Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM based GPS navigations and ODbl license of OSM data
Hi, 2015-01-08 4:44 GMT+01:00 Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de: For OSM it would be much more convenient when the license says You are allowed to use the OSM data, but when you change it you give OSM the right to merge back your changes if they want to. As far as I understand it, it works that way - if data is publicly used, it has to be licensed under ODbL. Probably we should adjust the license one more time before too much incompatible data is being imported. And I'm asking for stricter regulations considering imports. Data not compatible with future license changes must not be imported at all. Other mappers are building their changes on a weak foundation. Mappers will import as much as they can (caring for their neighbourhood's presence), and when in doubt will import until they can - we've seen this already. And who's gonna tell you what the future licenses are? ODbL is not perfect, but it's CTs that made things more messy, especially they have changed over time (funny thing, huh? do you know which data is under which CTs?). And they make sure that you have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms, and then OSMF may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open licence (for example, http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) as may from time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. So you give OSMF right to change the license for data you were able to import under (currently) ODbL, even though you may not be entitled to grant them this right (if you're importing something). So it's just one big bag of data with messy licensing hardcoded in. I doubt you will succeed in any actions you've stated above. Regards, Tadeusz ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Hello, Our lawyers' advice is captured in the guideline as shared and posted in this revision: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guidelineoldid=1060775 Just to clarify, the above is what your lawyers sent you, except for formatting changes to place it into a Wiki format? 'Geocoding as it pertains to this guideline is a process by which external data is used to construct a query by which an OpenStreetMap database is searched. The result of the Geocoding query is one or more Geocodes. Geocodes are then stored either permanently or temporarily together with the external data used for querying. Geocodes can be latitude/longitude pairs, full or partial addresses and or point of interest names. Geocodes are a Produced Work by the definition of the ODbL' That means that every other mapping project in the world gets that any way he wants, right?:) In example, if I someone wants to add to a project ABC all McDonald's localizations from all over the world, he just queries OSM (query: McDonald), places the result (lat/lon+full addresses) in his database, and adds an attribution I used some OSM data (a cron job would do well). Same with addressing in country X, Y or Z (and the attribution is already there!:). Sounds good. You just need to have some vector data with roads, the rest goes from OSM as a Produced Work. Regards, Tadeusz ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Hello, 2014-07-28 7:19 GMT+02:00 Eric Gundersen e...@mapbox.com: Accuracy is what matters, not skimping on a few $. We have dozens of large companies like this that would love to more tightly integrate their internal data with OSM via goecoding, but because of unclear guidelines are blocked. Well, in fact (IMHO) there's no unclear guidelines, as the license is quite clear in terms of Derivative Database licensing. Whether or not is it is subject to change, at this moment (ODbL v1.0) a Derivative Database has to be an ODbL database. What I'm not clear is if community guidelines are strong enough to able to change it without touching the license itself Or, trying to consider a database with geocoding data a Produced Work makes me wonder what type of substantial (I guess we're talking country-wide at least?) extract of the whole database _isn't_ a Produced Work anymore. Regards, Tadeusz ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] About CC-4.0 and ODbl
Hello, But doesn't BY-SA claim to cover the database rights? Doesn't that clash with the ODbL? A produced work isn't a database, so BY-SA 4's (proposed) protection of database rights can't be relevant to it, surely. I'm very happy if this is the case. To clarify, as far as I understand it was said in the context of making PW available under CC-By-SA. It does not mean you can import BY-SA database in ODbL. Regards, Tadeusz ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Hello, Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not worried about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any case, Technically, it is possible to export in a format where accuracy is 100% preserved, e.g. any vectorized format like PDF or SVG. If you export all tags in a concatenated text string, your map is maybe not readable for humans but you could in this way rebuild the full database under a new license... Yes it is, but is it defendable? I mean could then anyone prove in court that it is a work resulting from and not the Database itself? It would take a few more steps (eg. arrange some inbetween maps to lose the trace) to do it on purpose, I think. For me this is more a question of using 'normal' tiles to make just another map, and I don't see there's a way to prohibit it in ODbL. Sincerely, Tadeusz Knapik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work
