Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?
Johan C wrote: > It's quite simple: as long as MAPS.ME operates in either the white or > the grey area of the license it's perfectly fine what they are doing. Um, no, that's precisely what "grey area" _doesn't_ mean. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-MAPS-ME-combining-OSM-data-and-non-OSM-data-tp5877650p5878934.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?
Ilya Zverev wrote: > Let's consider another use case. An application that shows OSM map, > and on top of it shows 1 mln of user points. A users has an option to > hide the OSM map underneath proprietary points, with a radius of 1 > km. Does in that moment when a user clickes the options, the > combined map become derivative? The question then would be how ODbL treats a machine-generated result like that, where both independent datasets are transmitted to the device but the selection/arrangement of the "combined" result is done algorithmically on-device. That probably depends on your reading of the terms "Convey", "Use" and "Publicly" in ODbL; I confess to not being 100% sure how they would apply in such a case, and would be interested to hear others' opinions. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-MAPS-ME-combining-OSM-data-and-non-OSM-data-tp5877650p5878889.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses
dieterdreist wrote: > 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: This is really good. Thanks, Martin. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-new-wiki-page-ODbL-compatibility-of-common-licenses-tp5865065p5865100.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
Alex Barth wrote: > Fixing the license surely can't be the extent of our plan, but we need > to be able to have a frank conversation about how licensing is hurting > use cases and engagement on OSM, without second guessing > people's intentions and without just showing them the door to > TomTom and HERE. I've said this once or twice or eight gazillion times already, but I guess once more doesn't hurt. :) ODbL 1.0 - not exclusively an OSM licence, but one strongly informed by OSM as the biggest producer of collaborative openly-licensed data - was largely a product of the experiences we'd had up to then. I, and others, had been burned by CC-BY-SA's requirement to "virally" license non-data products when using an open data source. This was (eventually) agreed as a pain point by those of us who shouted loudest, and so ODbL came to apply the CC-like "collective work" theory to such uses. That's what became a Produced Work. At the time, no-one was doing serious geocoding off OSM data - it wasn't good enough. So there was no-one prepared to argue for a comparable rationale for geocoded data. That's not to say that geocoding _shouldn't_ be considered as a use case for an open database licence. Nor is it to say that there was any great intent in the relicensing process to rule out geocoding uses. We just, genuinely, hadn't thought of it... and no-one had pointed it out to us. It would be good to fix it _with_a_rationale_. It can't just be "we need this to work". There has to be a cogent argument why a reciprocal open data licence, outwith of OSM, can permit it. I'm 100% sure that case can be made, but it can't be done by fiat. It has to be expressed as "this legalese will further the aims of a reciprocally licensed data project" as exemplified by OSM, because it is still the case that OSM's rights-holders - the contributors - won't agree to anything else. ODbL needs a 1.1. Creative Commons, working in the much better understood field of copyrightable artistic works, is already on 4.0 - which is a realistic recognition that the previous three versions haven't been perfect. There's no admission of failure on the part of OSM, ODbL, OSM's users, or anyone to admit that "this can be improved". Of course it can. Let's focus on the achievable goal of working with Open Data Commons to do just that. your friendly local WTFPL fundamentalist Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Proposed-Metadata-Guideline-tp5855168p5856834.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY -> ODbL negotiators?
Steve Bennett wrote [quoting DELWP]: > My initial response is that we wouldn't want OSM to apply a more > restrictive license than ours In which case they've chosen the wrong licence. If you license your work under a permissive, attribution-only licence (CC-BY), then you are automatically giving permission for it to be relicensed under a share-alike, attribution-only licence (CC-BY-SA). You can't license under CC-BY and say "no-one may incorporate this data into a dataset with share-alike restrictions". That would defeat the point of a permissive licence, which is roughly (attribution aside) "do what you will with this data". They can go ask Creative Commons if they don't believe this. So the question should be: given that they have already allowed the work to be relicensed under a share-alike, attribution-required licence (CC-BY-SA) which happens to have automatic compatibility with CC-BY, will they allow the work to be relicensed under another share-alike, attribution-required licence (ODbL) which unfortunately doesn't have automatic compatibility? There's no principled reason I can see for granting one but not the other. > DELWP doesn't want to get into creating one-off variations for > every potential user with a preference - Google, HERE, etc. Where "etc." means "TomTom". There are only four worldwide geodata providers. It's hardly a slippery slope of individual permissions. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Any-expert-CC-BY-ODbL-negotiators-tp5853511p5853553.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using OSM data without modifying - are there any guidelines?
John Bergmayer wrote: The problem being, of course, assuming there is no property right, there's only a contract, not a license. Contracts are not enforceable against third parties. A person who makes OSM data available without conditioning it on acceptance of the same contract, may indeed be in violation of *his* contract. But the people who take that data aren't bound by anything. It's possible they may be. OSMF is based in England Wales, and the Contributor Terms say This Agreement shall be governed by English law without regard to principles of conflict of law. Under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a person who is not a party to a contract (a 'third party') may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if... the term purports to confer a benefit on him. But this is way above my pay grade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts_(Rights_of_Third_Parties)_Act_1999 Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Using-OSM-data-without-modifying-are-there-any-guidelines-tp5848948p5849151.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using OSM data without modifying - are there any guidelines?
Simon Poole wrote: As the name of this list says it is legal talk (aka yapping without consequence) ... not get-help-from-the-OSMF. With my list admin hat on, I think that's a little harsh. Often, as you say, queries can be resolved by pointing to the relevant published guidelines and there's no reason why the community can't do this on this list - or on help.osm.org, or wherever - rather than burdening LWG with the task of fielding so many routine enquiries. legal-talk@ is not a bad first port of call. It is indeed only a -talk list but we don't necessarily need to bite people who come to talk. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Using-OSM-data-without-modifying-are-there-any-guidelines-tp5848948p5849030.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Regarding community guidelines for map layers
Matt Morrow wrote: That is in contradiction to the Open Data License/Use Cases page. Please don't use that page. As per the preamble: This wiki page was used for discussion and development of the move to the Open Database License. It is not legal advice, and is likely to be inaccurate or incomplete. Please do not use this page as a reference for what you can or can't do. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Regarding-community-guidelines-for-map-layers-tp5823067p5823518.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Admin note: nominally I'm administrator of the legal-talk@ list. In practice the only international OSM list to ever have been announced as moderated is talk@, and I think locally talk-us@ may be moderated as well. Merely administered is a much more light-touch approach and generally works well enough. However, Mikel's posting raises an important meta issue which as administrator I'd like to clarify: Mikel Maron wrote: * How is the composition of the Legal Working Group formed? * Is anyone on the LWG able to sit in judgement? * Does the LWG itself consult with legal counsel when trying cases? Are there any lawyers on the LWG? * How is the spirit of the license determined? Is this the consensus opinion of the LWG? Voted opinion of the Board? Polled opinion of OSMF members? * How are the broad range of opinions regarding intention of the ODbL balanced within the spirit of the license? * The OSMF itself has repeated asked lawyers to help us reach a desired outcome over the years, the result of which was the ODbL. Why did the OSMF have a desired outcome previously, but no longer has one regarding Geocoding? * Do the OSMF officers in this discussion have a desired outcome regarding Geocoding, and does that prejudice their judgement when trying this use case? * How can we manage conflict of interest in the process of deciding on ODbL use cases? There are 12 questions here, and they appear to be principally addressed to the volunteers who give their time to LWG in particular and the wider OSMF. Mailing lists are open forums. By definition, list messages (unlike private mail) are addressed to all the members of the list, not to a small subset of that. Demanding answers from a small number of people to 12 rather involved questions is not the purpose of a public mailing list. As list admin, I am not very comfortable with the notion of using this public list as a direct communication channel to OSMF rather than a general forum for discussion of legal/licensing issues. If such a list exists then it's osmf-talk; I will leave the discussion of that to whoever might be osmf-talk admin. It is not, however, the purpose of legal-talk, and as admin I certainly didn't volunteer to run a talk to OSMF communication channel (not least because I'm not even an OSMF member these days ;) ). With my list admin hat off, but taking the opportunity to make a wider etiquette point, I would gently remind people that OSM and OSMF are created and run by volunteers; volunteers' time and motivation are finite resources; and it is kinder to be proportionate in your demands on these volunteers. Do question, probe, discuss, but 12 questions at once is a bit Sybil Fawlty: Anything else, dear? I mean, would you like the hotel moved a bit to the left? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Updated-geocoding-community-guideline-proposal-tp5813533p5813560.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
