Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
2009/3/8 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com: On 7 Mar 2009, at 23:56, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham gerv- gm...@gerv.net wrote: b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, they need a massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort unless they create SVG files that just happen to contain the same data as OSM files and we add a loophole that says SVG files are a derived work instead of a database, thus allowing wtfyw license to be applied. My evil alter ego would be quite interested in developing a version of the cycle map that whilst looking a bit strange just so happened to be quite easy to run OMR over. Perhaps Dave's evil alter ego would find writing such an Optical Map Recogniser interesting... Yes. The OMR. Pass in a tile png with full path and the magic box reverse engineers it. Any network activity to openstreetmap.org is entirely coincidental. Hey, he is evil you know. I can assure you even my evil alter ego would refuse to do anything that possibly might involve a fourrier transform. Dave ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 13:00 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: If someone really wants to jump through these hoops to get it done, let him do it. I think this will be a niche application and, if at all, only used very seldom. And if we later find that someone is really being a thorn in our side with that for one reason or another, *then* we think about fixing it. Is it practical, from the legal point of view, to aim ODbL version 1.0 at the community? The well-behaved get a license that tells them what is allowed. (Map t-shirts and cupcakes? Sure!) This way the good people in the community with commercial interests can proceed with some reassurance. The contributors can know that the license permits the use cases we want and can get to their new contributions. The badly-behaved get the current no reverse engineering clause and the derivative database share alike requirement with the existing potential holes, and we shore it up with a community norms document? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Ulf Möller use...@ulfm.de wrote: The problem with this though is that if you make an exemption for CC-BY-SA then you can drive the whole planet file through that loophole. If you want to close the loophole, you will need to get everyone to accept the license contract before letting them look at the map. That loophole can be closed by requiring that Produced work is only something that is primarily not a map. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Ulf Möller use...@ulfm.de wrote: The problem with this though is that if you make an exemption for CC-BY-SA then you can drive the whole planet file through that loophole. If you want to close the loophole, you will need to get everyone to accept the license contract before letting them look at the map. That loophole can be closed by requiring that Produced work is only something that is primarily not a map. Map would be a very slippery term to define (pun unintentional). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
Hi, Gervase Markham wrote: I would be reluctant to name them. Assuming the data remains bound by some form of share-alike, in 50 years time, OSM or OSM derivatives is going to be the only database anyone ever uses for storing and retrieving public global mapping data. At that point, we have no clue if the FSF, the GPL or Creative Commons will still exist, or whether there will be another more popular share-alike licence used. Sure; but how likely is it that we'll still be at ODbL v1.0 at that time? Since our license can be upgraded to a later version, so can the list of compatible SA licenses for Produced Works. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
The question has been raised in these discussions about the ODbL's reverse-engineering provisions, and their compatibility or otherwise with share-alike licenses. Here is my analysis and suggestions. 1) The ODbL wishes to prevent people regenerating the Database from Produced Works. ODbL section 4.7: For the avoidance of doubt, creating a Produced Work, and then re-creating the whole or a Substantial part of the Data found in this Database, a Derivative Database, or a Database that is part of a Collective Database from the Produced Work, is still subject to this Licence. Any product of this type of reverse engineering activity (whether done by You or on Your behalf by a third party) is governed by this License. 2) Share-Alike Licences, such as the GPL and CC-BY-SA, have clauses which prevent someone distributing a work under the licence from adding additional restrictions. (Other classes of licences may also have such a stipulation, but this is the largest and most common class which does.) GPLv3 section 10: You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. CC-BY-SA section 4a: You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. 3) In order for the ODbL's restriction on reverse engineering to stick, the no-reverse-engineering stipulation has to be part of the terms which apply to the use or reuse of the Produced Work, both by the person who Produced it and by other third parties. Otherwise, the term would be trivially avoidable - I create the Produced Work, and you reverse-engineer it. 4) A Produced Work is not a Derivative Database, and so does not fall under the ODbL. The ODbL is designed to allow you to license Produced Works however you choose. 