Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Warning about not mapping military areas

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 22. Dez. 2020 um 10:12 Uhr schrieb Edward Bainton <
bainton@gmail.com>:

>
> Dangerous: I think there's a risk that by saying, "please follow local
> laws" (rather than saying nothing), we open ourselves to accusations of not
> policing "our" mappers properly. You can imagine the military attaché of
> some country emailing OSMF to say, "That request is very weak. I think you
> should toughen it up. In fact, here is a list of mappers whose edits I want
> you to revert because, ***by your own policy***, they should not have
> made them in breach of our laws".
>


question is, what would OSMF do when the Chinese government approaches them
and says, "this is the list of mappers that have illegally added things to
OSM, please help us identifying them by providing their email addresses,
etc." and what would they do if it was the French government? Or the
British? Imagine they claim it is for finding terrorists, or somehow
connected to national security. Or simply an offense. We would likely not
be able to reject any of these when coming from the British authorities (or
from someone else proxied through them). Are there board rules how to deal
with such cases? Has it ever happened so far? As far as I know (not really
far actually) in Britain there is the legal possibility of gag orders, i.e.
if the thing is considered "secret" authorities can order OSMF to not even
speak about it.



>
> A warning along the lines of "Mapping military sites is sometimes illegal
> under laws of that country" would be ok, but I would much prefer not even
> to do that. I haven't been on the lists long, but I don't recall anyone
> saying "I've just been interrogated for mapping this base without realising
> that was illegal - please don't do it!" On my information there's no
> problem to solve - just worries about "what ifs" - and so we should say
> nothing.
>


In Italy I have once seen a sign which said something along the lines of
"military area, survey forbidden, also by memory", while it usually says
something like "no photographs". I would bet that surveying military
installations in great detail is probably forbidden in any country, but the
level of detail that is allowed may vary by large. It is also very common
to not be able to take photographs.

For instance I would guess that mapping the facilities that are blacked out
in this image could get you into trouble:
https://yorkshirecnd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/sigint-cryptologic-platform-768x575.jpg

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Removal of 'unsuitable' content from an OSM-related site

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Dec 2020, at 11:15, Nick Whitelegg  wrote:
> 
> I don't have any terms of service - as a non-profit/research project it's all 
> quite informal


consider setting up some simple terms, even short ones, where you deny all 
responsibility, liability and guarantee and reserve the right to do anything 
and without notice. 

Just in case.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Removal of 'unsuitable' content from an OSM-related site

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

IANAL, but why do you believe you could have any obligation to host their
content on your server?

Do you have terms of service?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 28. Oct 2020, at 16:19, Kathleen Lu  wrote:
> 
> Actually quality scores would be not be subject to sharealike, per the 
> Collective Database Guideline.


Why does the collective database guideline apply? Aren‘t they coloring 
OpenStreetMap derived data? To me this looks like a derivative database.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Oct 2020, at 22:15, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk 
>  wrote:
>
> Again, not conducting a comprehensive survey here, but if 95% of the polygons 
> match OSM polygons, then even if there is technically a derivative database, 
> then I think this simply isn't worth our time to investigate.


in any case they are using a significant amount of OpenStreetMap data
and must attribute. They are actively hiding map attribution for all
screens with less than 993 layout pixels width (i.e. all phones and
most tablets):

https://www.wohnlagenkarte.de/css/e888f00.css

@media (max-width: 992px) {
.leaflet-control-attribution {
display: none;
}
}

This alone merits a letter from OSMF. I have been lucky finding a
mention of osm hidden in the fourth paragraph of "über
Wohnlagenkarte", but it does not link to osm and which has no mention
of copyright or the ODbL.

The transforms they are applying to OSM data do not seem trivial to
me. Can someone explain to me why we are not interested in the data
about the residential quality of the land?

Cheers
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 24. Sept. 2020 um 12:05 Uhr schrieb Tom Hughes :

> On 24/09/2020 10:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> > it contains changesets, notes, etc. but not diary posts or changeset
> > comments (correct me if I’m wrong).
>
> You're wrong:
>
> https://planet.openstreetmap.org/planet/discussions-latest.osm.bz2



thank you Tom, thought they must be somewhere but couldn't find them at a
glance.
Can still not find the diaries, this seems to imply diaries are not covered
by the CT (but by the ToU), because they are not part of the geodatabase,
while changeset comments are (i.e. are published with ODbL license)?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 24. Sep 2020, at 02:41, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk 
>  wrote:
> 
> I read "geo-database contributions" as including changeset comments & 
> discussions and map notes, because they are tied to the map features. I do 
> not think geo-database contributions include blog posts.



I can follow this for changeset discussions, but map notes are notes with a 
coordinate, not referring to things we have already mapped (exclusively). This 
is very similar to diaries, which are longer texts with a coordinate 
(optionally), and generally dealing with topics that are in relation with 
creating the geo database.

Cheers Martin 

PS: I don’t know whether it is relevant, but the text on 
planet.OpenStreetMap.org states:
“
Planet OSM
The files found here are regularly-updated, complete copies of the 
OpenStreetMap.org database”





complete copies of the database.

it contains changesets, notes, etc. but not diary posts or changeset comments 
(correct me if I’m wrong).___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Sep 2020, at 14:43, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk 
>  wrote:
> So if changeset comments did not count as part of the geo-database, OSM would 
> not have rights to use them, which would be contrary to the purposes of the 
> Contributor Terms.


looking at the terms, to my layman’s view it seems unnecessary to qualify the 
term “contents of the OpenStreetMap project” with the limitation to 
geo-database. The whole sentence reads:
“ Thank you for your interest in contributing data and/or any other content 
(collectively, “Contents”) to the geo-database of the OpenStreetMap project 
(the “Project”).”

why not remove “geo-database of the”? If someone added the geo-database, maybe 
they wanted to exclude other databases or parts of the project? Are there terms 
for diary posts? Are diary posts distributed under the ODbL?

Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 23. Sept. 2020 um 12:25 Uhr schrieb GITNE :

> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/5/58/OSM_DB_Schema_2016-12-13.svg
>
Martin, please correct me if I am wrong but the database represented by the
> schema you have pointed to is not what is actually publicly available,
> that is
> what is licensed under the ODbL. In other words, the ODbL licensed
> database is a
> subset of OSMF's database (or an export so to speak) because it contains
> amongst
> other things e-mail addresses and password hashes which are not supposed
> to be
> published.



that's how I see it as well. The whole db has privacy related content,
redaction related information (copyright violations) etc. and the published
database is only part of this.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 23. Sept. 2020 um 11:02 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann <
chris_horm...@gmx.de>:

> ...  That changeset data
> is distributed separately from other parts of our database is not an
> argument against it being covered by the contributor terms.  Frequent
> discussion in the OSM community that certain information (like source
> tags) make more sense to be recorded in changeset tags than in
> individual features (and accordingly that they can still be connected
> to the features when recorded in that form) OTOH supports the view that
> changeset tags are covered by the constributor terms and that the
> mapper community regards them as such.
>
> In any case - the OSMF is distributing changeset data under the ODbL...