[I'm going to break my rule of not posting to the mailing lists for this, because it's an interesting query and important for OSM. Since I started writing this, Robert has made an excellent posting which covers much of the same ground and comes to related conclusions, but from a slightly different angle] Alex Barth wrote: I just updated the Wiki with a proposed community guideline on geocoding. In a nutshell: geocoding with OSM data yields Produced Work, share alike does not apply to Produced Work, other ODbL stipulations such as attribution do apply. The goal is to remove all uncertainties around geocoding This is an interesting approach and one that I think has potential, but perhaps in a different form from that proposed. I find it difficult to square geocoding results always being a Produced Work with the text of the ODbL. In the medium term, we want complete address data in major urban areas (those of highest commercial demand). This suggests address data on every building object in the city. Geocoding street addresses against such a dataset (the 90% case) is essentially a clever lookup function: it is extracting raw OSM data (lat/lon pairs) from the database via a query, and then not doing any significant transformative work on the lat/lon pairs. That is ODbL's definition of a Derivative Database, reinforced by the option in 4.6.b of an algorithm... that make[s] up all the differences between the Database and the Derivative Database. As Randy has alluded, geocoders are powerful tools which put much effort into providing reliable results. To argue that this effort results in a Produced Work, you would have to: - agree that a collection of lat/lon pairs (the result of geocoding) is analogous with the creative-world examples of image, audiovisual material, text, or sounds, and - agree that this holds true for a significant majority of geocoding results, particularly with reference to that data which is likely to be extracted (i.e. San Francisco more likely to be extracted than deepest Idaho) To me, those statements seem like a leap beyond what OSMF and the OSM community would be comfortable to take right now. However, despite this, I think the Produced Work angle is potentially a promising avenue towards removing all uncertainties around geocoding. Instead of a blanket and potentially problematic statement that geocoding with OSM data yields Produced Work, we should focus on the next level down. In other words, accept that data extracted from OSM by means of address queries remains ODbL-licensed OSM data: but then look at what is done with this data (how it is used), and whether this might be a Produced Work or a Collective Database. In particular, I would throw into the mix what Matt generously called the Fairhurst Doctrine (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-October/002881.html, https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-October/002911.html). This argues that if you match ODbL data against third-party data by means of a simple query, the table mapping ids from one to the other is not qualitatively substantial: therefore the two datasets become a Collective Database, in which the third-party data can be licensed any which way. So let's try this with one of Alex's examples: the first one, in which the store locations are being exposed to the public on a store locator map using Bing maps. If you reference the store addresses against OSM address data, following the Fairhurst Doctrine, the result is a Collective Database: the address data in OSM in one database, the store data in another, and a simple mapping between the two (imagine it as a separate table for now). Therefore the store data is not subject to ODbL. There is one major question in this: whether geocoding is just a simple query, or whether it's something big and difficult and complicated. The latter is just another way of saying qualitatively substantial, which would mean that the table mapping ids between the databases becomes derivative, and the result can't be a Collective Database. Again, this would be up to OSMF to decide in consultation with the community. I'd personally argue that, more often than not, it's a simple query. I don't mean any disrespect to Sarah and Brian, or Randy's geocoding experts, or any of the other people working on geocoders. A 100% geocoder is undoubtedly a ball of hurt. But taking the urban street example from above, which are likely to be the majority of the queries thrown at a geocoder, it remains at heart a predictable algorithmic translation of OSM data. Edge cases are the hard part, and there are plenty of them, but edge cases are by definition not substantial. By looking at the use, and considering whether it counts as a Collective Database or a Produced Work, we should be able to come up with clear answers for all of the common geocoding use cases. Yes, there'll always be some scenarios where it could go either way: that's inevitable when
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Guideline review: Substantial
Paul Norman wrote: Is there any relevant case law on substantial? A brief reminder that there are two useful wiki pages: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Statute_law http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Case_law which collect links to useful papers and cases. In particular Charlotte Waelde's paper contains a long discussion of what might be considered substantial in a geo context post-BHB: http://edina.ac.uk/projects/grade/gradeDigitalRightsIssues.pdf Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Guideline-review-Substantial-tp5804512p5804651.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Place name translations
Someoneelse wrote: Someone's being adding translations of place names using: These aren't translations, they're transliterations. General consensus is that we shouldn't add transliterations (which are essentially algorithmic) to OSM. Apparently Place names translations are public knowledge and it can be used on OSM. Does this sound plausible? I genuinely have no idea No, public knowledge does not of its own allow things to be copied into OSM from any other source, otherwise we could just copy streetnames etc. wholesale from Google Street View. This is the old database rights/sweat-of-the-brow thing for the n millionth time. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Place-name-translations-tp5765423p5765426.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
WhereAmI wrote: It would appear that any and all data associated with a website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used. What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but that is trivially disprovable. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France
Eric Sibert wrote: They established a route that for instance allows to from city A to city B but not with the short way. Instead, it is going left and right to visit points of interest, alpine hutch and so on. They claim that such a work is an original work. Yes, I can see that. I've planned such routes (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/65903, in particular); it's hard work and requires a lot of judgement. It would qualify for sweat-of-the-brow copyright protection in the UK were it not for the statutes expressly limiting this to original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works; sound recordings, films or broadcasts; and the typographical arrangement of published editions. French law appears to have no such limitation. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Question-about-copyrighted-hiking-routes-in-France-tp5750170p5750333.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining Creative Commons Licensed Data with ODbL and Redistributing
Kate Chapman wrote: So is the new dataset a derived database? It seems like it is to me. What should we be licensing this? CC-BY is pretty much compatible with ODbL: CC-BY only requires attribution and ODbL provides that. There may be tiny differences of legalese but nothing substantive. So you can release the derived database under ODbL as long as you give credit to both OSM and the producers of the hazard database. cheers Richard (obviously not a lawyer etc.) -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Combining-Creative-Commons-Licensed-Data-with-ODbL-and-Redistributing-tp5737936p5737971.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Igor Brejc wrote: 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*. The it in this sentence refers to Content (i.e. the extract from the ODbL-licensed Database) rather than the Produced Work as a whole. Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence. Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this implies a downstream attribution requirement too (reasonably calculated to make any Person... exposed to the Produced Work) - besides, in practice, why wouldn't you want to? - but I think Robert disagrees with me on this. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Licenses-for-Produced-Works-under-ODbL-tp5732278p5732291.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing of works containing geocodes pinpointed on OSM data
Jani Patokallio wrote: Any advice would be appreciated, as I still have a faint flicker of hope that we can get this past the corporate legal team and possibly even contribute back to OSM! On this specific issue: I'd suggest you consider whether your combination of OSM-derived data and other data is a Derivative Database (has to be shared) or a Collective Database (doesn't have to be shared). As a rough guideilne, we say that it's Derivative if you've adapted the two datasets to work with each other, Collective if you haven't. On the broader issue: I'd be interested to see a discussion as to how we should define 'Substantial', and 'Collective' vs 'Derivative', for geocoding (in terms of principles). I think it's reasonably uncontroversial to say that geocoding an unsystematic set of self-collected points is a less substantial use of OSM data than distributing the roads as part of a connected dataset. But I've not got much further in my thinking than that. I may go and hunt for some relevant case law (*shudders at thought of William Hill vs BHB*)... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Licensing-of-works-containing-geocodes-pinpointed-on-OSM-data-tp5730883p5730991.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Mapnik attribution
Shu Higashi wrote: Map data (c) ODbL 1.0 OpenStreetMap contributors and Map tile (c) CC BY-SA 2.0 OpenStreetMap That would be fine, but you could also do: (c) OpenStreetMap contributors: license where license is hyperlinked to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Mapnik-attribution-tp5724875p5724876.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Rebuild] Progress update
[followups set to legal-talk, but you may want to adjust to talk-us if focusing on LA etc.] On 21/06/2012 17:57, Alan Mintz wrote: Richard wrote: ...Given people's constraints on time and the community's (understandable) desire for the redaction to get underway asap... I've seen no such demonstration of desire. The only thing we real mappers are discussing is anxiety over exactly what will happen and when, and the huge amount of data that is tainted and will be lost when this thing is shoved down our throats. Ok. I am struggling not to get cross here at your caricature of we, unlike you, are real mappers, but given that I still have tingling in my hands from cycling down 25 miles of bumpy, muddy track yesterday to get some GPS tracks and waypoints... well, yeah, I am a little cross. But in an effort to be civil (hey, first time for everything), I'll confine myself to this: The huge amount of data is globally not that huge. It is 1.2% of nodes (or so odbl.poole.ch tells me, and the guy behind that is cleverer than me, so I have no reason to doubt it). In the US it's 0.2%. I know, for LA people, that's a bit like the old saw that 0.2% unemployment is no consolation if you happen to be in that 0.2%. But: with my Potlatch hat on, I am very very very happy to build/adjust tools to help you fix LA quickly in exactly the same way that I fixed the Llyn Peninsula and Cornwall/Devon, neither of which have been a problem for months. I'm sure there are others who are equally happy to help. If you want to have that conversation, that's great. _But_ one request: please leave out the aggressive stuff about real mappers. About the one way in which you could make me crosser is by going on to assert that real mappers use JOSM. ;) Anyway, I ought to go and clean my bike. cheers Richard personal opinions only yadda yadda ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What licences (other than ODbL) are compatible with OSM after 1st April
Mayeul Kauffmann wrote: I think data licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 cannot be put under ODbL without written authorisation by the copyright owner. Can you confirm this? Yes, that's correct. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-What-licences-other-than-ODbL-are-compatible-with-OSM-after-1st-April-tp5582850p5582865.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] What happens on April 1?
