Conditions.  The rights granted in Section 2(a) of
 this Public License are expressly made subject to and limited by the
 following conditions:
 [...]
 (c) ShareAlike.  If you Share an Adaptation,
 
 (1) You must release it under the terms of one of the following:
 
 (i) this Public License,
 [...]
 
 I will raise this on odc-discuss.

It looks like with the release of CC 4.0 there may be two share-alike
licenses suitable for data with different copyleft provisions. CC with a
stronger copyleft and ODbL with a weaker one that allows produced works
under a non-free license. This may be justified - after all, there is the
case of the GPL and LGPL where each license has their place. If this
happens, it would be nice if the next version of the ODbL allowed for
ODbL-licensed databases to also be distributed under CC by-sa, like the LGPL
allows you to modify and distribute the modified version under the GPL


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What licences (other than ODbL) are compatible with OSM after 1st April

[Paul Norman]

If the import source is something other than PD this point should be
discussed in the required messages to the imports@ mailing list before
importing. That way the community can decide if they want it with the
licensing issues.

 

From: Ian Sergeant [mailto:inas66+...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 6:12 PM
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What licences (other than ODbL) are compatible
with OSM after 1st April

 

On 23 March 2012 10:46, Mayeul Kauffmann mayeul.kauffm...@free.fr wrote:


I'm a bit confused here: Does the data provider still need to create an
account and approve the contributor terms?? And they should add the data
themselves?


This would be ideal.  Then we know they have agreed the contributor terms
for the data, and no further negotiation is required. 

If not, and you are doing the import, then you need to ensure that your
contribution to OSM is in line with the contributor terms you have agreed.
This is not merely that the data can be released under the ODbL.  The
contributor terms are much wider in effect than that, and grant certain
rights to the OSMF and the right to relicence (under a free and open
licence) to a majority of active members of the community.

Going by the imports page, we are currently retaining imports from people
who have agreed for their data to be released under the openstreetmap
licence, and any free and open licence.

The hurdle to import is higher, but our flexibility with the resulting data
is greater.

We certainly don't want to be in a position of having to remove data should
we ever relicence again.

Ian.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Digitizing from Balloon Maps

[Paul Norman]

 From: andrzej zaborowski [mailto:balr...@gmail.com]
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Digitizing from Balloon Maps
 
 Hi,
 
 On 10 March 2012 03:51, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
  Hey All,
 
  I was wondering what the license implications would be from digitizing
  from balloon maps that had been rectified from other satellite
  imagery.
 
  - So let's say you fly photos of an area
  - To stitch them together you use Google Maps imagery as the base
  - What is the deal with the imagery at that point?
  - If I trace the imagery is that really derived from Google Maps?
 
  It seems insignificant to me, but I wanted to get some insight.
 
 I would also like to know, especially in the context of Jeff Warren's
 mail on talk.  I think the legal side here is easier than the community
 customs.  I have heard both obviously if it's rectified using Google,
 it can't be used in OSM, and obviously it doesn't matter.
 
 I think Bing support in Map Knitter (even though legally it's in the
 same bandwagon as Google) would have a better community acceptance.
 Where I tried rectifying something with Map Knitter, Google imagery was
 useless because of complete cloud cover, too.

I'm not a lawyer but I believe standard practice for imagery providers here
is to rectify based on a database of survey points and I don't believe the
providers regard their imagery as a derivative work of the database. Next
time I'm at the city I'll ask them.

If you are rectifying, try to get *some* survey points for your warping.


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

[OSM-legal-talk] Typos in tags

[Paul Norman]

I was considering a possible scenario which I believe needs to be considered
for any data removal and I do not believe is handled by any of the current
interpretations of the tools which attempt to state if an object will be
removed or not.

Suppose mapper A and mapper C have accepted the CTs and mapper B has not.
Mapper A creates a v1 closed way with the tagging building=yes. Mapper B
then adds the tags addr:housenumer, addr:steet and addr:postcod to make v2
of the way. Mapper C (e.g. xybot) then in a changeset with bot=yes removes
these three tags and adds addr:housenumber, addr:street and addr:postcod
tags making v3 of the way.

v1 is obviously clean, v2 is not. I do not see that the bot change from
mapper C changes the copyright status of the object.