GITNE's point was not about changeset data, it was about changeset
discussions. I agree there is no doubt that changesets are part of the
geodatabase (at least for me), but for changeset comments it seems the
situation isn't so clear, it could be seen as an edge case (either way
could be defended by arguments), athough I agree that through linking it to
the changeset_id it is within the geodatabase.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/5/58/OSM_DB_Schema_2016-12-13.svg

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM compatibility of licenses which restrict modification

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. Jul 2020, at 15:28, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Maybe they assume that it is covered
> anyway by moral rights?
> 
> But ODBL waives moral rights if allowed
> by law,
> it attempts to block asserting such claims,
> and so on.
> 
> Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer etc


neither am I, just wondering up to which level contradictions and uncertainties 
in licensing terms are still ok for OpenStreetMap and when it’s too much.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM compatibility of licenses which restrict modification

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. Jul 2020, at 12:40, Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk 
>  wrote:
> 
> Such data is incompatible with
> OSM requirements, must not be
> imported, must be removed as
> copyright violation if added already.


on the plus side there is a declaration of the license steward that the license 
is compatible with the ODbL.
I’ve found this document which indicates the compatibility is “likely ok”
https://www.jlis.it/article/downloadSuppFile/5461/271

licence in question is the IODL 1 and 2.


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

[OSM-legal-talk] OSM compatibility of licenses which restrict modification

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

In recent local discussions it has emerged that some license has conditions
for the reuse of the data, which may eventually not be completely
compatible with OSM.

In particular it relates to an Italian license which states as a condition
you have to
"not reuse the Information in a way that suggests that it is official or
that Licensor approves your use of the Information;
take all reasonable steps to ensure that the uses permitted above do not
mislead others and that the Information itself is not misrepresented."

original text:
"non riutilizzare le Informazioni in un modo che suggerisca che abbiano
carattere di ufficialità o che il Licenziante approvi l'uso che fai delle
Informazioni;
prendere ogni misura ragionevole affinché gli usi innanzi consentiti non
traggano in inganno altri soggetti e le Informazioni medesime non vengano
travisate."


Can we guarantee that the contained information is not "misrepresented"?
IIRR, in the past we have rejected import plans where such discriminatory
clauses have been present in the license.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Data in wikidata

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 17. Juni 2020 um 10:19 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

> Am Di., 16. Juni 2020 um 16:00 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via
> legal-talk :
>
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Copyright
>>
>



> ... ultimately I would prefer improving / fixing the attribution and
> keeping the data rather than removing it.
>


after noticing the text behind your link above: "All structured data from
the main and property namespace is available under the Creative Commons CC0
License
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Text_of_the_Creative_Commons_Public_Domain_Dedication>;"
I agree that we should probably have them remove everything copied from OSM
(in particular the stuff copied in Hamburg, Zürich and Rome by the user in
question) because it is not compatible. I know that CC0 does not guarantee
fitness, or that there aren't any third party rights contained, but reality
is that it is used as if it was bare of rights.

Is there an official OSMF statement regarding the transfer of information
from OSM to wikidata, and someone could point me to it?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Data in wikidata

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 16. Juni 2020 um 16:00 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk
:

> See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights
>
> > Whenever possible, the best course is to use only content that is made
> > available by the author under an open license. In particular, for EU
> > databases, the license should include a license or express waiver of
> > the sui generis database right.
>
>
> Though in general approach of Wikidata is to ignore copyright, unlike
> OSM or Wikimedia Commons.
>
> Compare
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Copyright
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Copyright
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright
>
> Common comment is "we are copying facts, facts are not copyrightable"
> what may be or may be not describing such editing in case of USA legal
> framework
>


indeed, it is not the European legal situation.


>
> Provided that ODbL and OpenStreetMap would be sufficiently linked, is it
> then possible to copy OSM data into wikidata, which is distributed as CC0?
>
> AFAIK not sufficient, ODBL is a copyleft ("share alike") license, so it
> would be necessary to add
> also that data is ODBL licensed.
>


yes, I meant OSM is mentioned as source of the data and it is made clear
that the data is published with an ODbL license, this is what "ODbL" was
referring to.



>
> I opened deletion request for one of items at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q76939332
> and notified the author
>


thank you for taking action, I guess this may be a good way to raise
awareness, although ultimately I would prefer improving / fixing the
attribution and keeping the data rather than removing it.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Data in wikidata

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 16. Juni 2020 um 13:58 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole :

>
> I'm simply making no assumptions about how the data got into wikidata, for
> example the users may be contributing to both (OSM and WD).
>


I have checked for the data in the Rome area that a fair amount was
contributed to OSM by the OP, so you can exclude the same author hypothesis
here.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Data in wikidata

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 16. Juni 2020 um 13:32 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole :

> (not discussing if the material added is even protected
> to start with).



As you are mentioning it, are you in doubt? By the substantial guideline it
seems it would be covered by the ODbL:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline

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

[OSM-legal-talk] OSM Data in wikidata

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I have noticed that people have been importing OSM data into wikidata. Here
are some examples:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76939332
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76951022
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76972551

This is a link that someone helpful has provided in the user talk page of
the wikidata user:
https://query.wikidata.org/#%23defaultView%3AMap%0Aselect%20%3Fitem%20%3Fcoordinates%20where%20%7B%0A%20%20%3Fitem%20p%3AP625%2Fprov%3AwasDerivedFrom%2Fpr%3AP248%20wd%3AQ1224853%3B%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20wdt%3AP625%20%3Fcoordinates.%0A%7D

I believe the attribution is not sufficient (following the "described at
URL" link there is OSM and mapbox attribution)?

Provided that ODbL and OpenStreetMap would be sufficiently linked, is it
then possible to copy OSM data into wikidata, which is distributed as CC0?

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Adding OSM-ids to an external database and publish in CC-BY

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

In Italy we have been discussing this situation: a member of the community
wants to add links to OSM objects into a list of specific shops (those that
are open during the covid-19 pandemia).

The list will be published here: https://www.covid19italia.help/opendata/
with an CC-BY-4.0 license.

The links will be of the kind https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1834818

Question is, will it be possible to publish such a list, containing OSM-ids
(or links to OSM objects) with a CC-BY-4.0 license?

Thank you for your replies.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 21. Dec 2019, at 03:22, Kathleen Lu  wrote:
> 
> Remember that it's a "substantial part...of the contents of a database" (in 
> this case OSM), and one way would be a very very small part of OSM.


If “substantial“ has to be seen in relation to the size of the database it 
would imply that the more data we collect the more one could take without it 
being protected. It’s hard to believe that this is the intention of the 
wording, but if it was confirmed we could protect by splitting the planet db in 
several parts, eg. by tenth of degrees, and distribute it as collection of 
databases rather than a single one.

A single feature would be more of an exception (on average), but when you look 
at  relations rather than ways they can become easily substantial

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 21. Dec 2019, at 03:01, Kathleen Lu  wrote:
> 
> No, the guideline was explicitly about both individual results and 
> aggregations. Individual results are insubstantial, so no ODbL obligations 
> attach at all (attribution is one of the ODbL obligations).


while an individual result is probably insubstantial, a collection of 
individual results is not, so even if the individual result would not require 
attribution, recollecting them will, so somehow these strings must be attached 
to make sure the recipients are aware that collecting them would trigger share 
alike and attribution requirements.


> A collection of results is not a Derivative Database *unless* the collection 
> is used as a general geodatabase


this is also something I’ve always struggled to understand, what is a “general” 
geodatabase? If I take all power network related information from 
OpenStreetMap, is this a general database? Or a list of all streets in France 
and the municipality they are in? Or all gas stations in the US with their 
postcode (but no location)?



> basically, if you tried to reverse engineer OSM by mass geocoding). That 
> means that in normal circumstances, for a collection of results (an 
> aggregation), the sharealike provisions *do not* persist.  