Ian Sergeant wrote: However, if the transition happened today in Sydney, we would lose every freeway, every trunk road, every primary road, the harbour crossings, the foreshore. All the rivers. Without wishing to play down your loss at all - I wouldn't want to be an Australian OSM user at this point in time :( - I would reiterate that this is an Australia and Poland problem. The rest of the world is largely ok, and much of it is very good: there are many countries over 99% on the odbl.poole.ch lists. I can't see any way that the UMP situation in Poland is going to be resolved, so there's no advantage delaying there; better to reset and restart. So that leaves Australia. There are two questions: how to get Australia remapped to an acceptable level; and what data consumers should do. The public perception flows directly from these. You are not going to get Australia remapped any quicker by holding off on the changeover date. I generally disagree with Andrzej when he says it's better to remap from a blank slate, rather than remap in-place, but in the case of import-heavy and decliner-heavy areas like Australia and Poland, he's probably right. Assuming you're going to be using the Australian government data, which seems to be the general will of the .au community, you will find it much easier to integrate that into a post-changeover database.[1] I would gently suggest you start talking now about how you're going to do that. As for the data consumers, Australia does have one great advantage: you're an island (albeit a big one!). That makes it perfectly possible for data consumers to use pre-1st April Australia data and post-1st April for the rest of the world - probably three lines of Osmosis or so, and a slightly longer attribution statement. (No integration between the datasets, it's just a collective work.) cheers Richard [1] That is, unless someone wants to revert the ABS2006 import _now_, reimport, then replay any subsequent edits onto the reimported data... which is certainly a possibility and which I'm slightly surprised no-one in .au is doing. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-What-happens-on-April-1-tp5543035p5546893.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions from a Journalist
Freimut - I'm happy to talk to your journalist. As you might know, my day job is as a magazine editor (our magazine celebrates its 40th anniversary this year) and therefore, you could say, I'm quite accustomed to this kind of work. Maybe you might be kind enough to forward my details to this journalist? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Questions-from-a-Journalist-tp5545015p5545054.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Michael Collinson wrote: - as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make such a statement? - is it true? - can you see any negative consequences? I'm with Ed and Frederik on this one, I'm afraid - I don't see any way in which we can afford additional permissions on a one-off basis under ODbL+current CTs; nor do I think that we should do so except universally (i.e. to everyone, worldwide, not just to one project in one country). The question raised by Frederik is whether verifying their data against OSM data creates a derived work. As ever, ask in a different jurisdiction, get a different answer, but there is at least one case that suggests that it may (Singapore maybe?). If we were to say we don't think verifying data creates a derived work, would the great mass of OSM mappers be content to see Google (for example) use our effort to determine where new streets are; send the StreetView cars/satellites out; and have the new streets on Google Maps within a couple of days? I'm sure they wouldn't - indeed, I suspect many of those who've signed the CTs would feel cheated if they were told that it would permit this. So... sorry, but no, I don't think it'll work. :( cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Feedback-requested-OSM-Poland-data-tp5540425p5541176.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways
Frederik Ramm wrote:
There's no reason for such vodoo logic. A way split or merge can
be determined from looking at a changeset. A changeset in which
a chain of nodes is removed from one way and added to another,
new way denotes a split.
I don't think that's necessarily true.
If we have:
(state before changeset)
way i=[ABCDEFGHIJK], { highway=unclassified; name=Frog Street }
(state after changeset)
way j=[ABCDEF], { highway=unclassified; name=Frog Street }
way k=[FGHIJK], { highway=unclassified; name=Mog Walk }
we cannot say with certainty that there is a split. All we know are that two
new ways have been created using the nodes that were in a previous, now
deleted way. The name Frog Street might be carried over from way i, but
then again it might have been entered afresh by the changeset creator.
There's no way to tell.
_If_ it was i-i+j, rather than i-j+k, then that tilts the balance in
favour of a split. But even then it's not certain. In the absence of editor
and API support, there's no way to tell for sure.
Fortunately, in most cases, the status of the nodes should be enough. If
ABCDEFGHIJK were created by a decliner, then that'll prevent the way being
preserved anyway. Inevitably some Frog Street tags will make their way
through the process that shouldn't, and some that should be preserved will
be lost. I don't see that as a huge deal; it evens out in the round.
There are simply not so many cases of that
to warrant all the brouhaha that is made.
Absolutely. The lack of editor/API support for the past n years means that
surgical precision just isn't possible. I'm sure we'll look with kindness on
anyone who, on 2nd April, says hey, can you remove that Frog Street tag
please, that was mine. Though really if you're getting worked up about the
copyright of a streetname you should find something enjoyable to drink,
smoke or ride instead.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-The-Copyright-of-Split-Ways-tp5438685p5441130.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways
andrzej zaborowski wrote: (I thought it is i-i+j, at least in JOSM it was up to some point) It is. But it's very difficult to extract that with certainty from a non-trivial changeset. Add enough splits, and you may find i-i+j+k+l. Then add some merges and some deletes, and you possibly have [p+i]+j and [l+p] and an odd isolated section of k. Probably the only case in which you can actually check whether the user was splitting, or creating afresh but using some of the same (agreeing) nodes, is if they were using Potlatch 1's live mode. And I don't think that's been good practice for a while. ;) In any case if a way is an arrangement of node references + some tags, then if inside some changeset an arrangement of nodes and/ or tags is reused, as in your example, then, even if the editor's split operation wasn't used to arrive at it, for practical purposes the effects is the same. Practical purposes, sure, but not IP purposes. If we're saying that there is IP in the sweat-of-the-brow required to create those tags or that arrangement of nodes, then we need to know whose brow was sweaty. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-The-Copyright-of-Split-Ways-tp5438685p5441546.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Google Maps UK - some legal angles
As posted on talk-gb, Google Maps appear to have switched to using their own data rather than Tele Atlas's in the UK this morning. This raises a couple of interesting points. Firstly, it seems pretty clear to me that some of the data is OS-derived (probably from OpenData or a commercial licence - this isn't an accusation of wrongdoing!). The water bodies have the same shape. Rural woods are given names - information that can be derived from OS and pretty much nowhere else, unless you actually go round and talk to some very old residents. But even then I'm sure that 99% of people in our town wouldn't know the names of most of the woods. The copyright notice is now Map data (c) 2011 Google. The OS attribution is two clicks away and fairly well hidden. Why that matters to us: it's a pretty obvious precedent that an NMA is happy with that kind of attribution in a large, aggregated dataset, even for significant use of their data. Or at least I think so. Secondly, though, I am still bemused as to where some of the data comes from. As an example, if you search for 'High Lodge, East End', you get a cottage at the edge of the Blenheim Palace estate. But it's not High Lodge; that's well within the estate. I can't see anywhere obvious in the usual data sources, let alone on the ground, to give the impression this is High Lodge. Any thoughts? (I'm sure there isn't any OSM data in there, but someone may, of course, prove me wrong!) Finally, there are _lots_ of roads that look like normal roads, but are clearly tagged within Google's database as restricted access. You can route over them, but you get a warning - This route has restricted usage or private roads - and each direction is subtitled with Partial restricted usage road or somesuch. Will this be enough when someone drives down one and gets shot by the farmer? And are there any exceptions where a rutted track/precipitous drop isn't marked as such? cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data
Frederik Ramm wrote: I think that anything said until here will not be disputed by Richard Indeed not. :) the bit that *can* be disputed is whether or not it is permissible to label your resulting image a database and then not release the database behind it. Yep. I read the EU Database Directive as expressly saying images are not databases: an audiovisual, cinematographic, literary or musical work as such does not fall within the scope of this Directive. But as ever, IANAL. That, however, would have the consequence that you have to share the image itself, which would not be the case under the Produced Works provision. Yes. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Copyprotection-for-OSM-based-materil-tp7030609p7038146.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Retain PD mapper's contributions?
andrzej zaborowski wrote: Honestly both solutions are kind of ugly because they mess up edits history. If some data is PD then it should be possible to just retain it in the event of a license change, the SQL query is unlikely to change its legal status. Surely you understand that the issue is not the legal status of the data in isolation, it's whether or not the mapper associated with that data has assented to the CTs. The CTs say You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms. For one reason or another, TimSC, for example, does not want to give that assurance to OSMF; I am, however, happy to do so for his data. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Retain-PD-mapper-s-contributions-tp7034374p7036304.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material
!i! wrote: But to be hornest, we aren't legal experts, so it would be great to get a statement of people that are more aware of all of the legal aspects. 1. You cannot apply extra conditions to the licence (CC-BY-SA 4a, as you say). 2. Your website may have its own terms of use that restrict how you extract the data from that site (e.g. no scraping), but these may not limit what you do with the data once you've downloaded it. 3. CC-BY-SA indeed does not require that you publish the useful source data. (ODbL does.) 4. CC-BY-SA does not permit you to distribute DRMed versions: You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement. (ODbL does _but_ only if you also offer a version without such measures.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Copyprotection-for-OSM-based-materil-tp7030609p7030708.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database
80n wrote: It's not like it's going to be hard to recreate all this stuff. It didn't take long to create in the first place and remapping it is going to be a lot of fun isn't it? Yep, exactly. It's actually surprisingly easy, especially with features such as railway lines that are easily visible in Bing. I've been doing a bunch of remapping recently in an area where the original mapper has indicated they're never going to agree to the CTs. A moderate area can be polished off very quickly and there's a satisfying feeling as you see the little red lights go out. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-The-detrimental-effects-of-database-tp7024478p7025537.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