Hello, The currently accepted wisdom is that there exists a separate channel, apart from copyright, in which database right persists no matter what copyright license is used. This means that *if* somebody took lots and lots of CC-BY-SA-published OSM maps and reverse-engineered them into a new database, this database would then *automatically* fall under ODbL even if that was not mentioned in the CC-BY-SA product. This may sound hardly believeable to some but it is indeed not an uncommon concept. Imagine that I prepare an article about how Dyson's bagless vacuum cleaners work, and upload that to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA. Which is totally legal. Then you download the article and you go: Ha! This is CC-BY-SA so no further restrictions can be added. I will build this vacuum cleaner and flood the world with inexpensive and eco-friendly Dupont cleaners! - Sure enough, after a while Dyson will come knocking and sue you for infringement of their patent. As you said it, _their patent_. Do you state that ODbL license is equal to a patent when it comes to protect the data (apart from being 'free and open')? I think you need a better example to break the hardly believeable spell. Sincerely, Tadeusz Knapik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work
Hello, Do you state that ODbL license is equal to a patent when it comes to protect the data (apart from being 'free and open')? No, I mentioned the patent as an example of non-copyright IP that persists even through a CC-BY-SA chain where it is not mentioned at all. So, in my understanding you have just explained that an imaginery screwdriver can be used to hammer a nail, 'cause nails can be hammered, and giving a hammer as an example. Please do not feel offended, I just hoped for a good explanation of ODbL's 'viralness', escpecially when taking into consideration Produced Work chain, and tiles' CC-By-SA license with separate channel with any other rights inside. I understand patents work that way (ie. you can't recreate something), but making it into a license doesn't seem clear to me, and I don't think I've seen a lawyer stating somethink like this. It would be great to have it explained. Sincerely, Tadeusz Knapik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work
Hello, ODbL has an attribution requirement. This lets you know where the original database is from, and your responsibilities should you recreate part of it. Should you recreate part of the original database, you know your responsibilities due to the link to the license from the attribution. There's no magic, the ODbL just follows its data using attribution. Yes, but I can do my Produced Work and it'll CC-By-SA (let's say I just do tiles from map of my area), attributing it. Someone else will use my work (use the tiles, enriching it with self-generated trails, added mountain tops etc), and put it on CC-By-SA (my CC-By-SA doesn't order him to attribute OSM, he uses my product). And then another one will use this last map to retrace the whole area into his CC-By-SA map. Where is the point of breaking ODbL license? Sincerely, Tadeusz Knapik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work
Hello, doesn't order him to attribute OSM, he uses my product). And then another one will use this last map to retrace the whole area into his CC-By-SA map. Where is the point of breaking ODbL license? You have to maintain attribution under BY-SA, so OSM has to be attributed at each point and no break will occur. Ok, but how an attribution itself should overcome CC-By-SA's rights? I mean if the last-in-the-chain user sees OSM, and even looks at the ODbL license, how could he assume the ODbL license applies to him instead of CC-By-SA, and in which case? What determines which actions are permitted, and which are not, and which license's rights are stronger? CC-By-SA's points 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b doesn't seem to leave place for another copyrights inside, and from my point of view they don't have to as (in my NAL-opinion) ODbL doesn't try to impose on Produced Work any rights other than attribution (point 4.3: Notice for using output). If ODbL should apply to a database retraced from CC-By-SA tiles (let's rememeber they also contain someone else's work, like those trails and mountain tops - so it's not just 'tiles from and ODbL map'), it would have to create ODbL's Derivative Database, which conflicts with CC-By-SA imposing CC-By-SA on an Adaptation. And as the product _is_ CC-By-SA, you can't say it does not apply... Sincerely, Tadeusz Knapik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work
Hello, instead of CC-By-SA, and in which case? What determines which actions are permitted, and which are not, and which license's rights are stronger? Each license covers the material that it covers. mountain tops - so it's not just 'tiles from and ODbL map'), it would have to create ODbL's Derivative Database, which conflicts with CC-By-SA imposing CC-By-SA on an Adaptation. And as the product _is_ CC-By-SA, you can't say it does not apply... BY-SA doesn't cover databases though (any potential changes in 4.0 notwithstanding). Saying so doesn't make any part of CC-By-SA licensed material uncovered by the license. It might not be designed for databases, but it doesn't mean a database is not an Adaptation. ODbL is still a comparatively new license and it is reasonable to have questions about it. I would recommend going to the people who wrote it and asking them directly, which you can do on the odc-dicuss list: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss One list a day ;) Sincerely, Tadeusz Knapik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