Isn’t the guideline going a big beyond what ODbL permits? I could reverse 
engineer a list of postcodes for streets from geocoding results, something that 
would create  a derived db under the ODbL (adaptation), and according to this 
reading of the guideline the result could be any license I want?

Cheers Martin 


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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 20. Dec 2019, at 08:04, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Obviously, both nodes, ways and
> relations should be counted.
> 
> Otherwise one would be able to
> temporarily create one relation,
> that would include all data (s)he
> wish to use and export this.


and if you count both, one could split all ways in 2-node segments so that the 
same data becomes lots of features. ;-)
I agree that (significant) nodes are relevant and just counting ways does not 
fit with the concept. Significant nodes could be those that define an angle of 
more than 1-2 degrees compared to the previously counted node or that define an 
intersection  (i.e. additional, otherwise unconnected nodes in a straight way 
would not count).

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 20. Dec 2019, at 00:16, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk 
>  wrote:
> 
> This is not what the Substantial Guideline says. It says that fewer than 100 
> features is "not Substantial". It also gives as an example "More that 100 
> Features only if the extraction is non-systematic and clearly based on your 
> own qualitative criteria for example an extract of all the the locations of 
> restaurants you have visited for a personal map to share with friends or use 
> the locations of a selection of historic buildings as an adjunct in a book 
> you are writing, we would regard that as non Substantial."


If I recall correctly there is no definition what a feature is. Nobody has yet 
commented how they would interpret this for a border: is it about the border 
way or about the individual border points from which the border is made of? 

100 features may be a reasonable limit for point features, but for complex ways 
and relations, already very few (maybe even a single one) may be substantial?

Kathleen, I would be interested in your thoughts what a feature is in the 
context of ways.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

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


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

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

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


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

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


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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

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


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

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

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


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

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


because he wants to create a new database.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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

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



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

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Dec 2019, at 19:56, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some assumptions I had
> made. It would mean that, for example, a database that contains a count
> of all pubs in each municipality,



-> adaptation 


> or a database that contains the
> average travel time from a building in a city to the nearest hospital,


-> adaptation 


> or a heatmap of ice cream parlours,


-> adaptation 



> (and neither could they possibly be used to reassemble
> OSM).


is there a requirement in the ODbL that your adaptation or alteration has to be 
reversible?

Cheers Martin 


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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Dec 2019, at 19:32, matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de wrote:
> 
> So as soon I'm selecting any data using OSM polygons, it gets transformed OSM 
> data?
> They're not even touching on the same layer, since it's a different feature 
> type.


if you modify your data based on OpenStreetMap data you are creating a 
derivative database.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 12. Dez. 2019 um 19:53 Uhr schrieb <
matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de>:

> But I neither want to merge OSM data or add it to my data. I just want to
> use it to
> select points of my dataset.



then it may eventually fall under the geocoding guideline:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 12. Dez. 2019 um 08:01 Uhr schrieb <
matthias.straetl...@buerotiger.de>:

> I want to use polygons (district boundaries) from OSM dataset to select
> points for a proprietary dataset.



>From a practical point of view, boundaries in OSM rarely originate from
surveys, you might be lucky to be able to identify the original source
(most likely open data) which may have a more liberal license than ODbL
(check the history and changeset source tags / object source tags).

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Dec 2019, at 08:19, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> As an exception to the above, if the number of boundaries you use is
> less than 100 - an crucially this could be after the trivial alterations
> you mention - then the extract you are making is considered not to be
> substantial (see
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline)
> and therefore does not have to be under ODbL.


when you write „number of boundaries“, you intend „boundary points“?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible licensed dataset

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 23:25 Uhr schrieb Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>:

> Cost is a relevant factor in database protection law, which is one of the
> rights covered by the licence. First, a database is not protected unless
> there has been "substantial investment" in its making.
>



"substantial investment" is not the same as monetary cost. The human time
that is needed to collect and arrange the data is also an investment.


>
> All that said, I am still of the opinion that it is not necessary to find
> the exact line here, because the original use Lars-Daniel proposed was one
> of a collective database so long as the two sets of ZIP properties were
> kept in separate columns, which he appeared quite comfortable with.
>



are kept in separate columns and are not used in combination/both to create
a produced work?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible licensed dataset

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Oct 2019, at 19:48, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk 
>  wrote:
> 
> In my view, if you are keeping the two zip codes in different columns and not 
> removing duplicates, then essentially what you have is one property that is 
> "OSM ZIP" and one property that is "proprietary ZIP", and they are two 
> different properties that are not used to improve each other, so it is a 
> collective database per 
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Collective_Database_Guideline_Guideline


As I read the collective db guideline, you cannot have both, the ZIP codes from 
your proprietary database and those from OpenStreetMap, in the same database 
matched to the same objects. It says “add or replace” a property (we do agree 
the ZIP codes are a property and not a primary feature?). If you keep both ZIP 
codes in your db, it implies you need both columns, which implies you are 
somehow mixing them at some point (or you could drop the proprietary ZIP codes, 
as you won’t need them)

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copy information from official business website (WAS: Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Jul 2019, at 11:37, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> For example I may draw a red circle
> and publish it under CC BY-NC.
> 
> But drawing of a red circle is not copyrightable,
> as it is to simple to qualify for protection
> and lacks originality.


it may depend on the story you tell about your red circle. 

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copy information from official business website (WAS: Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. Jul 2019, at 20:23, Kathleen Lu  wrote:
> 
> "Substantial investment" may not be a black and white standard, but it is a 
> meaningful one. I hypothesize that Tesco would have difficulty proving "a 
> substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation 
> of the contents." (Note that investment in creating/setting the hours does 
> not count.)


It may have come along as sarcasm the way I have written it, but the idea is 
actually appealing: significant investment wrt the database could eventually be 
dismissed for those databases, which are more or less the result of some 
related operation/work, a byproduct, rather than being set up to gather and 
analyze data without being required in the operation. The investment would be 
the operation, while the db as a byproduct would be almost “free”. The 
OpenStreetMap database would still be protected under perspective, but a lot of 
databases would not be protected automatically any more. 

The maps the GIS department releases are definitely requiring a significant 
investment, but the lists of streets a municipality releases would probably not 
be covered by the sui generis rule because there is not much specific 
investment behind such a compilation, it is a byproduct of their operation as a 
public administration. Or the post code lists of the postal service: the effort 
is not specifically put into the db, they only have to print what they already 
know from planning and organizing the postal service.

Is there already case law with examples where a claimed significant investment 
has been rejected? I would suspect that almost any database could be seen as 
having required a lot of investment for the creation and updates, or not, 
according to how you put it. 

From a practical point of view I agree I would not be worried about copying 
opening hours (or addresses, or phone numbers) from a retail company’s website, 
e.g. Tesco. It’s more likely they would pay you for this than sue you.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copy information from official business website (WAS: Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2019, at 18:35, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk 
>  wrote:
> 
> I do not think that a retail store chain could successfully argue that it 
> makes a "substantial investment" in maintaining a list of its own stores' 
> hours. Since the store sets the hours, the effort of obtaining, verification, 
> and/or presentation should be fairly trivial.


Along the same reasoning you could say: “I do not think that a state makes a 
substantial investment in mapping the roads they maintain. Since the state 
plans, builds and maintains the roads it should be fairly trivial for them to 
make a map.”