Gert Gremmen wrote: Using this O-trick violates the copyright of the previous owner, just as copying from google would violate their terms of service. As they have been for at least three years now, Gert, your opinions about Potlatch are 100% venting and 0% actual knowledge (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-December/032278.html, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-January/032977.html, etc.) If you actually _used_ the software - which you've never shown any sign of doing and which I don't expect you to do any time soon - you would see that this is simply removing a finger movement from delete selected node, insert node at mouse position. The action is exactly the same, yet I don't hear you clamouring for the insert node function to be removed. It is a simple convenience for the mapper. As you would know if you actually used it, the node placement is entirely at the discretion of the mapper; Potlatch does not automatically place a node at the previous position or indeed anywhere. Just as with any other OSM editing, the mapper will usually be working from a background layer, such as Bing or a GPS track, and their placement will usually be based on this. And again, if you actually used the software, you would also find that Potlatch makes it very easy to add the source tag to a node or way during your edit, again with one single keypress. But why let the facts get in the way of a good rant, hey? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OSM-Database-Re-Build-tp6997302p7001734.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df). Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their contributions are public domain. There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be maintained in the current OSM database even after a switch to ODbL. A very small number of contributors have declined the new contributor terms and asserted that the their contributions are in the public domain. This does not mean that the collective data in the OSM database is public domain. Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline. Therefore the LWG takes the position that their contributions cannot be published under ODbL without acceptance of the contribut[or terms]. (I think the two contributors affected by this are Tim Sheerman-Chase and Florian Lohoff, but there may be others.) I'm a little puzzled by this. Asserting that one's contributions are in the public domain is saying, in the words of the disclaimer used on Wikipedia and on the OSM wiki, I grant anyone the right to use my contributions for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. Therefore I don't see any reason why the data cannot be included in OSM. The contributor has given a grant of all rights - not just copyright, but any database right or indeed other right that might exist. There is no difference between (say) TimSC's PD data and the TIGER PD data, but we're not requiring the US Census Bureau to sign the terms.[1] The minute says Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline, which seems to me to be true legally but not politically. There are people who do not wish to enter into a formal agreement with OSMF, and though I think they're mistaken, they doubtless have their own reasons. What am I missing? What exactly is meant by the collective data in the OSM database? cheers Richard [1] I am diplomatically ignoring the fact that there is no proof that US Federal data is public domain _outside_ the States ;) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: ODbL for applications that transfer data from other road networks
[Forwarding two messages to the list from Angelika Voss - her messages have been rejected but there's no sign of them in the admin interface AFAICT. -- Richard, legal-talk admin] Hello, I would like to get your oppinion regarding the ODbL for the use case described below. I have asked several attendants at SOT-M in Vienna and was encouraged to put my question on this email list. The background is as follows: For marketing purposes, like finding a site for a new facility, companies can buy statistical data that is related to road objects of either Navteq or Teleatlas. The data can be presented on a map with different colours or other styles for the roads. The question is, whether the ODbL allows such companies to use OSM rather than Navteq or Teleatlas, if they transfer the statistical data via a matching table to the OSM road objects. Here is the use case Transfer of data from other road networks: One can license data associated with proprietary road networks. An example would be a table (T0) with Navteq identifiers as keys, numbers of households, dominant type of buildings, buying power, traffic frequencies. Given another table that maps Navteq identifiers to matching OSM identifiers one could translate the licensed data to OSM. On a thematic OSM map one could use different styles (colour, breadth, …) for the roads in order to visualize the transferred data. T0 may look like this: Navteq-ID | Number of households | Buying power | ... There are two ways to generate the map. Either create a data table (T1) with OSM road identifiers and the transferred data. Or create a mapping table (T2) with OSM road identifiers and the matching Navteq identifiers. For the OSM road objects to be displayed in the map, dynamically merge data from (T2) and (T0) for the objects currently on the map. T1 may look like this: OSM-ID | Associated Navteq-ID | Number of households | Buying power | ... T2 may look like this: OSM-ID | Associated Navteq-ID According to the ODbL, the OSM map - or an application with this map - would be a produced work. Either the OSM data table (T1) or the mapping table (T2) would be a derivative database and would have to be provided under ODbL. In either case, the licensed data table (T0) would not fall under the ODbL, either because it is not used for the map or because it is an independent part in a collective database, which it forms together with (T2). Thank you very much in advance for your comments. They are important because at Fraunhofer, we would like to use OSM data in applied research projects. angi voss -- Dr. Angi Voss Fraunhofer IAIS Knowledge Discovery Schloss Birlinghoven D-53754 Sankt Augustin phone:02241 / 142726 Fax: 02241 / 42726 http://www.iais.fraunhofer.de ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: ODbL for publications comparing OSM with a reference dataset
[second forwarded message -- Richard, legal-talk admin] Hello again, for one more use case I would like to get your oppinion regarding the ODbL. Your answers are relevant for our research, and could be relevant for Muki Haklay and others who compare OSM with other reference datasets to analyse the quality, like completeness of objects and thematic attributes, locational precision, correctness of thematic attributes. Use case Publication on the quality of OpenStreetMap relative to a reference set A publication assesses the quality of the OSM road network by matching the OSM objects with those of another road network, the reference set, and then compares the matching objects. The document contains a thematic OSM map, where the style (colour, breadth, …) of the OSM roads visualizes a compared quality. The publication could also contain charts and other maps where the quality is displayed on grid cells. Is it correct that only the thematic map with OSM road objects is a produced work? So only the small table containing the identifiers of the visible OSM road objects and their quality is a derivative database? And is this table insubstantial so that it need not be provided under ODbL? In particular, underlying our publication is a much bigger table that contains a matching between the identifiers of the two road networks, as well as their attributes, which are to be compared, e.g. road category, name, speed limit, oneway, pedestrian? Is it true that this table need not provided together with the publication? Once more, thank you for your comments, angi voss -- Dr. Angi Voss Fraunhofer IAIS Knowledge Discovery Schloss Birlinghoven D-53754 Sankt Augustin phone:02241 / 142726 Fax: 02241 / 42726 http://www.iais.fraunhofer.de ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA
Ed Avis wrote: Interesting slip... of course I meant to say 'contacting'... :) So are there cases where people are thumbing their nose at the licence, but somehow if we used ODbL they would fall into line? Couldn't tell you that without reading their minds! I honestly don't know how many infringers are saying let's use this data, they'll never know, how many don't realise they're doing wrong, and how many just don't understand the licence. It's probably a bit of all three. I slightly suspect that ODbL's contract pillar makes it more enforceable than CC's copyright-only approach (there are more contract lawyers than copyright specialists). But even if that's true, and you'd need much finer minds than mine to pronounce on it, that's not really my point. Rather, it's this: in the absence of enforcement, good guys will comply with the licence voluntarily, and bad guys won't. Because ODbL's share-alike is more appropriate to data, it allows people to create produced works - a freedom not afforded by CC-BY-SA. (It also imposes additional requirements, of course, notably the derivative source requirement.) So let's assume neither licence is going to be fully enforced in every single circumstance. (That's surely a given; there are only so many hours in the day and so many things we can spot.) That means CC-BY-SA is restricting the good guys, not the bad guys. ODbL, in the produced work case, is not restricting the good guys. If you believe that produced works are a worthwhile freedom to offer, and I do, then the current situation favours the bad guys. (Of course, if you follow this argument to its extreme, then you end up with CC0+community norms... and though I was originally sceptical about that approach, the way in which infringing use is spiralling beyond even our ability to track it has made me rethink.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-A-case-for-CT-CC-BY-SA-tp6613895p6618044.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA
Tordanik wrote: I see that the ODbL fits your particular use case nicely. But as you acknowledge, things look different for people with other use cases. I expect that I'm one of those people whose favourite use cases won't benefit from ODbL - quite the opposite, in fact. I can certainly see your issues. But I think that this is what Steve was talking about in the SOTM-EU keynote when he said let's move to ODbL and sort out the details in v2. None of what you've highlighted is insuperable. They either require, IMHO (and I'm certainly not an authority on these things), a small wording change in ODbL 1.1, or a well-formed community guideline on our part. I suspect, for example, that looking closely at machine-readable in ODbL 4.6 would get us a long way. But fixing ODbL to remove implementation bugs will be a lot easier than making CC-BY-SA appropriate for data. I hope that you could still be convinced to accept a dual licensing solution that makes the database available under both ODbL and CC-BY-SA? Oddly enough I've just answered this one in private mail to someone so I'll repost my message here. :) My well-documented personal preference is for public domain (or attribution-only). So if you have two licences with differing share-alike permissions, and you dual-license the data under them, then you're providing it with more freedoms than you would under one alone. That's more permissive than either licence, and therefore closer to public domain - so _personally_ I'm happy. (I've said this on the lists at some point though I can't instantly find where.) But never mind what I think, is it right for the project? It's always hard to put yourself in someone else's mindset. But if you believe that share-alike is good, then surely you want that share-alike to be enforceable (otherwise you'd support CC0+community norms, a la Science Commons). With CC-BY-SA it's entirely possible that in many jurisdictions it isn't enforceable for all data - and, particularly, for OSM's most commercially valuable asset (routable street networks and addressing) in jurisdictions such as the States. So I wouldn't advocate CC-BY-SA or ODbL for the project; I think ODbL is a better way of providing share-alike. But personally, I'd not be upset if we ended up with dual-licensing, because it's slightly closer to public domain. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-A-case-for-CT-CC-BY-SA-tp6613895p6618510.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA
Tordanik wrote: Currently, we offer reasonable terms to good guys. Bad guys might be able to squeeze out a bit more in some jurisdictions if they can live with bad press and severed community ties. That doesn't happen a lot, though - as far as I can tell - and the possibility just doesn't bother me enough to let me prefer a solution like ODbL-only that makes life harder for the good guys, too. I couldn't disagree more. I see plenty of bad guys taking advantage of OSM. I've catalogued elsewhere how OSM is being used without attribution, without share-alike, all the time. I only have to walk down to our village station to see an example of an OSM map being used improperly. They don't even realise there _is_ a community to sever ties with. I'm a good guy, I'd hope; I've given years of my life to OSM, and contributed a lot to the community (hardcore JOSM users may see fit to disagree ;) ). Despite that OSM offers nothing to me, because CC-BY-SA's share-alike clause is defined in relation to creative works, not to data. That means my particular niche (hand-drawn, highly specialised cartography, requiring days of work for a small set of maps) works fine with Ordnance Survey OpenData, but not with OSM. If I were someone writing routing software, whose endeavour is not caught within the arbitrary application of CC-BY-SA share-alike to OSM, I'm sure I'd feel differently. You said CC-BY-SA is also a license that few current mappers should hate so much that they cannot stand to be part of a project that uses it. For the past three years I've stayed here partly in the hope that we'll move to ODbL, and partly out of inertia because OS OpenData wasn't available three years ago. The day that it's decided that we're staying with CC-BY-SA is the day I quit the project. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-A-case-for-CT-CC-BY-SA-tp6613895p6616678.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Who owns the copyright with ODbl?
