Am 10.03.2015 um 02:10 schrieb Alex Barth:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch
mailto:si...@poole.ch wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline#.22Collective_Database.22_alternative
1. Why is the input data
Am 20.02.2015 um 08:52 schrieb Simon Poole:
...
Treating the geocoded results plus input data as a derivative DB
sidesteps various issues.
...
I should have mentioned that the single biggest advantage is that it
doesn't require us to supply a definition of what geocoding actually
is.
Am 03.11.2014 um 00:45 schrieb Alex Barth:
I have two questions on the Collective DB alternative:
The derivative database consists of the data that has been used as the
input data for the geocoding process, as well as the data that has been
gained from OpenStreetMap in the process. Any
2014-11-03 0:17 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:
2014-10-29 20:56 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:
Updated:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License%2FGeocoding_-_Guidelinediff=1102233oldid=1076215
wouldn't it make more sense to come to a conclusion here
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
my bad, sorry for the confusion, my comment was referring to the following
edit, which was 4 minutes later:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
where in one of the first paragraphs there is this unproven claim:
Geocoding Results are a Produced Work by the definition of the ODbL
(section 1.):
“Produced Work” – a work (such as an image, audiovisual
2014-11-03 15:05 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
where in one of the first paragraphs there is this unproven claim:
Geocoding Results are a Produced Work by the definition of the ODbL
(section 1.):
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Let's presume we all followed this reading, then when would something
actually fall under the definition of derivative database? Why would we
still be writing to legal talk instead of using the whole OSM db as a
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2014-10-29 20:56 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:
Updated:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License%2FGeocoding_-_Guidelinediff=1102233oldid=1076215
wouldn't it make more sense
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk
wrote:
4.4.c. Derivative Databases and Produced Works. A Derivative Database is
Publicly Used and so must comply with Section 4.4. if a Produced Work
created from the Derivative Database is Publicly Used.
which say,
I have two questions on the Collective DB alternative:
The derivative database consists of the data that has been used as the
input data for the geocoding process, as well as the data that has been
gained from OpenStreetMap in the process. Any additional data that may be
linked to this data,
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Updated:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License%2FGeocoding_-_Guidelinediff=1102233oldid=1076215
Hey Martin -
2014-10-29 20:56 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:
Updated:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Data_License%2FGeocoding_-_Guidelinediff=1102233oldid=1076215
wouldn't it make more sense to come to a conclusion here before updating
the wiki?
cheers,
Martin
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 08:19:10PM -0400, Alex Barth wrote:
Good call on geocodes - geocoding results. That's clearer.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
What do you think the status of a database of geocoding results is under
the interpretation in
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
I'm wondering if we should replace geocodes with geocoding results
throughout the page. I think it improves clarity as to what is being
discussed, and geocodes is not a term in common use for what we are
discussing.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
A geocoding result is not the same as a database of geocoding results.
Column 1 says the former is a produced work, but is silent on the latter.
I updated the guide to be explicit about this case:
Hey Michal -
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk
wrote:
alex, please read 4.6 of odbl, which basically says there is no
difference between derivative db and produced work with regards to
database rights.
4.6 talks about disclosure standards in cases
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 04:03:03PM -0400, Alex Barth wrote:
Hey Michal -
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk
wrote:
alex, please read 4.6 of odbl, which basically says there is no
difference between derivative db and produced work with regards to
Picking up on Paul's offer to help along the discussion here [1]. Also
copying Steve here as he's renewed his call for better addressing in
OpenStreetMap - which I entirely agree with [2].
Feedback from this thread is incorporated on the wiki [2] - thanks
particularly to Frederik for this work.
On 10/27/2014 4:47 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
Picking up on Paul's offer to help along the discussion here [1]. Also
copying Steve here as he's renewed his call for better addressing in
OpenStreetMap - which I entirely agree with [2].
Feedback from this thread is incorporated on the wiki [2] -
Good call on geocodes - geocoding results. That's clearer.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
What do you think the status of a database of geocoding results is under
the interpretation in column 1?
According to the interpretation in column 1, the ODbL
On 10/27/2014 5:19 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
According to the interpretation in column 1, the ODbL doesn't imply
any specific licensing for geocoding results, they are Produced Works.
A geocoding result is not the same as a database of geocoding results.