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to get geolocation without problem into Wikidata

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 15. Mai 2019 um 10:19 Uhr schrieb Shu Higashi :

> Thanks, Martin and Kathleen.
>
> I will let wikidata people know the operation as I described 1-4
> and tell them to be sure not to be engaged in "systematic attempt to
> aggregate"
> in order to avoid share-alike triggering.




from my understanding of the guidelines, if you proceed as described in
1-4, you will trigger share-alike. The geocoding guideline is explicit
about this:
"

If a Geocoder uses the OSM database to produce Geocoding Results and the
Geocoder is Publicly Used, then the OSM database is being Publicly Used
under the ODbL. * Individual* Geocoding Results are insubstantial database
extracts: *Individual* Geocoding Results that are based on a Direct Hit
contain an insubstantial amount of raw OSM data; ...

Consequently, if:

1. no modifications (or only trivial transformations) have been made to the
OSM database used by a Geocoder; *and *

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

the share-alike obligations of the ODbL are not triggered (per Section
4.4.b of the ODbL) 

*If Geocoding Results are used to create a new database that contains the
whole or a substantial part of the contents of the OSM database, this new
database would be considered a Derivative Database and would trigger
share-alike obligations under section 4.4.b of the ODbL.*

"


there is also a definition for "substantial" in the context of Geocoding
results:

"

A collection of Geocoding Results is not a substantial extract of the OSM
database provided:

1. only names, addresses, and/or latitude/longitude information are
included in the Geocoding Results, *and *

*2. the collection is not a systematic attempt to aggregate all or
substantially all Primary Features of a given type (as defined in the
Collective Database Guideline) within a geographic area city-sized or
larger. *

"


>From my understanding, wikidata is such a systematic attempt.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to get geolocation without problem into Wikidata

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. May 2019, at 00:14, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk 
>  wrote:
> 
> If by "Each wikidata people repeat this operation manually." you mean that 
> each individual Wikipedia editor makes their own decision about whether to 
> copy the lat/long, and it is not a coordinated or automated effort (not a 
> "systematic attempt to aggregate" per the Geocoding Guidelines), then it is 
> allowed.


how could Wikidata not be considered a coordinated effort? I mean he is asking 
here, people are making plans how to proceed, how can this be „not 
coordinated“? Isn’t a plan to operate „individually“ already a kind of 
coordination (purposefully crafted to circumvent the licensing provisions)?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to get geolocation without problem into Wikidata

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

provided you do it for a substantial part of OpenStreetMap data, from my 
understanding you would trigger ODbL, i.e. you would be creating a derivative 
database.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using OpenData from Geoinformationservice Germany Rheinland-Pfalz

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Sa., 9. März 2019 um 15:14 Uhr schrieb Bernhard Schmitz <
bernhard.schmi...@web.de>:

> is it legal to use the geoinformationdata from the
> geoinformationistitute Rheinland-Pfalz Germany for house numbering and
> buildings in OSM?
>
> Link to the opendata maps and orthophotos:
>
> https://lvermgeo.rlp.de/de/geodaten/opendata/
>
> The opendata licence is written down here:
>
> https://www.govdata.de/dl-de/by-2-0
>
>
> For example, i would like to use this wms to create buildings in JOSM.
> The photos are more actual.




In cases of attribution only requirements (like here) you may have chances
to get a specific allowance from the copyright holder for derivating
features from aerial imagery or copying data for inclusion in OSM.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to stop violation of OSM copyright by Mapbox?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

to me it seems you did represent facts, although I am not sure I would see the 
click-to-see attribution on small screens a violation of copyright, I agree it 
is suspicious that there is space for a mapbox logo but not for an OSM 
attribution.

Cheers, Martin 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using screenshots from OpenStreetMap

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Hello Tony,

you don't need to buy a license (and more generally, it is impossible), but
you will have to attribute the background image to OpenStreetMap if you
publish or distribute your application (i.e. from what you write it seems
you will have to). See here for more information:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/
Especially, "how to Credit OpenStreetMap".

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

[OSM-legal-talk] artist using osm data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

There is an artist who makes (generally big scale (up to global), sometimes
small scale) drawings on maps by connecting either place centre nodes
(cities, towns, villages) or sometimes features (e.g. hotels, bridges,
etc.). The resulting lines make up the art work. These lines are in the
vast majority not corresponding to anything in the real world (their nodes
do), although they might sometimes follow a road or other linear feature
for a short (typically straight) segment they are not reproducing the map
in a way that would make sense to use it as a map (they wouldn't even be
recognizable as drawn on a map without the map as a background), i.e.
albeit using the map as kind of canvas, he is actually creating something
genuinely new.

The resulting work can come in all kind of media (on paper, electronic maps
vector and bitmap, gpx tracks, sculptures, etc.)

Now the question is if using OSM data as canvas for his work will require
him to release it (or the data files with the drawings) under the ODbL. Do
you agree this kind of use is leading to produced works or is there some
doubt?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-dev] Legal question about attribution text on smartphone

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Apr 2017, at 00:26, Stadin, Benjamin 
>  wrote:
> 
> (UIActionSheet on iOS)


As a side note UIActionSheet is deprecated since iOS8 (2014)

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-dev] Legal question about attribution text on smartphone

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 21. Apr 2017, at 12:10, Rory McCann  wrote:
> 
> So I dunno? Maybe? There could be ways around it if you don't want to include 
> it on every map page. Does your app have a loading/spash screen? Including an 
> attribution there, which is shown every time the app is started might meet 
> the requirements.


have you seen this page?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ

generally, if there is enough space for your logo, there should also be for osm 
(on pages showing maps). If there's space for just one attribution, why not use 
it to attribute osm? The user will more likely be aware who you are (as he's 
using your app) than he will be that your map data comes from osm, so 
prioritizing OSM attribution seems to make sense 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using closed sources to spot errors (was: [Tagging] Routing in Liège (consulting Michelin))

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 21 set 2016, alle ore 09:54, Janko Mihelić  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> and only show which OSM data is wrong according to the closed source. Then 
> mappers would go survey the shop. Would this be OK?


I am not sure if publishing the differences would be ok, but looking at them to 
decide where to survey is ok I think. In your above sentence, rather than 
"which osm data is wrong" it should be "where osm data is different".

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using copyrighted data to locate objects in bing (and trace over bing)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 25 ago 2016, alle ore 21:41, Bjoern Hassler  
> ha scritto:
> 
> The use: I'm interested in locating megalithic structures, but only where 
> those are visible on Bing. I am not interested in copying anything from the 
> map to OSM that I cannot see in Bing (as it probably isn't worth visiting 
> anyway).


I believe this kind of use of IGM is not permitted because you can't see in 
bing what it is, you only find these places because you use the IGM maps, i.e. 
you derive information from them.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] osm-carto license

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 25 ago 2016, alle ore 11:32, Christoph Hormann 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> You can still render tiles using the standard style and OSM data 
> yourself and distribute them under something other than CC-By-SA as 
> long as you comply with the ODbL.  But if you use those rendered by the 
> OSMF servers they are CC-By-SA.


thanks for the clarification, this makes sense 


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

[OSM-legal-talk] osm-carto license

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I'm wondering about the license of the "main official map style" and the tiles 
it creates and whether current license indications make sense.

In the style sheet the license is indicated as CC0: 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

But on the website it says that the "cartography" is licensed ccbysa:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

"The cartography in our map tiles, and our documentation, are licensed under 
the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license (CC BY-SA)."

is this from oversight or on purpose?