Guy Collins wrote: Excuse this question if it has been answered in a wiki somewhere, but I would very much like to know who owns copyright of any data contributed under the Open Database Licence? The brief answer is: the mapper does, just as they do under our current licence (CC-BY-SA). However, the new Contributor Terms include a rights grant to the OSM Foundation. In other words, you as the mapper own the rights in law, but you agree to let OSMF do certain things to your data. In particular, you agree to let OSMF distribute your data under ODbL, CC-BY-SA, or in the future, another licence chosen by a 2/3 majority of OSM contributors. I've said rights rather than copyright. Depending on the data in question and the country in which you live, there may be copyright, or there may be European database rights (as per Ivan's posting), or there may be nothing at all. ODbL provides a level playing field by applying equally to copyright, database rights, and contract (i.e. in return for me giving you this data you agree to...). CC-BY-SA only applies to copyright, which works sometimes but by no means all of the time. Hope this helps and that you feel able to sign up to the CTs - it would be great to have the South-West Coast Path and your other work continue in OSM. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Who-owns-the-copyright-with-ODbl-tp6572910p6573991.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Maarten Deen wrote: Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value of the highway tag is not a geographical fact. Sure they are. If I walk about 20 yards from my front door, there's a no entry sign at a certain lat/long. If I walk a bit further along, facing the other way, there's a one way sign at another lat/long. From those two geographical facts[1], I can deduce that a particular road is oneway. Therefore I tagged http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/1058809 with oneway=yes. Same goes for turn restrictions, maximum speeds, and certainly over here, highway tags. The one major exception in the OSM database is administrative boundaries. cheers Richard [1] ok, and also the fact I get shouted at when I cycle up it the wrong way -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-license-change-effect-on-un-tagged-nodes-tp6541123p6561846.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Remapping - tags and practice
Hi all, As the licence change draws on, we will inevitably be looking at remapping objects touched by a decliner. I'm interested in how we (as users) tackle something like this: user A (agrees) surveys and maps user B (agrees) refines geometry and tags user C (agrees) refines geometry and tags user D (declines) makes tag change, e.g. highway=unpaved-highway=track user E (agrees) refines geometry and (other) tags user F (agrees) refines geometry and (other) tags (This is a fairly common situation where I map; talk-gb people may be able to guess the context.) Obviously it's trivial to construct an ODbL-ready version of the above; simply back out user D's tag change. I'm interested, however, in how this should be best done in practice. Should I a) create a new object which is the same as A+B+C+E+F, with a tag such as history=formerly way 8678374, user 891 removed? b) simply change the existing way to remove user D's contributions, and add a tag (to the changeset or the way?) to say user 891 removed c) or something else? If b), then such a tag needs to be machine-parseable by, at least, the eventual remove decliners script, and ideally information services such as WTFE, odbl.de, etc. etc... so we probably need to agree on what it is. Any thoughts? cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in OpenDataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file
David Groom wrote: We also have be mindful of the OSM guideline of substantial [1], which seems to indicate that only very small extracts counts as insubstantial. I think the thing about these guidelines is that they are meant to be Community Guidelines: here's what the OSM community expects of data users. We are the OSM community. We're discussing this for the first time. It is, really, up to us to write the guidelines. Should we have one on access to derivative databases? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Exception-in-Open-Data-License-Community-Guidelines-for-temporary-file-tp6504201p6537003.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open Data License/Community Guidelines for temporary file
Jonathan Harley wrote: Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4). I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database doesn't reduce the amount of information. The canonical case, often cited by those who say OSM needs a share-alike licence, is to prevent commercial map providers taking the data we have and they don't (e.g. footpaths), adding it to the data they have but we don't (e.g. complete road network), and not giving us anything back. IRMFI, not because I believe it myself. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Exception-in-Open-Data-License-Community-Guidelines-for-temporary-file-tp6504201p6532530.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open Data License/Community Guidelines for temporary file
Frederik Ramm wrote: If, on the other hand, out of the black box comes a derived database, then you can simply share *that* database and nobody cares what happened in the black box, because you only have to share the last in a chain of derived databases that leads to a produced work, right? I would be interested to hear the view of someone wise who knows about these things, because I'm not convinced that ODbL mandates publishing the source (or diff) in every single circumstance. If your interim derived database is a fairly trivial transformation, as I suspect many will be, then your changes aren't quantitatively Substantial; therefore ODbL's provisions may not apply; therefore you may not have to publish the derivative. And yes, as Jonathan Harley says, the diff requirement can also be fulfilled by providing an algorithm. (I don't think that ODbL requires all the components of the algorithm need be open source, FWIW.) I am really really really not a lawyer. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Exception-in-Open-Data-License-Community-Guidelines-for-temporary-file-tp6504201p6530822.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
Robert Whittaker wrote: A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free and Open license without the need for further checks. No, that hasn't been the case since Contributor Terms 1.2 were proposed in November 2010 and subsequently adopted. 1.2.x say: If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our _current_ licence terms (my emphasis). In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community would need to check existing data and delete it if so. The minutes of LWG at the time confirm that this is the intention. (I would agree, however, that it is perhaps not as clearly worded as it could be.) Therefore if ODbL is compatible with OGL/OS, which I believe it is, then OS-derived contributions can be relicensed under ODbL+CT. Only if OSM moves to (say) a non-attribution licence do they have to be removed. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Statement-from-nearmap-com-regarding-submission-of-derived-works-from-PhotoMaps-to-Opp-tp6477002p6482241.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
(continuing from previous message, d'oh) In the event of a future relicensing, LWG and the community would need to check existing data and delete it if so. See also CT 1.2.x 1b which explicitly envisages this possibility: if we suspect that any contributed data is incompatible, (in the sense that we could not continue to lawfully distribute it), with whichever licence or licences we are then using (see sections 3 and 4), then we may delete that data cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Statement-from-nearmap-com-regarding-submission-of-derived-works-from-PhotoMaps-to-Opp-tp6477002p6482245.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations.
Gert Gremmen wrote: Some of us try to minimize the number of refused CT (about 400) but I have the strong feeling that those are mainly found in the old core of the first 1000 of OSM mappers, the founders that were interested in real free data. Wut? AFAIK the three contributors with the longest continuous pedigree in OSM (going by mailing list postings) are Steve, Matt and me, in that order. All three support ODbL+CT. Of the 397 people who have declined ODbL+CT, only two are within the first 1000 user ids. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Private-negotiations-tp6457543p6460059.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations
Quintin Driver wrote: Richard, have you or any of the LWG members done any work for MapQuest, Skobbler and / or Cloudmade ? Wow. I'm not an LWG member and I've never done any work for MapQuest, Skobbler and/or CloudMade. Where on earth did that come from and what on earth has it got to do with this thread? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Private-negotiations-tp6451139p6453054.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Private negotiations
I'm led to believe that people have been issuing LWG with private lists of demands that they want met before they will consent to ODbL+CT. Could I ask that said people have the courtesy to post their demands here, too? It would be a shame if the suspicion arose that the process is being swayed by closed demands. LWG does of course publish minutes, as is right and proper, but there is currently no requirement for those writing to it to disclose their own demands. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: [some hard-to-follow stuff] Gert - could you quote in the same way that everyone else does, please? i.e. no top-posting, snip the bits of the message you're replying to, prefix each line of quoting with , line-wrap your quotes properly. It would make it much much easier to work out what you're on about. Thanks. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Rights-granted-to-OSMF-Section-2-of-the-CT-tp6280338p6286723.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Request for clarification (for German translation) of CTs 1.2.4
Francis Davey wrote: droit d'auteur does not (as I understand the term) include database right. Its un droit des producteurs de bases de données rather than un droit d'auteur (forgive my atrocious French - its been nearly 30 years since I studied it). Nearly 20 years here, but FWIW, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_d'auteur claims that la directive 96/9/CE accorde... la protection du droit d’auteur... aux bases de données. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Request-for-clarification-for-German-translation-of-CTs-1-2-4-tp6203351p6203428.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Request for clarification (for German translation) of CTs 1.2.4
Francis Davey wrote: I hope that makes sense and is not too mad. Absolutely. I guess what the Wikipedia article tells us is that informally (if incorrectly) one is often called the other and that, perhaps, is where the confusion in the French translation lies. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Request-for-clarification-for-German-translation-of-CTs-1-2-4-tp6203351p6203478.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Request for clarification (for German translation) of CTs 1.2.4
Richard Fairhurst wrote: [some stuff] Apparently CT 1.2.4 in French have just this moment gone live: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms/FR cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Request-for-clarification-for-German-translation-of-CTs-1-2-4-tp6203351p6204082.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Jonathan Harley wrote: Making it impossible to make works where not all of the elements are free does nothing to protect the freedom of individuals to use OSM. That's as may be, but to restate the point made by Frederik, you can't simply wish away what the licence _actually_ _says_, simply because you disagree with it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CC-BY-SA-Non-separatable-combination-of-OSM-other-tp5982104p5988247.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence
davespod wrote: If we assume that the reading of ODBL in the LWG minutes is correct, then ODBL would not require attribution of OSM's sources in produced works (e.g., maps), rather only attribution of the OSM database. I'm restating what I said in http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-January/005650.html , but basically, it is up to OSM to say how we require OSM to be attributed (to define DATABASE NAME in 4.3a). For a Derivative Database of OSM user-contributed data and a significant amount of OS OpenData, it's entirely reasonable for that attribution to mention Ordnance Survey, as required by their licence. This is no change from what we already do, and require of others, at http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright . cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5906113.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence
Mike Collinson wrote: Thanks, David. Bother. Either it refers only to Royal Mail-tainted Code-Point data as immediately above the text or the OS are pulling a fast one by re-writing the OGL ... making it effectively their old problematic license. Assuming the latter we'll need to lobby. No, we won't. OS's OGLified licence remains compatible with the ODbL, because of the express ODC compatibility clause (which is mentioned in the OS blog posting). So the downstream attribution requirement may only be a problem in the future if OSMF chooses to move to a licence without it (assuming that OSMF considers that CT 4 gives it that right). But that isn't a problem now. Version 1.2.3 of the Contributor Terms state You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our _current_ licence terms (my emphasis). They also only require that you grant rights to OSMF to the extent that you are able to do so, so the fact that you can't grant rights over and above those required by ODbL is not a problem. [...] It incorporates the Open Government License for pubic sector information I sincerely hope it doesn't say that! cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5900022.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence
John Smith wrote: Erm doesn't that invalidate the flexibility or relicense in future people keep going on about? I think Mike already answered that one at http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-January/005716.html . cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5900192.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence
davespod wrote: Richard wrote: Mike Collinson wrote It incorporates the Open Government License for pubic sector information I sincerely hope it doesn't say that! I'm afraid it does. For those who are similarly humourously challenged may I point out that I have checked and no, the OS OpenData licence does not refer to pubic sector information. My wife has expressly stated that no-one on this frigging list is allowed anywhere near my pubic sector, let alone Vanessa Lawrence. So, the question is does the modification of the terms invalidate the part of the OGL guaranteeing ODC-by compatibility? No, it doesn't. Firstly, the only additional requirement is a downstream attribution requirement, which is already present in the ODC attribution licences. Secondly, the OS blog posting expressly mentioned becoming fully interoperable with ODC as a change from the previous licence. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5901307.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: hopefully OS will switch to the new Open Government License soon, which is explicitly compatible with ODbL. They switched today. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5895059.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
John Smith wrote: I still don't understand how data could be accepted on that basis in the first place, either there has to be firm statements that such data would be removed, not may be removed As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly write we will not do anything illegal into the Contributor Terms, whether the illegal act is shooting Google executives or deliberately distributing copyright material without permission. So when the CTs say that [OSMF] may delete that data, that's just a warning to the user. It doesn't need to be a promise of we won't break the law because that's taken as read - especially in the light of the clause that starts off the whole of Section 1, We want to respect the intellectual property rights of others. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5891824.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Ed Avis wrote: I think that actions speak louder than words svn is that way cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5891828.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
John Smith wrote: On 5 January 2011 22:41, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: As I said to Robert last night, I don't think you need to explicitly write we will not do anything illegal into the Contributor Terms [...] What's with the comparisons of contract law and criminal law? Copyright infringement _is_ a criminal offence in England Wales; and the CTs expressly state that the agreement between OSMF and the user shall be governed by English law. From CDPA 1988 (there's lots more): A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright owner... distributes... to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright... an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work. The penalty is up to ten years' imprisonment. Scary stuff. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5892001.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to remove my data since 2006
Gert Gremmen wrote: Free data needs no license or CT. I agree! I'm really glad you - like me and many others - are dedicating your data to the public domain. No licence, no CT. Once OSM continues under new license and CT (as currently presented) I demand to have my owned data withdrawn. Oh, oops, too late. You just dedicated your data to the public domain. That means anyone can do anything with it, e.g. distribute it under ODbL+CT. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-How-to-remove-my-data-since-2006-tp5891290p5892034.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
John Smith wrote: I was under the impression that only the US had personal copyright infringement as a criminal offence... It's an offence in EW whether personal or commercial. For a business, it's an offence to distribute copyrighted material without licence; for an individual, it's an offence to distribute it (as I quoted) to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright. Would that penalty be for personal or commercial infringement? Either. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5892124.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Rob Myers wrote: On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote: OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor Terms. [citation needed] (http://fandomania.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/xfiles1.jpg) :) I keep meaning to sit down and write a long blog post about this. == ODbL == The OpenData licence requires attribution, and for that attribution to be maintained on subsequent derivatives. ODbL provides that. (My reading of ODbL 4.3 is that reasonably calculated imposes a downstream attribution requirement on Produced Works: after all, if you wildly license your Produced Work allows it to be redistributed without attribution of sources, you haven't reasonably calculated that any person exposed to it will be aware of the database and the licence.) As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence. (It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical to cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in another file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.) Personally I find it helpful to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of an ODbL-licensed OS OpenData; this makes it easy to follow through the attribution requirements for anything OSM-derived that contains a substantial amount of OS OpenData. == Contributor Terms == AIUI the attribution requirement is also compatible with CT as of the 1.2.2 revision (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfbpli=1). The CTs need a bit of a polish for style (Francis Davey has made good suggestions here) but the intention is clear enough. The Rights Granted section (2) now begins Subject to Section 3 and 4 below. The and 4 is new (added at my request). Section 4 is a promise of attribution, as required by the OpenData licence. So you are not being asked to grant OSMF any rights that the OpenData licence doesn't give you. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889131.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
John Smith wrote: That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements They're not. ODbL 4.3 requires attribution on produced works. and the CT allows for license changes to non-attribution licenses It doesn't. CT 4 promises attribution and, as part of the Terms themselves rather than the licence, cannot be overruled by a future licence change. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889244.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: ODbL 4.3 requires that the source database be attributed, not any data sources that went into making that database. As I said, to understand the attribution chain in ODbL, I find it helpful to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of OS OpenData (i.e. Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new Database). To take the example given in ODbL 4.3a, DATABASE NAME would be defined by the database provider (in this case OSMF). For the Derivative Database that comprises OSM original user contributions and some extracts from OS OpenData, this name could include the attribution required by OS. It also provides no explicit requirement for any downstream users to attribute the source of the produced work I think it's reasonably well attested that we disagree on that. :) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases#Use_of_maps_in_Wikipedia_and_Wikitravel would seem to contradict your later assertion that produced works can only be licensed under an attribution license. The reply in green (which I believe is from lawyers retained by OSMF at one point, though not from ODC) says no license restrictions, yes, but it then goes on to contradict itself by saying ...although notice must be given. The latter sounds like attribution to me but, again, I think it's reasonably well attested that we disagree. That requirement is only for OSMF to provide attribution when they distribute the OSM data. It does not force OSMF to require other downstream data users to provide similar attribution when they distribute derivative works / databases. So this clause would not stop OSMF releasing the data as PD as long as OSMF still maintains an appropriate attribution page themselves. That is true. If OSMF wanted to release the data as PD, it would have to delete any OS OpenData-derived content first. Given the past few months I think it would be difficult for OSMF to argue that it wasn't aware of the issue. So when David says It says they 'may' remove the data, I'd add the follow-up ...and if they choose not to, they are well aware they are likely to be sued, and on their heads be it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889691.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
I wrote: As I said, to understand the attribution chain in ODbL, I find it helpful to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of OS OpenData (i.e. Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new Database). To take the example given in ODbL 4.3a, DATABASE NAME would be defined by the database provider (in this case OSMF). For the Derivative Database that comprises OSM original user contributions and some extracts from OS OpenData, this name could include the attribution required by OS. ...and what I should have made explicit is that this is, of course, what we do already and which everyone (I presume including OS) seems very happy with... although it isn't clear that it's strictly permitted by CC-BY-SA 2.0. Our generally accepted attribution statement is (c) OpenStreetMap and contributors. Users can find out more about these contributors by going to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright . Whether you need to expand contributors beyond this depends, as ever, on the old substantial thing, and on that page we do in fact say: Where data from a national mapping agency or other major source has been included in OpenStreetMap, it may be reasonable to credit them by directly reproducing their credit or by linking to it on this page. For example, the (IIRC) Dundee cycle map which uses OSM data, including a fair amount of OS OpenData-sourced material, does exactly that. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889733.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at theBing TermsofUse?