Do the tools correctly handle a dirty way where all the tags added by the
decliner are no longer present?


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

[OSM-legal-talk] Removal of copyrighted data

[Paul Norman]

I have come across some data which I believe was added from a copyrighted
source. After discussion on the local list, this data was going to be
removed for non-copyright related reasons. At the time I didn't realize that
the data was likely problematic from a copyright standpoint.

 

As deleting it through the normal methods (removing the tag added from the
objects in question) does not remove it from the database, should I follow
up with the user who added the data to check what their source is, and if it
is a copyright issue, refer the issue to the LWG or DWG so they can remove
it, as normal users do not have the tools to remove data from the database
and past minutely replication diffs.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build

[Paul Norman]

 -Original Message-
 From: Andreas Labres [mailto:l...@lab.at]
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
 
 Hello,
 
 there is something wrong with the license status P2 shows...
 
 A node without tags holds only one information: its location (lat+lon).
 So for
 instance:
 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/246625694
 
 was last edited by me (I put the node there), I agreed to the terms, but
 P2 showes this node in orange. This can't be true.


I can't agree with that. In some circumstances a node can convey additional
information by virtue of what it is a member of. If a node is a member of
multiple ways it tells you that the ways join. Nodes that are members of
relations are also similar.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build

[Paul Norman]

 -Original Message-
 From: Michael Collinson [mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz]
 Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 10:17 AM
 To: OSM Licensing and other legal discussions.
 Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
 
 We suggest that re-mapping by individuals is more important initially
 than automated revert scripts as it puts back often more and better
 content than was taken out.  We'd like therefore promote that and to
 concentrate on tools to help folks easily see what needs doing in their
 areas. Of course, it does not prevent the most obvious tasks like
 rolling back top-most edits where the editor has declined.  Any
 different opinions on this? I have a couple of other questions to ask
 over the next week or so, but that is the main one to get things moving.
 
 Mike
 LWG

On a related note, how do we deal with data which OSM does not have a
license to distribute? Non-CT data will be a subcase of this, but the
broader case also covers data taken from Google or a commercial map
provider.

Deleting the data with an editor does not remove it from the database. It
remains distributed in the full history planets, through the API with
/history and in the minutely diffs from when it was initially placed in the
database. How do we get data removed from all of these sources?


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for data sources

[Paul Norman]

I’m going to just be using the 2008 orthographs, but that is for technical 
reasons as I don’t feel confident I could handle the shp - osm conversion. The 
import itself for some of the items would likely be easy – I doubt anyone has 
gone and tagged the streetlights or some of the other more obscure features.

 

I’ll also be trying to get their 10cm orthophotos. The form they have them up 
in is rather useless, but that is once again a technical issue. 

 

I feel like there is definitely an issue with how acceptable licenses are 
communicated. The PDDL is a license that is likely to be found multiple places, 
but I was unable to find anything that said it was okay to use data from those 
sources. 

 

From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org 
[mailto:legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Michael Barabanov
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:02 PM
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for data sources

 

Hi Paul,

re Vancouver, please see
http://weait.com/content/tragedy-edmontorcouver-open-data
http://weait.com/content/unintended-restrictions

re PDDL:
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/summary/
No restrictions are listed.   Since they have vector data available, importing 
that (as opposed to tracing) should be the way to go.

Michael.

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:

Is there a consolidated list of licenses that are acceptable on data sources 
for use for importing or tracing into OSM? I ask this question because wiki 
information has been contradicted by email discussion on the subject of City of 
Vancouver open data.

 

Additionally, is it acceptable to trace from PDDL orthography into OSM? The 
City of Surrey has some orthography of a very high quality and they have 
released it and all of their GIS data under PDDL. I would expect PDDL to be 
compatible, but having received contradictory information once, I’m checking.

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for data sources

[Paul Norman]

Is there a consolidated list of licenses that are acceptable on data sources
for use for importing or tracing into OSM? I ask this question because wiki
information has been contradicted by email discussion on the subject of City
of Vancouver open data.

 

Additionally, is it acceptable to trace from PDDL orthography into OSM? The
City of Surrey has some orthography of a very high quality and they have
released it and all of their GIS data under PDDL. I would expect PDDL to be
compatible, but having received contradictory information once, I'm
checking.

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