Cheers,
Martin


sent from a phone___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] attributive data enrichment using OSM

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 22 lug 2016, alle ore 14:46, Stefan Jäger  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> My question now is: if we enrich our data (with only underlying attributes, 
> no geometry from OSM at all) with such a process using OSM data, is this then 
> a produced work (or a collective database) or would I have to license my 
> enriched data product under the odbl,


I think it's the latter (derivative database). You are mixing up databases and 
they are not independent, so the viral aspect of ODbL comes into play 

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] School Units Data Resources in Greece

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 21 lug 2016, alle ore 11:43, Νίκος Σταματόπουλος 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> a)   Is it legal to use public data although it is not strictly stated as 
> CC,  GPU or other License?
> 


if there is no license the default is full copyright and database protection 
(as it's in the EU), unless Greece has an open-by-default law (e.g. Italy has 
this since recently)


> b)  Moreover, since the above is accepted, address info is still free to 
> tag even for private schools?
> 


if you can get the addresses in a license compatible way (e.g. PD source, own 
survey), you should be able to add them without problems.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Australian Government Data from data.gov.au

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 30 giu 2016, alle ore 13:15, Christoph Hormann 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> The whole idea to me seems completely impractical.


+1
what we might do: add an auto generated list of all osm user pseudonyms with at 
least one edit at the bottom of the osm.org/contributors page, and update from 
time to time.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Australian Government Data from data.gov.au

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-06-30 12:47 GMT+02:00 Tobias Wendorff :

> > Do you always have to attribute once something got imported, even if
> there
> > a no (visual) traces of this import any more? E.g. you could say that all
> > following contributions built on what was there at a time.
>
> Sorry, but that's a very hard discussion and English isn't my native
> language.



I was only insisting because you had written "A script can handle this and
output the source of the data imported into this area. Nobody would
need to analyse the data on its own."

it isn't easy to do this properly, you would have to analyse the data and
make judgements. A script could do it, but it would have to be a very
complex analysis and you would have to put a lot of judgement into the
rules of this script. Two different scripts would likely make different
judgements.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Australian Government Data from data.gov.au

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-06-29 23:58 GMT+02:00 Tobias Wendorff <tobias.wendo...@tu-dortmund.de>:

> Am Mi, 29.06.2016, 23:46 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> > Is there still need to attribute the original creator?
>
> In my opinion that's what CC-BY is all about. You're allowed to change
> it, but you still need to tell the name of the licensee.



Examples:
E1
v1 import 1 node, amenity=place_of_worship, name=Foo
v2 move the node slightly

in this case, I think is clear that you would have to attribute


E2
v1 import 1 node, amenity=place_of_worship, name=Foo
v2 move the node significantly (e.g. 30 km)

in this case I think you rather wouldn't continue to attribute the original
dataset


E3
v1 import 1 node, amenity=place_of_worship, name=Foo
v2 copy tags, delete the node, draw a way, paste the tags

do you have to attribute?
What if the name was corrected to "Foobaz" in step 2?
Is the situation different if you don't delete the node but make it part of
the new way?


E4
v1 import 1 node, amenity=place_of_worship, name=Foo
v2 remove tags and add amenity=fuel, name=Foo23, move the node 100 m

do you still have to attribute?


Do you always have to attribute once something got imported, even if there
a no (visual) traces of this import any more? E.g. you could say that all
following contributions built on what was there at a time.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Australian Government Data from data.gov.au

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 29 giu 2016, alle ore 23:26, Tobias Wendorff 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Oh come on, that's no valid argument. A script can handle this and
> output the source of the data imported into this area. Nobody would
> need to analyse the data on its own.


it is far from trivial, because people modify data in OSM. You would have to 
decide for every object and all its history. Maybe version 1 of a way was 
imported but then a different user deleted a node from it. Is there still need 
to attribute the original creator? What if after some time none of the original 
nodes is still in the way (or in the original place), would you have to 
attribute to him anyway? etc. etc., this was just an example with geometry, 
tags also can play a role.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Australian Government Data from data.gov.au

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 29 giu 2016, alle ore 22:49, Tobias Wendorff 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> "(C) OpenStreetMap, with subsets of data.gov.au, BKG Germany & xyz"


just that this list becomes very long, see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors

Should everyone who renders a map have to analyze which imported data is used 
in the work? Why not listing the osm usernames that contributed as well?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 13.03.2016 um 13:47 schrieb Tobias Wendorff 
> :
> 
> "If the published result of your project is intended for the extraction
> of the original data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work."


shouldn't this go further and include cases where the published result wasn't 
intended for the extraction of the original (or derived) data, but it was used 
to do it?


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Do overlays have to be released under ODbL?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 13.03.2016 um 13:11 schrieb Tobias Wendorff 
> :
> 
> This would mean: If I show parking facilities for bikes as an GPX or
> GeoJSON overlay as a layer an top of the OpenStreetMap base tiles,
> which might already included existing facilities, I'd need to publish
> my overlay under ODbL?


yes, you won't have to release your data if you remove similar data from OSM 
before rendering though.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 13.03.2016 um 13:01 schrieb Tobias Wendorff 
> :
> 
> I'm seeing a problem in the formulation: it might be not correct to call
> a map a "produced work" anymore.


what other things besides maps can be produced from our db? Not many (yes, you. 
could make "lists", but they're DBs as well). In the end, something like a 
carpet or a tshirt or a bag are just objects to apply a map on. FWIW, our 
guidelines even define electronically stored databases as produced works in 
some circumstances (e.g. garmin maps).

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 13.03.2016 um 11:39 schrieb Tobias Wendorff 
> :
> 
> There needs to be a revision of the ODbL to cleary state, what's a
> printed map. From the legal site, it's not a "produced work" by the
> old meaning anymore.


I believe it has always been clear that the information stored in a map was a 
kind of database by arrangement and selection, e.g. you can't take a OSM based 
printed map that was released under cc0 and derive the contained information as 
cc0 (it remains ODbL), and you couldn't before this ECK decision 

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-01-19 10:38 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole :

> As has been pointed out here before CC-BY 4.0 is essentially a completely
> new license (compared to previous CC-BY versions) and potentially is not
> "fixable", definitely it is not just a question of getting permission to
> attribute on the website. Further it could be argued that in reality such
> permission creates a completely new licence, in any case I think "fixable"
> might be the wrong term, since every licence is "fixable" by replacing it
> with something else or explicit permission.
>


yes, I agree that "fixable" might not be the right term, and that adding
something to a license makes it a new license. I had thought about this
"fixable" and "not fixable" wording but decided to put it as a kind of
generalized placeholder and wait what the discussion would come up with.
You are right that any license is fixable if replaces by a different one,
but if someone has decided to require only attribution it is much more
likely they'd be willing to agree on a specific kind of (indirect)
attribution rather than someone refusing commercial use would agree on
permitting it.
If the cc-by 4.0 is not compatible even by agreeing on a particular kind of
attribution, please go ahead and fix the page. I had naively (and
admittedly without looking at the details) asumed that an attribution only
license would be OK if attribution requirements are fulfilled.