Andrew Harvey wrote: We need to find a norm as a community so we don't have this conflict. We do have a norm as a community. 99% of people are tracing from Bing imagery and you're not. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Someone-already-had-a-look-at-the-Bing-Terms-of-Use-tp5804802p5855482.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
John Smith wrote: In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences (ODC-By and ODbL). Nice bait and switch... Goodness me, John, do you have to be so confrontational about _everything_?! In your first paragraph you lump ODBL+CT together and then you conveneintly only use ODBL in your second paragraph, please point out if the UK Open Government License is also compatible with ODBL+CT. In my view, yes, it is compatible with ODbL+CT 1.2 (though not 1.0). OGL is an attribution licence and CT 1.2 guarantees attribution within the rights grant to OSMF. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5814560.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
Simon Poole wrote: Asking a mapper community with a majority of non-lawyer, non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with some degree of certainty is just a joke. Not at all. Most imports will fall under one of a small number of licences. It isn't beyond the skills of the community (and the professional hired help that OSMF is able to arrange) to say whether these few licences are compatible with ODbL+CT; and to publish this information for the benefit of future mappers. In addition, some licences (such as the new UK Open Government Licence) openly avow compatibility with ODC's attribution licences (ODC-By and ODbL). Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5813959.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license
Sam Larsen wrote: you cannot create permanent, offline copies of the imagery Isn't this why we couldn't use SPOT imagery for HOT in Pakistan using Potlatch - we were only able to use JOSM ( others) due to local caching of tiles in Potlatch. Is this an issue? No. Caching is not permanent, and since every web browser caches (well, ok, probably not Lynx etc.), to forbid this would be to forbid all usage of the Bing API. I believe SPOT's problem is that they simply don't want their data accessible via the web for. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-some-interesting-points-from-the-bing-license-tp5790772p5799222.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license
Andrew Harvey wrote: I am yet to see a license. http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details has a set of terms of use embedded in the post specifically for OSM. It's a Scribd document and therefore requires Flash Player. There is also a PDF download link. If you are unable to see the Scribd document then I've also uploaded it to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing#Licence . Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-some-interesting-points-from-the-bing-license-tp5790772p5799244.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2
David Groom wrote: If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by the chairman of the OSMF board, who has, let's say, a slight preference for share-alike and is, shall we also say, not too shy to come forward with his views. Rather, as Francis pointed out: A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting the licence? It does happen you know :-). Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by cock-up. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5800255.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license
Andrew Harvey wrote: But that is opengeodata.org, not Microsoft, you would need a license from Microsoft. It was posted on OGD by a Microsoft employee and I can confirm I've had the exact same licence sent from a Microsoft e-mail address. I believe there'll be a Bing Maps blog post going up soon on the same topic. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-some-interesting-points-from-the-bing-license-tp5790772p5795386.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license
Richard Fairhurst wrote: I believe there'll be a Bing Maps blog post going up soon on the same topic. http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-some-interesting-points-from-the-bing-license-tp5790772p5797213.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Bing - Terms of Use
Andrew Harvey wrote: Just to clarify is this http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html the document which contains the license grant? No; the document is the one embedded in the OpenGeoData posting (http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details). Like I say I'd envisage it might be firmed up a little in the coming weeks. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Bing-Terms-of-Use-tp5789895p5791036.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] some interesting points from the bing license
Andrew Harvey wrote: Is this available from Microsoft somewhere or a Microsoft web site? It was posted on OpenGeoData by a Microsoft employee and I had a copy e-mailed to me (in advance) by a Microsoft employee. Like I've said at least twice now :) , it may need some firming up so please don't expect every 'i' to be dotted and 't' to be crossed quite yet, whether in terms of language or hosting. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-some-interesting-points-from-the-bing-license-tp5790772p5791311.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Bing - Terms of Use
Sebastian Klein wrote: I don't really understand this paragraph, does it mean they want us to give them the vector data we trace from their imagery, so they can use it any form? No. Bear in mind that us means Microsoft when you read this: | [2] 5. Your Content. Except for material that we may license to you, | we do not claim ownership of the content you post or otherwise | provide to us We're not posting or providing any content to Microsoft, so it doesn't apply. Most of these terms are Bing's generic terms of use, with a few little tweaks for the OSM case. That's why there are irrelevant clauses like this in there. I think the terms might be revised a bit in coming weeks so don't get too worried right now. Does that imply we must always attribute Bing? No requirement. Obviously using source=Bing is OSM good practice, but there's no requirement to attribute Bing. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Bing-Terms-of-Use-tp5789895p5789960.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT, section 3
Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote: b) Many people contribute to OpenStreetMap and would prefer a Public Domain license. [...] I do not know, however, whether people in group b are interested in a compromise or whether a fork of OpenStreetMap is seen as inevitable anyway. Plenty of PD supporters _are_ interested in a compromise, _are_ actively supporting ODbL, and have _no_ intention of actively campaigning to move OSM towards a permissive licence. I'm one such. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CT-section-3-tp5775564p5777224.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share alike
80n wrote: You are not free to ignore the share-alike clause. You are simply avoiding it by not publishing the combined work. The ever-unreliable dictionary on this Mac defines publish as print (something) in a book or journal so as to make it generally known: we pay $10 for every letter we publish. You certainly are making the combined work known, and insofar as print can be interpreted as displayed on a monitor (you'd have thought Apple would ship a dictionary on their Macs that was written some time in the last 50 years), it's spot on. Take the example at http://www.geowiki.com/halcyon/ : the combined work is OSM data (CC-BY-SA) and a map stylesheet. _But_ the map stylesheet does not have to be licensed as CC-BY-SA because the client (in this case, a Flash app) is doing the combining. That's a feature of CC-BY-SA which can be used for the scenario you describe. Yeah, I like features. Potlatch has about 300 features listed on trac. I might get round to fixing them one of these days. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Share-alike-tp5750998p5751217.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share alike
80n wrote: I see the example. Are you saying that this is a problem? It looks perfectly fine to me. Depends what you mean by problem. If I were to contrast Scenario A (applying styles programmatically as in the geowiki.com example, and delivering it via a Flash applet) and Scenario B (applying styles manually in, say, Illustrator, and delivering it as a JPEG), it strikes me as silly that the scope of CC-BY-SA differs when the end result - pixels on a screen - is the same for the user. If I were to contrast what I actually _do_ with map data (OS, not OSM), which is to take Scenario B (takes approximately 15 minutes) and then continue by generalising, labelling, dropping in pull-outs, and so on (takes about four whole evenings and a bunch of knowledge, skill and personal judgement, none of which is at all connected to OSM), than I'd say that CC-BY-SA's scope here crosses the line from silly to batshit insane. So if by are you saying this is a problem? you mean do you think this loophole should be closed?, no, I don't. I simply think it renders CC-BY-SA an ever more ridiculous licence for OSM. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Share-alike-tp5750998p5751623.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Share alike
80n wrote: There's a disconnect in your argument. No, there isn't, because: Your evenings of effort and your knowledge, skill and personal judgement are not subject to CC-BY-SA licensing and are irrelevant. The end product of all that effort is the thing that is relevant. That end product benefits from one of it's inputs (OSM content) and the rules for using that is that you should share alike and provide attribution. is not consistently true. The end product of generalisation, label placement etc. (a result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) in an Illustrator map is subject to CC-BY-SA licensing. The end product of designing an attractive set of styles (a result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) in an Illustrator map is subject to CC-BY-SA licensing. The end product of designing an attractive set of styles (a result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) in a dynamically rendered Flash map is not subject to CC-BY-SA licensing. Therefore: If the Illustrator map is published, the attractive set of styles (a result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) can be trivially reverse-engineered and distributed under CC-BY-SA. If the dynamic Flash map is published, the attractive set of styles (a result of knowledge, skill and personal judgement) can be even more trivially reverse-engineered, but cannot be distributed under CC-BY-SA. In other words: CC-BY-SA, when applied to OSM, is entirely arbitrary (and I would contend unfair) in defining what knowledge, skill and personal judgement falls under the share-alike clause. Why do you think I started Potlatch 2 by writing a dynamic Flash rendering engine? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Share-alike-tp5750998p5751761.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk] New site about the license change
[follow-ups to legal-talk, where this thread really should have started] Kevin Peat wrote: Personally I don't care if the current license is weak as most organisations will respect its spirit and if a few don't who cares, it doesn't devalue our efforts one cent. I can't see how changing to an unproven license can possibly be worth fragmenting the project. There'll be some fragmentation whatever happens. I've no doubt that, as you suggest, some people will leave if OSM moves to ODbL. Conversely, if OSM resolved to stick with CC-BY-SA then I'd leave as would several others. There is no let's just carry on as at present option. Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New site about the license change
Kevin Peat wrote: But isn't the bit that's causing the bulk of the discussion a limited part of the CTs, not ODbL per se? For most people, yes, though there are a few people for whom ODbL per se is unpalatable (I think 80n is one, but he can correct me if I'm wrong). Personally I don't have an opinion either way on the CTs but would be very, very disappointed if an adverse reaction to the CTs meant we lost ODbL. The 1.2 revision of the CTs does, however, seem to be moving in the right direction. LWG are good guys and they do listen. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-talk-New-site-about-the-license-change-tp5743322p5743486.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New site about the license change
Ed Avis wrote: I feel the same way but I come to different conclusions because of different starting assumptions. Sure. YMMV and no two people come at this with the same philosophy. My strongly-held belief is that, just as it's generally accepted that to discriminate against fields of endeavour with a non-commercial licence is not open (e.g. see http://blog.okfn.org/2010/06/24/why-share-alike-licenses-are-open-but-non-commercial-ones-arent/), the application of a creative works licence to a data project creates similar discrimination against fields of endeavour: traditional 'creative works' built on the data are required to be shared-alike, but other works (including even data) aren't. My view is that an artistic cartographic map using OSM data is as independent a creation as a routing application using OSM data, and the same rules should apply to the cartographic art as to the source code of the routing app. You don't have to agree. :) If the current licence can be trivially circumvented, people would be doing so by now and we'd see Google or Tele Atlas copying the OSM data with impunity; yet there are no such examples. Oh, there are plenty of infringements: yet another one whizzed by on #osm today and no doubt there'll be another later this week. Those who have to care about their PR (Google, Waze) will abide by the spirit of the licence, albeit in retrospect; the cost of the negative PR outweighs the minimal saving in geodata licensing. For some the equation balances the other way, so they won't attribute or share-alike. But I'm not really talking about infringements per se; I'm talking about circumventing the spirit of CC-BY-SA within the letter of CC-BY-SA. The computer-generated derivative previously discussed here and on cc-community is the obvious example; you can avoid having to share if you combine on the client rather than the server. (That could also be seen as a discrimination against a field of endeavour: you can practically use the loophole on computer cartography, but not on paper cartography.) As for PD, I'm not sure that the 'community consensus' on that has ever really been measured. Not formally, no. Certainly I based my decision to actively support a move to ODbL rather than a move to PD (or attribution-only) on the grounds that every time anyone even tentatively suggested the latter, the mailing list storm was so vast that I could never see it being remotely realistic. Of course, I hadn't realised that a storm would be provoked when anyone tried to suggest _anything_. :( cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-talk-New-site-about-the-license-change-tp5743322p5745029.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New site about the license change