Column 1 says the former is a produced
How would the Collective Database approach work if the OSM Database must
remain unmodified to be part of a Collective Database?
The definition of Collective Database seems to be tailored to use cases
where the OpenStreetMap database *in unmodified form* is part of a larger
database. I can't quite
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
How would the Collective Database approach work if the OSM Database must
remain unmodified to be part of a Collective Database?
The definition of Collective Database seems to be tailored to use cases
where the OpenStreetMap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20/08/14 01:58 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
It would be great if people would help fill in the blanks, or
correct me where I might have misrepresented the discussion.
The page asserts:
Geocodes are a Produced Work by the definition of the ODbL
Rob,
On 08/21/2014 06:42 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
It would be great if people would help fill in the blanks, or
correct me where I might have misrepresented the discussion.
The page asserts:
Geocodes are a Produced Work
[...]
The rest of the page then silently slips
[...]
I have tried
Hi,
On 07/25/2014 11:39 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
As I've said before, I'm not convinced that trying to better define and
clarify the issue by invoking the produced work clauses will lead to a
satisfactory result. I would suggest that at least a comparison (for all
your use cases) with a model
Hello
A few days ago I commented
But what discussion on legal-talk does not provide is a mechanism for
ascertaining a
representative community opinion on the spirit of the license; nor a
legally qualified opinion on
interpretation options; nor a governance mechanism for resolving the
proposal
Am 03.08.2014 16:16, schrieb Mikel Maron:
...
If it is the understanding of the OSM Foundation, that the Legal Working
Group in some ways functions like a Court, then there are several issues
to raise about the separation of concerns, checks and balances if you
will, in this process as
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 30/07/14 08:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Il giorno 30/lug/2014, alle ore 16:44, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com
mailto:a...@mapbox.com ha scritto:
your lawyers did really say according to their understanding a
pair of coordinates is
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
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
On 7/28/2014 12:07 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
Please review:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline
Alex, you
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 28/lug/2014 um 09:07 schrieb Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:
Our lawyers' advice is captured in the guideline as shared and posted in
this revision:
your lawyers did really say according to their
Il giorno 30/lug/2014, alle ore 16:44, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com ha scritto:
your lawyers did really say according to their understanding a pair of
coordinates is similar to an image or a video, hence a work?
Yeah, there's no definition of 'work' in the ODbL, just a non-exclusive list
Am 27.07.2014 23:52, schrieb Alex Barth:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch
mailto:si...@poole.ch wrote:
If you apply this to your above example, the addresses would be subject
to SA (however no further information), and while potentially one could
On 7/28/2014 12:07 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com
mailto:penor...@mac.com wrote:
Please review:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline
Alex, you mention it was based on what you've
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Again and again we hear, make it easier for people to geocode their
proprietary databases and OSM can only benefit from it because everyone
who saves $$ using OSM somehow magically helps OSM. I'm not convinced
of that.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
Please review: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/
Geocoding_-_Guideline
Alex, you mention it was based on what you've gotten from lawyers. Is
there anything that can be shared, either publicly, or with
Am 28/lug/2014 um 09:07 schrieb Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:
Our lawyers' advice is captured in the guideline as shared and posted in this
revision:
your lawyers did really say according to their understanding a pair of
coordinates is similar to an image or a video, hence a work?
The
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
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Eric Gundersen e...@mapbox.com wrote:
Let's not kid ourselves here. The overwhelming number of commercial OSM
users are not driven by a motivation to help us, but by a motivation to
save money (or perhaps a motivation to escape a monopolist's clutch but
that
Hi,
On 07/28/2014 12:07 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote:
What I'm not clear is if community
guidelines are strong enough to able to change it without touching the
license itself
There's a couple sides to this.
OSMF is limited to distributing the data under ODbL or CC-By-SA as per
the contributor
On 7/28/2014 6:31 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 07/28/2014 12:07 PM, Tadeusz Knapik wrote:
What I'm not clear is if community
guidelines are strong enough to able to change it without touching the
license itself
There's a couple sides to this.