>  The other problem with ODbL and CC-BY licences is that they do not allow
> sub-licensing, not to mention that the ODbL is silent on the form of rights
> (ownership) in derivative databases (in conventional copyright the creator
> of a derivative could/would have separate rights to the specific
> derivative, it is not clear how this is supposed to work in the potential
> absence of copyright protection in the case of database elements that
> themselves have no protection).
>
> And another point: the whole thing needs a gigantic disclaimer at the top
> pointing out that the determinations are only for unmodified versions of
> the licences and that (that they are unmodified) needs to be determined by
> looking at the actual licence text, see the OS version of the OGL and the
> current upset with the Australian GNAF data (licensed on terms of a
> modified CC-BY 4.0) for examples of such issues.
>


its a wiki page, please go ahead and fix it. If there are uncertainties and
doubt, make some annotations.

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

[OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to review
and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview about the
compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility

Feel free to modify and improve this first draft. I have not yet linked it
from any other wiki pages but plan to do so from the imports section of the
wiki after some community review.

Cheers,
Martin

For reference, this is the OSMF-talk thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2016-January/003665.html
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-01-18 16:21 GMT+01:00 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com>:

> Some comments / suggestions:
>
>
thank you for your comments.



> * In the notes column, it might be better to say "rights holder(s)"
> rather than "licensor" since the former is presumably the only
> person/body who is able to give such permission.
>


done



>
> * For the CC-By notes, I think those giving the permission also need
> to be aware that they are (or would need to be) also authorising
> downstream use of their data, without necessarily getting any direct
> attribution from those downstream uses. I'd suggest adding "including
> to cover downstream use in works derived from OSM" to the end of the
> note.
>


I have integrated this now, had first tried to put it in the middle but
then decided to add it to the end as you suggested (but without the "to
cover"), feel free to improve it yourself


* It's not clear from the page whether or not the lack of green in the
> "contributor terms" column precludes the use of ODbL data or not.
> Presumably not, but more consideration should be taken before using
> such data, and with documenting them and attributing it in OSM. If
> this is correct, then something to this effect should be added in an
> explanatory paragraph.
>


yes, I agree this could be made more verbose. I agree with your
interpretation that it doesn't seem to prevent people from importing this
data now, but it clearly puts more obligations on us that will make future
license changes harder to perform. Feel free to add some explanatory lines
yourself


>
> * It would be good to add the UK's Open Government Licence (OGL) and
> Non-Commercial Government Licence (NCGL) to the list. The first should
> be the same as the ODbL (as it explicitly states the ODbLs terms are
> sufficient to fulfil the obligations under the licence) while the
> second is incompatible due to the NC terms.
>


can you (or someone else) add these? I am not familiar with them and could
only replicate what you have written above.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

thank you Michal, I see it now. I have finally discovered that I cannot
contribute much to this list and apologize for having caused disruption
from time to time, I'm unsubscribing, see you on the other lists ;-)

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-13 21:08 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm :

> rankly, if there was a halfway usable repository of open
> addresses that could be merged with OSM for those who want it, and if
> open addresses become available for regions where OSM already has
> addresses, I'd not be opposed to dropping the addresses from OSM in
> those regions.
>


Really? I've always thought our user's ground truth would be trumping data
we'd import, i.e. we'd request from importers not to drop features that are
already there, but to conflate in the opposite way, drop from the external
data set the stuff that we already have, before importing the rest. Did I
read you right? Can you explain why you changed your mind?

FWIW, if this usable open address dataset became available in Italy I'd
still insist on keeping the already present data and merge just the rest of
the public open data.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 24.09.2015 um 11:23 schrieb Frederik Ramm :
> 
> 
> I would hesitate to apply this rule for making a selection that can not
> be repeated ("select reverse geocoding results for this non-public list
> of coordinates and store them in my non-public derived database").


I had understood that a database containing the list of coordinates would have 
to be made public (on request), just not what they were standing for/how they 
were gathered.



> 
> Whether something is useful to us or not is not a factor in determining
> where ODbL share-alike applies. This is not great - I'd love a license
> that forces people to share stuff we're interested in and ignores
> everything else. But it is hard to put that in lawyerese ;)


it would also open a can of worms to get to a definition of what is stuff we 
are interested in.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal
point of view, how it should be interpreted?
I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise of introducing
more and more examples and guidelines how to interpret the legal text,
because every additional word is augmenting the risk of introducing
loopholes and weakening our position in a potential prosecution of
infringers. Also, according to the mandate the OSMF is given from the
original IP holders by means of the CTs, any modification of the current
license has to be approved by a majority of active contributors.

Is the OSMF consulting with their legal advisors before publishing these
amendments/interpretations?

Finally, the OSMF in the past didn't seem to care about prosecution of
actual infringers. Is there any example where some action was taken? Is
someone from the OSMF checking this list from time for instance:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution ?

FWIW, apple maps continues big scale infringement, e.g. their map app in
the most recent OS (OX-X 10.10.5) has the attribution very hidden, it is
neither on the screen nor when you print a map (but you can get to it by
clicking in the menu on "Maps"->"About Maps" and then on "Data from TomTom
and others ->"  (on my system nothing happens after the click, but that's
likely just a bug)). Also Apple's "Friends" app on iOS has no attribution
whatsoever.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-09-21 12:43 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole :

> I have to say that I'm not completely happy with the document as is,
> however nobody has come up with anything better. It will definitely need
> some more examples in a final version.
>


I don't believe that the restaurant star rating is a good example, as we
don't rate restaurants ourselves, and copying the rating from other
professional restaurant testers might even be an infraction of their
intellectual property.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Travel Channel + OSM

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-02-25 9:51 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch:

 If they want we won't sue you reassurance the proper place to ask is
 legal-questi...@osmfoundation.org



out of curiosity, how many people have been sued in the past 11 years of
OpenStreetMap?
;-)

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Use of OSM Data in Apple Maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

As many of you may already be aware of, Apple is supposedly using ODbL data
from OSM after their recent update, in their iOS App Maps, together with
other data (some of which proprietary, some public domain) and appearently
also together with older data from OSM (pre-license change).

They still deny to name any license or to credit the copyright for the data
from 2011/2012 (there are 2 credit items for osm), but they do recognize
the copyright for the current data like this: © 2014 OpenStreetMap
contributors, www.openstreetmap.org/copyright.

They also still do not credit OSM at the same level of prominence than they
do with TomTom (Data by TomTom and others).

I wonder if this use is compatible with the ODbL, and how we can check
this, given that they do not declare where they are using the data, if it
is used in parallel or together with the other data sources,
and obviously they do not release any details or software from their stack.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Use of OSM Data in Apple Maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-24 19:26 GMT+01:00 Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de:

 Am 24.11.2014 17:21, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:

 As many of you may already be aware of, Apple is supposedly using ODbL
 data from OSM after their recent update, in their iOS App Maps, together
 with other data (some of which proprietary, some public domain) and
 appearently also together with older data from OSM (pre-license change).

 Just as a hint:
 * there have been already some discussion wenn Apple started to use OSM
 data for the first time...



yes, for reference, this was discussed in the license working group, then
on the board and then back in the license working group. OSMF has indeed
been talking to Apple about this, and the outcome as far as I remember was
that OSMF was not concerned, because Apple were using cc-by-sa data of
individual contributors by the time, i.e. a license intended for works but
applied to data (by that time the license change was almost done, and it
was clear, that the cc-license was unclear for data), and OSMF wasn't the
rights holder (pre-CT, all rights were by the contributors). Also Apple had
modified the attribution string by stating the vague date of the data
(2011/2012), so parts of our concerns regarding the attribution were solved.

The situation is now pretty different, in that they are using ODbL data,
and they are recognizing the copyright for this data (see screenshot).