Anthony wrote: I really don't get this. We have been through this before. I have no interest in engaging with you - the sole person about whom I'll say that after six years in this project - as a result of the ad hominem you resorted to last time round. I will happily talk to Etienne, John, Liz, Ed, anyone else who I may disagree with on some issues, but I refuse any more to sink to your level. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-talk-New-site-about-the-license-change-tp5743322p5745042.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
Elizabeth Dodd wrote: I ask once more from where did OSMF get a mandate to change the licence? It doesn't. That's why it's asking the rights-holders to change the licence for the data which they've contributed[1]. What OSMF does have, though, is a mandate to host whatever it likes at openstreetmap.org, because it's the owner of the domain name: ~/OpenStreetMap/potlatch2: whois openstreetmap.org [snip] Domain Name:OPENSTREETMAP.ORG Created On:09-Aug-2004 18:47:25 UTC whois Registrant Organization:OpenStreetMap Foundation ...just as I can host whatever I like at systemeD.net or geowiki.com, Frederik can host whatever he likes at geofabrik.de, John can host whatever he likes at evilbunny.org, and so on. OSMF has determined, through decisions taken by the elected board and through a plebiscite of its members, that it would like to host an ODbL+CT dataset at openstreetmap.org, subject to such a dataset being viable. That does not change the licence of the data. Only the rights-holders[1] can do that. Regardless of whether any given rights-holder decides to additionally offer their data under ODbL+CT, the existing data is still available under CC-BY-SA and you can host it anywhere you like, e.g. at fosm.org. But it's OSMF's choice as to what happens at openstreetmap.org. Richard [1] insofar as rights exist etc. etc. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5590900.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
TimSC wrote: It may be possible to argue that OSMF did try to engage the community. Rather than me try to make the case, it's more fun seeing what justifications people are trying to use on the mailing list! Seriously? You actually see this as some sort of trolling contest, trying to get a rise out of people because it's more fun? I've been taking part in the debate because I'm keen to see that OpenStreetMap has the best licence possible and the most high-quality geodata under that licence. I realise Liz has already posted elsewhere that she's aiming to be disruptive, but I hadn't realised that it was some form of sub-4chan concerted trolling expedition. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5591187.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Usage of ODbL
Ed Avis wrote: However, under the proposed licence change and contributor terms, OSM would not be able to participate fully in this commons. Although the ODbL would allow others to take the OSM data and combine it with other ODbL or permissive- licensed data sources, the OSM project could not do likewise. The Contributor Terms are the _standard_ agreement between contributors and OSMF. But they do not have to be the only agreement. There is nothing to stop OSMF itself adding data outwith the CTs; or coming to different agreements with individual contributors; or adding easements to the CTs for all contributors using particular data sources. (Reply merely for info, I'm not a huge fan of the CTs.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Usage-of-ODbL-tp5584269p5587457.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata amp; the new license
kevin wrote: The issue here is a licence has been chosen, that appears incompatible with current practise Think you've got your chronology the wrong way round there. Blog post on moving to ODbL: January 2008. [1] OS OpenData released: April 2010. Richard [1] http://old.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5583459.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata the new license
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: The ODbL already doesn't enforce viral attribution on derivatives of produced works I don't intend to go over the argument on this again, but treat this message as a little stake in the ground with I disagree with the above statement written on it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-OS-Opendata-the-new-license-tp5538273p5543460.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
(Replying to two messages at once as they seem related) Anthony wrote: But it's quite a leap from some databases (e.g. white pages) are non-copyrightable in some jurisdictions and databases are non-copyrightable. In fact, I'd say it's quite plainly false. Oh, absolutely. Copyright and database right law is sufficiently complex, and unclear, when applied to primarily factual data that it would be a brave person who made any unambiguous statement like the latter... especially here in England, where you can probably copyright your own farts. It's not a binary situation where CC-BY-SA never works and ODbL always works. Rather, ODbL provides a very significantly higher likelihood of protection. [second message] You must be misreading them. ODbL is weak copyleft, plus a database rights license, plus a contract agreement. CC-BY-SA is strong copyleft. Do you dispute that, or do you claim that these two are in the same spirit? You weren't asking me :) , but I'd dispute that. I wouldn't say one was weaker or stronger than the other: ODbL's share-alike is simply more clearly defined for data. The canonical example of strong copyleft is the GPL - a software licence whose copyleft persists on any software you build from the same source code. In the same vein, CC-BY-SA is a strong copyleft creative works licence, and ODbL is a strong copyleft data licence. A weak copyleft data licence, taking the LGPL as example, would allow you to create derivative databases from OSM where copyright persisted into the street data but not (say) any road speed data which you had mixed with it - even though the road speed data relies on the street data to function. ODbL doesn't allow that (and I believe that was a deliberate choice by its authors). Because CC-BY-SA is a creative works licence, not a data licence, its strong/weak effects are unpredictable when applied to data. Six examples: - routing code designed solely to work with OSM data: copyleft does not persist into code - printed cartographic map created using OSM data: copyleft persists into creative work - web cartographic map created using OSM data, styles applied programatically: copyleft does not persist into creative work - web cartographic map created using OSM data, styles applied manually: copyleft persists into creative work - printed mashup map created using OSM data: copyleft persists into mashup data - web mashup map created using OSM data: copyleft does not persist into mashup data ODbL, as a data licence applied to data, removes most of this unpredictability. No doubt if one applied ODbL (a data licence) to creative works, the results would be just as unpredictable as when one applies CC-BY-SA to data. ;) All such licences expressly limit the scope of what they can be applied to. One way in which ODbL does it is the concept of a Produced Work; CC-BY-SA's equivalent is a list of what it's applicable to. Which approach is clearer is open to debate, as we've seen with the recent (interesting) posts here about CC 3.0. The other way is with the collective works clause in ODbL and CC-BY-SA (or a collection in CC 3.0). The GPL has a similar concept: FSF call it an aggregate. As the GPL FAQ says: By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program. which avid readers of this list will recognise as not being entirely different to the discussion we were having a few months back about collective databases, in which Matt very generously titled a similar concept (if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough) the Fairhurst Doctrine. Is one stronger than the other? I don't think there's one easy answer. On the one hand, ODbL has some provisions which require the end-user to give more back: in particular, the GPL-like requirement to release source. On the other, some items are caught within CC-BY-SA's copyleft and not ODbL's. (I'm quite prepared to believe that there may be items that are caught by ODbL's copyleft and not CC-BY-SA's, given the existence of loopholes in CC-BY-SA such as the programatically-generated derivative one.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-OSM-talk-ODbL-vs-CC-by-SA-pros-and-cons-tp5473721p5490444.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
TimSC wrote: I would have hoped the guy who established moderation on the lists would have thought to avoid insulting people. Will the other moderators do their job or just rally round Steve, regardless what he says on the list? There are no other moderators. Apart from Steve's announcement, which I believe specifically concerned talk@, all OSM lists are unmoderated. As legal-talk admin I merely look after occasional housekeeping on the list; I don't moderate or filter the content. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Noise-vs-unanswered-questions-tp5488863p5490586.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Anthony wrote: Given your arguments on this list, I'd guess you're quite prepared to believe anything that might help prevent you from admitting that you are wrong. At this point the argument has departed from factual/philosophical to ad hominems, so I'll bow out. To anyone who's listened, thank you for listening. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-OSM-talk-ODbL-vs-CC-by-SA-pros-and-cons-tp5473721p5491588.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
Anthony wrote: [Jane Smith] copyright are the chains of the modern worker, holding to the means of Production. Are there any moderators here? Can we get this troll banned please. I'm the list administrator for legal-talk. I'm not quite sure what offence 'Jane Smith' might have committed that would cause you to want her to be banned. She is clearly posting under a fake name: so are at least two other people here. She is posting HTML messages and can't quote properly: same applies to at least one other person here. She is trolling: and yes, at least one other person here has publicly vowed (elsewhere) that they will continue to be deliberately disruptive on the OSM lists. I'd suggest the best course of action is, as ever, Please Do Not Feed The Trolls. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-OSM-talk-Community-vs-Licensing-tp5475845p5481346.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: Using OSM material for our online tool
Ole Brandenburg wrote: I would be thankful if someone can point me in the right direction. We plan to use the OSM API for our map tool (at stepmap.de). We currently have a list of roughly 1,500 pre-defined maps and a zoom-feature that enables users to create their own map/region. The OSM maps would be a great addition because of the detailed city and regional data. We would like to enable our users to access part of the OSM material and therefore plan to make use of the OSM API. Great that you're thinking of using OSM data. I would, however, counsel you very strongly to investigate alternatives to the API. OpenStreetMap aims to create free geographic data and make it available for others to use. But we are a non-profit, volunteer-funded organisation and can't maintain free, unlimited server resources for everyone. Our servers, including the API, are principally provided for the benefit of those editing the data. Any other usage may be restricted or banned entirely. API services may be modified or withdrawn with minimal notice. Instead, you are encouraged to download a dump of our data, and host it yourself on your own servers (whether physical or something such as an Amazon EC2 instance). If this isn't convenient, you may like to engage a third-party company to provide this service for you. Geofabrik and CloudMade are two well-known companies in this field. The full data dump can be downloaded from http://planet.openstreetmap.org/ . Smaller excerpts for particular countries and regions are available from other sites (e.g. geofabrik.de). The formal Terms of Use for the API are linked from http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright . cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Fwd-Using-OSM-material-for-our-online-tool-tp5481984p5482623.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3
Anthony wrote: Another possibility is to assign the task of deciding what share alike means to Creative Commons. Of course, that isn't likely to work if you want to go with the ODbL... I suspect CC's answer would be similar to http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001982.html cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-OSM-legal-talk-To-calm-some-waters-about-Section-3-tp5459411p5466160.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
Michael Collinson wrote: I have moved this from [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins to legal talk as it is worth further discussion in view of dilemmas faced by our Australian community. I understand that CC-BY-SA is currently a preferred vehicle for releasing government data. Is it? I thought most of the Australian Government data was CC-BY - a much easier problem. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Is-CC-BY-SA-is-compatible-with-ODbL-tp5422512p5422694.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?
Francis Davey wrote: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote Is it? I thought most of the Australian Government data was CC-BY - a much easier problem. But still incompatible with the contributor terms in the sense that a CC-BY licensee does not have sufficient rights to agree to them. No-one could lawfully take CC-BY data and contribute it via the contributor terms of course. Indeed, but one which should be fixable by minor modifications to the contributor terms (which some of us are suggesting to OSMF that they do) and potentially offering a derogation from the terms for certain data sources. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Is-CC-BY-SA-is-compatible-with-ODbL-tp5422512p5422915.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data
Ed Avis wrote: Anthony writes: I'm currently working on a fork. I'm still hopeful that people will find some compromise, and it won't be needed. (Myself I would be quite happy if the project chose a dual licence.) But if a fork proves necessary, I'll be happy to help. My impression (though I've not done a rigorous survey) is that the vast majority of the core developers are pro-ODbL so I guess you might need a bit of help getting it up and running. Certainly I'm happy to help you with anything Potlatch-related, not because I'd use a fork myself, but to encourage diversity and all that. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-decision-removing-data-tp5370516p5388808.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