OSMF is limited to distributing the data under
I would like to add my voice to this discussion. I strongly believe that within
the intended spirit of the OSM license, geocoding as defined in this proposal
should _not_ trigger share alike. I also believe that the legal interpretation
proposed has merit, but if legal advice suggests another
I would like to add my voice to this discussion. I strongly believe that
within the intended spirit of the OSM license, geocoding as defined in this
proposal should _not_ trigger share alike. I also believe that the legal
interpretation proposed has merit, but if legal advice suggests another
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
If you apply this to your above example, the addresses would be subject
to SA (however no further information), and while potentially one could
infer that these are likely the addresses of the store locations, no
further
Let's not kid ourselves here. The overwhelming number of commercial OSM
users are not driven by a motivation to help us, but by a motivation to
save money (or perhaps a motivation to escape a monopolist's clutch but
that boils down to the same).
Frederik, saving money is not the point, it's all
On 7/10/2014 7:52 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
Please review:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline
The next step is probably to update this page to represent what there is
consensus on out of the discussions and remove what there isn't
consensus on. Anyone want
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25/07/14 04:38 PM, Jake Wasserman wrote:
I agree that geocoded private data must be allowed to stay
private.
The ODbL goes to great lengths to explain that it only covers publicly
released data.
At a minimum, we need to find a way to say
Hi,
On 07/26/2014 01:38 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote:
The fact that we’re scaring away well-intentioned users is sad.
Let's not kid ourselves here. The overwhelming number of commercial OSM
users are not driven by a motivation to help us, but by a motivation to
save money (or perhaps a motivation
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
Taking a step back, is the above use case not one we'd like to support
without triggering share alike? I'm directing my question to everyone, not
just Paul who's taken the time to review my example above.
Thanks for taking
Am 24/lug/2014 um 23:03 schrieb Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:
In this example, the database powering the geocoder is a derived database.
The geocoding results are produced works, which are then collected into what
forms a derivative database as part of a collective database.
Not following
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
Forward and reverse geocoding existing records is such a huge potential use
case for OSM, helping us drive contributions. At the same time it's _the_
use case of OSM where we collide heads on with the realities and messiness
of
something that should stand up against the letter and
intent of the licence we all signed up to.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Updated-geocoding-community-guideline-proposal-tp5811077p5811521.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list
lat/lon
values of the geocoding process.
Kai
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Updated-geocoding-community-guideline-proposal-tp5811077p5811672.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com
in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Updated-geocoding-community-guideline-proposal-tp5811077p5811673.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https
Hi,
On 07/17/2014 01:25 AM, Kai Krueger wrote:
For forward geocoding, the picture gets a bit more murky though, as the
distinction between what is for human consumption and what is data, and thus
a derived database, is much less clear cut.
Indeed. If we were only talking about the enter your
This is a solid proposal and has my support.
As long as the purpose of a geocoder is geocoding, and not reverse engineering
OSM,
then it sensibly fits within the notions of an ODbL produced work.
What I wonder is how we will move to decision making on the proposal? What's
the OSMF process?
Hi,
On 07/15/2014 01:26 PM, Mikel Maron wrote:
As long as the purpose of a geocoder is geocoding, and not reverse
engineering OSM, then it sensibly fits within the notions of an ODbL produced
work.
What if there are two processes run on a city extract - one is a SELECT
* FROM
On 2014-07-15 4:26 AM, Mikel Maron wrote:
As long as the purpose of a geocoder is geocoding, and not reverse
engineering OSM,
then it sensibly fits within the notions of an ODbL produced work.
A geocoder isn't a produced work or a derived database - it's software.
Do you mean a geocoding
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
On 2014-07-14 11:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
Also if we assume geocoding yields Produced Work the definition of
Substantial doesn't matter.
A database that is based upon the Database, and includes any translation,
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:26:28AM -0700, Mikel Maron wrote:
As long as the purpose of a geocoder is geocoding, and not reverse
engineering OSM,
then it sensibly fits within the notions of an ODbL produced work.
please, read ODbL...
produced work is
“Produced Work” – a work (such as an
2014-07-15 18:01 GMT+02:00 Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk:
btw, cp planet.osm.bz2 planet.png creates a produced work...
LOL
I'd doubt this, because an image is likely not to be read like in disk
image, and not every file with an png extension will be considered an
image...
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Mikel Maron mikel.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a solid proposal and has my support.
+1
This is a great effort to clarify something that causes a lot of
confusion, and does so within the context of the current license. Very
productive!