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-02 23:11 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:

 We have no significant third party ODbL data releases due to OSM share
 alike to show for



Actually the Italian Government has designed their open data license (IODL)
to be compatible with OdbL:
http://www.dati.gov.it/content/italian-open-data-license-domande-e-risposte

(I've heard they did this explicitly because of OSM). If it makes sense for
a PA to use a share-alike license instead of PD is a different kettle of
fish...

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-03 0:17 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:

 2014-10-29 20:56 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:

 Updated:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License%2FGeocoding_-_Guidelinediff=1102233oldid=1076215


 wouldn't it make more sense to come to a conclusion here before updating
 the wiki?


 Hey Martin - the change you link to was to replace the term 'geocode' with
 the more common 'geocoding result' - do you have a specific concern with it?



my bad, sorry for the confusion, my comment was referring to the following
edit, which was 4 minutes later:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guidelinediff=nextoldid=1102233

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-03 15:05 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:

 On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 where in one of the first paragraphs there is this unproven claim:

 

 Geocoding Results are a Produced Work by the definition of the ODbL
 (section 1.):

 “Produced Work” – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text,
 or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the
 Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative
 Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database.


 A geocoding result is created via a search or a query. It's a Produced
 Work. A work can specifically be a database, see
 http://www.out-law.com/page-5698, Databases are treated as a class of
 literary works and may therefore receive copyright protection for the
 selection and/or arrangement of the contents under the terms of the
 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. (UK law)

 This is clearly a possible reading of the ODbL and it would enable
 geocoding.



Do you really think that a list of addresses can be seen as similar to a
literary work? Will there be any protectworthy selection and/or
arrangement of the contents? This probably has to be found out based on
the individual case and decided by a judge - there will be databases that
qualify as works, but maybe this doesn't exclude them from being a database
the same time in the context of ODbL?

Let's presume we all followed this reading, then when would something
actually fall under the definition of derivative database? Why would we
still be writing to legal talk instead of using the whole OSM db as a
produced work - produced e.g. by performing some operations like wget
planet.osm -O osm-produced.work

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-29 20:56 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:

 Updated:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License%2FGeocoding_-_Guidelinediff=1102233oldid=1076215





wouldn't it make more sense to come to a conclusion here before updating
the wiki?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-29 12:32 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk:

 What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin


doesn't seem to be a nobody in this field though:
Kevin is the Executive Director of the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy
and a lawyer focusing on the unique legal and policy issues associated with
spatial data and spatial technology. These issues include intellectual
property rights, licensing, liability, privacy and national security. He
writes and speaks extensively on spatial law and technology. He is a member
of the Board of Directors of the Open Geospatial Consortium and is active
in other geospatial associations...

so regardless that by asking 2 lawyers about geodata and licenses you'd
typically get 3 different interpretations (so I am told), this bloke at
first glance looks like an expert for this topic...

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-10-29 13:47 GMT+01:00 Sachin Dole sd...@genvega.com:

 ...  if there  was lot more clarity. I imagine, ..., that contributors and
 other stakeholders might also benefit from commercial users if the license
 is clear that only data gathered from OSM be shared alike leaving
 derivative or collective out of share alike if possible.



actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature that
was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share alike
licenses is to infect other stuff that gets in contact with the
share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Il giorno 30/lug/2014, alle ore 16:44, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com ha scritto:

 your lawyers did really say according to their understanding a pair of 
 coordinates is similar to an image or a video, hence a work? 
 
 Yeah, there's no definition of 'work' in the ODbL, just a non-exclusive list 
 of examples in the definition of Produced Work.


yes, but there is also a definition of derivative database, into which 
geocoding results seem to fit perfectly.

cheers,
Martin___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Am 28/lug/2014 um 09:07 schrieb Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:
 
 Our lawyers' advice is captured in the guideline as shared and posted in this 
 revision:


your lawyers did really say according to their understanding a pair of 
coordinates is similar to an image or a video, hence a work? 

The whole interpretation in this example turns around this sentence but it 
isn't quite self explaining: 
The guideline

Geocodes are a Produced Work by the definition of the ODbL (section 1.)


cheers,
Martin___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am 24/lug/2014 um 23:03 schrieb Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:

 In this example, the database powering the geocoder is a derived database. 
 The geocoding results are produced works, which are then collected into what 
 forms a derivative database as part of a collective database.
 
 Not following how I can make a Derivative Database from a Produced Work. Once 
 it's a Produced Work it's a Produced Work, right?


I also see it like this, it would be a database of works (like a database of 
renderings) and not under ODbL, therefore I think the premise that a geocoding 
result is a produced work might already be flawed, because it seems natural 
that a database of results is a derivative database.

cheers,
Martin___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-15 18:01 GMT+02:00 Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk:

 btw, cp planet.osm.bz2 planet.png creates a produced work...



LOL

I'd doubt this, because an image is likely not to be read like in disk
image, and not every file with an png extension will be considered an
image...
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-14 20:26 GMT+02:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:

 Just like how CC-BY-SA created a grey area around the SA implications for
 the rendered map which wasn't good for OSM, ODbL does the same with
 permanent geocoding. To make OSM viable for geocoding we can't have its
 ODbL infecting the datasets it's used on.

 There are tons of geodatasets out there waiting to be geocoded and we
 should have clarity around the legal implications of doing that. More use
 of OSM for geocoding means more incentives to keep and maintain geocoding
 data (addresses, POIs, admin polygons) in OSM.



I think for what you want you should push for a license change, and not for
guidelines...
I also fail to understand how a database of coordinates could qualify as
produced work.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Am 11/lug/2014 um 16:41 schrieb Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk:
 
 so wording As Geocodes are a Produced Work, they do not trigger the
 share-alike clauses of the ODbL.  is totally against section 4.6.


+1
the data contained in produced works remains ruled by ODbL / share alike, this 
is stated in 4.3:

4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does 
not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced 
Work, 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 the 
Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective 
Database, and that it is available under this License. 


I agree it's hard to believe that geocoding would be considered creating a 
produced work and not a derivative database (maybe we have a different idea 
what one is doing when geocoding). 

the definition for produced work is
“Produced Work” – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or 
sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents 
(via a search or other query) from this Database - See more at: 
http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/#sthash.l1YXFGoW.dpuf


some use of geocoding might lead to producing a work like an image, 
audiovisual material, text, or sounds but the data  behind it remains ODbL and 
if you reuse those locations obtained by geocoding you'd have to do it under 
ODbL IMHO.

Generally what I think about when reading geocoding: you'd take a list of 
addresses and use the database to localize (translate) them in geo coordinates. 
This seems to fit perfectly to the derivative db description:

“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. - See more at: 
http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/#sthash.l1YXFGoW.dpuf


cheers,
Martin
___
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)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Am 21/giu/2014 um 23:03 schrieb Paul Norman penor...@mac.com:
 
 As a reminder, CC BY 3.0 and earlier are incompatible for reasons related to 
 the attribution requirements.


can you expand on this? I remember there are already heaps of data with these 
licenses (cc-by 3.0 and older) in OSM.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-05-05 14:05 GMT+02:00 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:

  *And share-alike only applies to what we collect.*

 Let me first say that this is a brilliantly clear way to put it. I like
 this a lot.