5) Therefore, I submit, the reverse engineering clause cannot be made enforceable by copyright permission, in the manner of e.g. the GPLv3, because the ODbL does not make claims on the copyright in the Produced Work. This is one reason why the ODbL must be a contract, in all jurisdictions, not just those with no database right. The person creating the work is contractually obliged by the reverse-engineering clause of the ODbL to respect this restriction, and to pass the restriction to anyone to whom they pass the Produced Work. 6) A no-reverse-engineering stipulation counts as a further restriction (GPL) or imposed term (CC-BY-SA) on the use of the work, which restricts a right. 7) Specifically, the right so restricted is the right to make derivative works of a certain type - databases of map data. The right to make derivative works is clearly a right that these licences wish to preserve. 8) Therefore, it is not possible to have a reverse-engineering clause for Produced Works, and also for it to be possible to create Produced Works that one can license under any licence with a no additional terms clause, including share-alike licences. It's one or the other. So what can be done? I agree that reverse engineering is a risk. Life is not perfect. But still, my suggestion is that we should abandon the idea of trying to prevent reverse engineering, for the following reasons: a) GPL and CC-BY-SA compatibility of produced works is more important. b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, either they need a massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort, or their map will be out of date anyway. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote: a) GPL and CC-BY-SA compatibility of produced works is more important. Agreed, but... b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, either they need a massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort, or their map will be out of date anyway. ... an effort like OSM for example, or Google's Map Maker. And they can always get the latest OSM data just by creating a new Produced Work any time they want. It's not much of an obstacle. IMHO the whole Produced Work thing, as currently drafted, is fatally flawed. It fails to achieve what it is trying to do. A rethink is required. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
On 7 Mar 2009, at 23:56, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham gerv- gm...@gerv.net wrote: b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, they need a massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort unless they create SVG files that just happen to contain the same data as OSM files and we add a loophole that says SVG files are a derived work instead of a database, thus allowing wtfyw license to be applied. My evil alter ego would be quite interested in developing a version of the cycle map that whilst looking a bit strange just so happened to be quite easy to run OMR over. Perhaps Dave's evil alter ego would find writing such an Optical Map Recogniser interesting... I think without the reverse engineering clause, you may as well make it PD in the first place.. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
Hi, Gervase Markham wrote: So what can be done? I agree that reverse engineering is a risk. Life is not perfect. But still, my suggestion is that we should abandon the idea of trying to prevent reverse engineering, for the following reasons: a) GPL and CC-BY-SA compatibility of produced works is more important. b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, either they need a massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort, or their map will be out of date anyway. I agree with both points, but I would like to try and be pragmatic: Don't throw out the reverse engineering clause; just add a clause that explicitly permits releasing Produced Works under a number of named share-alike licenses. I think this gives us the best mix. Reverse engineering will be possible, but only from share-alike licensed Produced Works. This makes it impossible to create an all rights reserved produced work and reverse engineer from that; any reverse engineering will be through a share-alike licensed work, and the resulting database will by protected by the share-alike license in question. This means one of two things: (1) If you are of the opinion that copyright does not work for OSM data anyway and only database/contract law can protect it, then the reverse engineering will release OSM from clutch of the database right and into the fully unrestricted world. In this case, our situation is not *better* than today but it is not worse either. (2) If you are of the opinion that copyright does indeed work for OSM data then the reverse engineering amounts to a conversion from one share-alike type of license to another, which is no big deal. Anyone driving a reverse-engineering effort wold have to invest a lot of money and in the end all he gets is (at best) an OSM dataset licensed exactly as it is today. Great win! See also: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Suggested_Changes#Possible_solution_.231:_Explicitly_allow_popular_SA_licenses Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
Hi, Andy Allan wrote: I think without the reverse engineering clause, you may as well make it PD in the first place.. As I said: You could drop the reverse engineering clause for certain share-alike licenses only, thus making reverse-engineering into a share-alike form possible but that would mean that the best you get with your OMR is a CC-BY-SA or GFDL licensed database. You could then take that to a country where the data itself is not protected and because CC-BY-SA has no database component, use it without restriction. - But then you can *always* take our database to a WIPO unfriendly country and do WTFYW if you're the kind of person so inclined. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