As long as the purpose
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 06:22:29PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-07-15 18:01 GMT+02:00 Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk:
btw, cp planet.osm.bz2 planet.png creates a produced work...
LOL
I'd doubt this, because an image is likely not to be read like in disk
image, and not
On 11 July 2014 03:52, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
I just updated the Wiki with a proposed community guideline on geocoding.
Please review:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline
The whole point of the share-alike aspect of our licence is to stop
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de
wrote:
Only when you start to use the process to systematically recreate a
database from the process the ODbL kicks in.
This is also how I'm reading
On 2014-07-14 8:15 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
This is also how I'm reading this. Obviously the sticky point is the
definition of what's a database in this sentence: systematically
recreate a database from the process. You
Also if we assume geocoding yields Produced Work the definition of
Substantial doesn't matter.
Taking a step back here. What do we want? From conversations around
dropping share alike my impression was that there was a consensus around
unlocking geocoding - even among share-alike advocates.
Just
On 2014-07-14 11:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
Also if we assume geocoding yields Produced Work the definition of
Substantial doesn't matter.
A database that is based upon the Database, and includes any
translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other
alteration of the Database or
2014-07-14 20:26 GMT+02:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:
Just like how CC-BY-SA created a grey area around the SA implications for
the rendered map which wasn't good for OSM, ODbL does the same with
permanent geocoding. To make OSM viable for geocoding we can't have its
ODbL infecting the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/07/14 06:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
Taking a step back here. What do we want? From conversations
around dropping share alike my impression was that there was a
consensus around unlocking geocoding - even among share-alike
advocates.
Just
On 12.07.2014 00:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Generally what I think about when reading geocoding: you'd take a list of
addresses and use the database to localize (translate) them in geo coordinates. This
seems to fit perfectly to the derivative db description:
“Derivative Database” – Means
A general note on the examples: using Nominatim as the geocoder muddies
the waters a bit too much in my opinion, given that with the default
options nominatim returns far more than just coordinates.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2014, at 07:54 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
That collective database is then generally used to produce works that
are a produced work of the database of geocoding results as part of a
collective database.
Hello Alex,
Alex Barth writes:
I just updated the Wiki with a proposed community guideline on geocoding.
Please review:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline
Thank you for working on these legal guidelines. A task the typical
developer is not keen to
Am 11.07.2014 14:40, schrieb Stephan Knauss:
..
A while ago there was a discussion about the word geocode which seems
to be a trademark in some jurisdictions. So opposed to the general term
geocoding the word geocode might need to be used with care.
Yes, correct, Alex can you please
Hi,
On 07/11/2014 04:41 PM, Michal Palenik wrote:
so wording As Geocodes are a Produced Work, they do not trigger the
share-alike clauses of the ODbL. is totally against section 4.6.
This was something that we often discussed during the license change -
what if somebody uses produced works to
Am 11/lug/2014 um 16:41 schrieb Michal Palenik michal.pale...@freemap.sk:
so wording As Geocodes are a Produced Work, they do not trigger the
share-alike clauses of the ODbL. is totally against section 4.6.
+1
the data contained in produced works remains ruled by ODbL / share alike, this
We're 100% in grey territory on geocoding and you can keep reading the
ODbL in circles.
“Produced Work” – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or
sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents
(via a search or other query) from this Database, a
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
We're 100% in grey territory on geocoding and you can keep reading the
ODbL in circles.
Yes, and thanks a lot Alex for taking the lead in writing up these
guidelines. I think a lot of value in this discussion will come from
well
On Jul 11, 2014, at 04:11 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
What I'm looking for a is a clear interpretation by the community,
supported OSMF, an interpretation that is a permissive reading of the
ODbL on geocoding to unlock use cases.
Guidelines need to be accurate and supported by the
I just updated the Wiki with a proposed community guideline on geocoding.
In a nutshell: geocoding with OSM data yields Produced Work, share alike
does not apply to Produced Work, other ODbL stipulations such as
attribution do apply. The goal is to remove all uncertainties around
geocoding to
On Jul 10, 2014, at 07:54 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
I just updated the Wiki with a proposed community guideline on geocoding.
In a nutshell: geocoding with OSM data yields Produced Work, share alike does
not apply to Produced Work, other ODbL stipulations such as attribution do
85 matches
Mail list logo