I believe this is somehow more limiting than what we actually might want.
E.g. we don't collect traffic data, but if there was a company which used
our data as basemap and associated average speeds for time spans to our
graph (e.g. automatically from the analysis of their users / smartphones) I
think we would be interested to get this data to improve our routing.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The edges of share-alike on data Re: Attribution

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-05-05 17:42 GMT+02:00 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org:

 Usage may be different, but the data is the same: ways with an
 hypothetical 'speed' attribute added to them in the persistent database of
 your choice. Whether you use that joined data to perform Dijkstra stunts or
 just render it graphically does not change its nature. In either case, no
 Openstreetmap data is altered in any way - only extended thus meeting the
 definition of a Collective Database.




The requisite for a collective Database is that the parts are independent,
which they aren't I think when you add information to our graph. Maybe one
has to look into the details of an actual case in order to see whether the
dbs are independant or not. IMHO an extension of OSM data is already an
alteration.

If your point of view was correct, users would hardly ever have to comply
to share alike provisions.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative Commons license question

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Am 04/mag/2014 um 08:44 schrieb Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz:
 
 An organisation is making a short film/video which will be released CC-BY.  
 They want to show (fleetingly) OSM map tiles ... which are CC-BY-SA- 2.0.  
 Can they do that?


Is this different to publishing a book (full copyright) with osm cartography  
(cc-by-sa) in it? I would expect that they can do it, the maps would remain 
cc-by-sa but the film could be cc-by or any other license (agree with Eugene, 
fair use unless the film is mainly maps). 

Btw, this was already happening in the past, a German TV series had some osm 
maps in it pretending it was the police cartography system and AFAIR crediting 
osm in the titles.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attributing OpenStreetMap at Mapbox

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-04-30 20:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com:

 I feel that the attribution that you currently use provides
 insufficient recognition for OpenStreetMap.



there was also a discussion one year ago on a similar topic (attribution by
an icon instead by a text) to which I'd like to point:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-April/066802.html

AFAIR that time this idea was not approved.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upload of copyrighted map images from OSM to Facebook

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

A user on the Italian Mailing List posted this link concerning Facebook's
integration of Wikipedia content into the so-called facebook community
pages:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721

In this case they achieved to retain the cc-by-sa attribution and all
backlinks to Wikipedia. Maybe we can convince them to do the same for OSM
cartography?

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Upload of copyrighted map images from OSM to Facebook

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Following the German Blog there was a post today referencing this forum
thread: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=411611#p411611
where the contributors come to the conclusion that uploading OSM map images
to Facebook is against the osm maps license (cc-by-sa).

It looks as if they are right (because Facebook has in their terms (
https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms ):

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos
and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission,
subject to your privacy https://www.facebook.com/privacy/ and application
settings https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=applications: you grant
us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide
license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with
Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content
or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they
have not deleted it.).

I am not sure if this is the only relevant paragraph because like almost
any other multinational player their legal department has set up a real
jungle of different guidelines and terms.

Interestingly even the OSMF is infracting the license ;-)
https://www.facebook.com/OpenStreetMapFoundation/photos/a.447164861995676.103897.447161935329302/447164878662341/?type=1

What is your point of view on this?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upload of copyrighted map images from OSM to Facebook

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-04-15 18:59 GMT+02:00 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com:

 What do you suggest, Martin?



contact Facebook and if they are not willing to make an exception to their
terms we'll have to delete our accounts there (seems to be the only way to
remove images according to their terms). In case of the latter I'd make a
public announcement on the blog explaining the reasons why OSM cannot be on
Facebook and hope for some publicity ;-)

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upload of copyrighted map images from OSM to Facebook

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-04-15 19:22 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:

 2014-04-15 18:59 GMT+02:00 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com:

 What do you suggest, Martin?



 contact Facebook and if they are not willing to make an exception to their
 terms we'll have to delete our accounts there (seems to be the only way to
 remove images according to their terms). In case of the latter I'd make a
 public announcement on the blog explaining the reasons why OSM cannot be on
 Facebook and hope for some publicity ;-)



Like often there are also other options:
1) ignore the issue because the publicity we get from Facebook is more
important than insisting on licenses (point not proven yet).
2) decide that this is covered by fair use (but then everyone else who uses
a single map image from osm might also say this is fair use, similar to
what OSM does on Facebook, and this would effectively make the license a
farce).
3) ask the rights holders of the map style if they are willing to dual
license (cc-by-sa and facebook) or change the license to something that
doesn't require attribution or share alike (e.g. cc0).

an maybe more. From these options I'd only see 3) as meaningful.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Upload of copyrighted map images from OSM to Facebook

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-04-15 19:59 GMT+02:00 Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us:

 OSMF only has two photos posted. We can easily remove the map and the
 logo.



I think we can keep the logo as it is protected as a registered brand, but
even if you remove the map image from our page they will continue to have
the rights on it they reserve in their terms (maybe we could file a
copyright complaint and then they will have to remove it).

cheers,
Martin
___
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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-04-08 10:39 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch:

 @Martin It is undoubtedly so that the information in question is -not-
 simply available for use. You need to invest the time and effort to
 actually go out and collect it. Google has done so and that we should
 respect, regardless of legalities*.



I am aware of this, but you have put ethics into play. If someone
developped a system to analyze and store the DNA information of another
person (or of an animal, plant), should they be able to become the
proprietor of this information and forbid others to use it or ask license
fees? Collecting information about the world, nature, the universe ,etc.
(regardless how great the effort is) does not automatically make you the
exclusive owner of this information. Now in some jurisdictions it is
actually possible to put patents and the like on stuff that is basically
derived from nature, but it doesn't seem very ethical, at least not to me.

To make it clear, I am not advocating to use Google StreetView to derive
information for OSM, I agree that we cannot allow to do so, because we want
to have a dataset that is globally usable in every jurisdiction for any
use, I was simply replying to the ethical argument that you have raised.

cheers,
Martin
___
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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Am 07/apr/2014 um 19:57 schrieb Simon Poole si...@poole.ch:
 
 forgetting the ethical side of it (do we really want to use data collected by 
 somebody that doesn't want us to do so?),


from an ethical point of view you could also see it like this: as the 
information (geographic facts) in the data does not belong to them (but to 
everybody), why should they be able to put restrictions on the use? (undue 
appropriation)


 we would need such a judgement in -every- jurisdiction where we would want 
 people to freely use our data. That is so obviously balmy that i don't think 
 it needs further discussion.

+1
(sweat of the brow)

cheers,
Martin
___
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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

 Am 07/apr/2014 um 02:24 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com:
 
 You can always file for a declaratory judgment: 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment


interesting, wouldn't it be a good idea to try this for deriving facts from 
google sat or street view? On the other hand this would maybe not work out for 
OSMF with their seat in London? In European jurisdiction with its database 
doctrine those will probably be protected also when deriving uncopyrightable 
facts

cheers,
Martin___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright of old media / images / maps

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-04-05 6:01 GMT+02:00 Andreas Labres l...@lab.at:

 Below the line the question is: was the act of reproducing that thing an
 act of
 creation (Akt der Schöpfung im Sinne des Urheberrechts; also mit der
 nötigen
 Schöpfungshöhe). This is usually granted for a photography. The copyright
 status
 (*Urheberrechts*status) of the reproduction is separate from the copyright
 status of the original (in the case of an act of creation).



in Germany you would have to have made creative decisions in order to have
protection, a simple reproduction which aims to reproduce with most
fidelity the original does not qualify for Urheberrecht (~ copyright).
Look here for reference (German):
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildrechte#Urheberrechtlich_nicht_gesch.C3.BCtzte_Bilder

Of course it is still true, if the creator sues you, you will have to
defend your point of view in court and see how they decide.

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