Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
I suggest this is "referencing" and, while it does not mention the word, is covered in the Legal FAQ https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Can_I_use_OSM_data_and_OpenStreetMap-derived_maps_to_verify_my_own_data_without_triggering_share-alike.3F I think I originally wrote this. Perhaps the LWG would consider if there is reasonable consensus and add machine data training as a third example. Here is a thought experiment to test it: 1) If you notice something interesting in Google Streetview or on an in-copyright map and copy it into OpenStreetMap, that is a no-no. But if you go to the location and verify it for yourself, perhaps taking your own photos, that is OK. You have used the third-party resources as a reference. However, you have then done your own original research and based your OpenStreetMap contribution on that. 2) Several years ago, the South African government mapping directorate, (who have been very friendly and cooperative with us), wanted to monitor OSM for changes, perhaps using machine algorithms. They could then send a mapping resources to just those places and remap them. This saves enormous amounts of budget in frequently resurveying the entire country or large parts of it. Was that OK given that not all their re-survey might find its way into open data sets? The LWG at time considered this was OK, because of the referencing principle that, while it "helped/aided/assisted", it did not involve copying/extracting our data. 3) So, I suggest that it is a logical extension that machine data training (and perhaps back testing too?) certainly "helps/aids/assists" but does NOT involve copying our data - then it is referencing rather than deriving. As one early thread responder suggested, this is a grey area. But my strong feeling is that a liberal rather than restrictive interpretation is more helpful to us in growing or map and user base than not. Mike On 2019-11-15 10:29, stevea wrote: I don't know. I've expressed my opinion(s) on the matter, and believe the LWG should chime in with "an" (the?) answer. SteveA California On Nov 14, 2019, at 3:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 15. Nov 2019, at 00:19, stevea wrote: But the "ultimate test" of "can the new work be made without OSM data?" remains a good one, in my opinion, because then, the author can be told, "well, then, go do so, please, otherwise offer us attribution of some sort" (whether legally required, or not). if you distribute a dataset and say: all roads but not those in OpenStreetMap, isn’t this already attribution? The question is whether you’d want to force them to distribute under ODbL rather than MIT (and maybe what the downstream users have to attribute). Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
IMO (not yet stating the official opinion of the LWG since the LWG has not had time convene and discuss), the predicted roads are not a Derivative Database and Facebook can apply whatever license it wants to them (including MIT). It is not a case of “raw data dervived from aerial imagery, plus OSM data”, it is a case of “raw data dervived from aerial imagery, *minus* OSM data”. That makes a key difference, as others have pointed out, the law protects copying or extracting a substantial part of a protected database. Simply using a database does not make something a Derivative Database. (And the ODbL does not prohibit things the law allows.) Christoph mentioned an example from the Horizontal Map Layers Guideline: "You add a non-OpenStreetMap cemetery layer that is defined as 'all cemeteries not found in the OpenStreetMap data layers'." The key context here is *add*, as in, add to an OSM database. In this Facebook example, when Facebook releases its detected roads, those are *not* added to an OSM database. He also mentioned tan example from the Collective Database Guideline which expresses the same sentiment in clearer language: "You have a proprietary list of restaurants for a country. You would like to complement your list with the corresponding data from OpenStreetMap removing any duplicate objects in the process. The resulting, combined database would not be covered by this guideline and you would, if the dataset is publicly used, have to consider that your proprietary data may be subject to the ODbL share-alike terms." The "resulting, combined database" is the one that would not be considered a Collective Database. Nothing in the Guidelines suggests that the *uncombined* data could be a Derivative Database. (As a side note, Martin, the Geocoding Guidelines do *not* say that Geocoding Results are Produced Works: "Individual Geocoding Results are insubstantial database extracts:"... "If Geocoding Results are used to create a new database that contains the whole or a substantial part of the contents of the OSM database, this new database would be considered a Derivative Database") -Kathleen On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:37 PM Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > Stevea, I think this discussion mixes two topics, as Martin pointed out: > * I want to be credited for my work (i.e. you couldn't have done it > without me, just say so) > * I want to control what you do with the results of my work (i.e. you must > not kill baby seals using the map I created) > > The first one is mostly a social construct, and most of the time we are ok > if someone just says "came from OSM" - because then we know others will > want to find out more, and join the project, growing the community, and > essentially giving back to what you believe in. E.g. if i donate $5 to the > grow a tree (Arbor Day) foundation, my money is mostly useless unless you > also donate to them. > > The second is different. It's a legal weapon, something we can use when > our sole existence is at stake. We will have to spend money and time > defending it. When OSM started, some people didn't want Google to benefit > from the volunteer efforts without giving back (see point #1). So they went > into all sorts of legal mambo jumbo to prevent such unholy use. They were > successful - Google hasn't used the data directly. It would be very hard > to say if this did more damage than good to the OSM project itself (rather > than if we used CC0 license), but it has been done. > > Yet, forcing public domain data to be distributed under a more restrictive > license just because we want to be nitpicky about the letter of the license > achieves neither of the above goals. Rather, it scares users away. I > seriously doubt of the validity of this legal theory, but even if it is > correct, it is not in OSMs best interest to pursue such restriction. It > does not gain us anything, and causes a lot of collateral PR damage in the > process. > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 6:29 PM stevea wrote: > >> I don't know. I've expressed my opinion(s) on the matter, and believe >> the LWG should chime in with "an" (the?) answer. >> >> SteveA >> California >> >> > On Nov 14, 2019, at 3:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer < >> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > sent from a phone >> > >> >> On 15. Nov 2019, at 00:19, stevea wrote: >> >> >> >> But the "ultimate test" of "can the new work be made without OSM >> data?" remains a good one, in my opinion, because then, the author can be >> told, "well, then, go do so, please, otherwise offer us attribution of some >> sort" (whether legally required, or not). >> > >> > >> > if you distribute a dataset and say: all roads but not those in >> OpenStreetMap, isn’t this already attribution? The question is whether >> you’d want to force them to distribute under ODbL rather than MIT (and >> maybe what the downstream users have to attribute). >> > >> > Cheers Martin >> >> ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > h
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
Stevea, I think this discussion mixes two topics, as Martin pointed out: * I want to be credited for my work (i.e. you couldn't have done it without me, just say so) * I want to control what you do with the results of my work (i.e. you must not kill baby seals using the map I created) The first one is mostly a social construct, and most of the time we are ok if someone just says "came from OSM" - because then we know others will want to find out more, and join the project, growing the community, and essentially giving back to what you believe in. E.g. if i donate $5 to the grow a tree (Arbor Day) foundation, my money is mostly useless unless you also donate to them. The second is different. It's a legal weapon, something we can use when our sole existence is at stake. We will have to spend money and time defending it. When OSM started, some people didn't want Google to benefit from the volunteer efforts without giving back (see point #1). So they went into all sorts of legal mambo jumbo to prevent such unholy use. They were successful - Google hasn't used the data directly. It would be very hard to say if this did more damage than good to the OSM project itself (rather than if we used CC0 license), but it has been done. Yet, forcing public domain data to be distributed under a more restrictive license just because we want to be nitpicky about the letter of the license achieves neither of the above goals. Rather, it scares users away. I seriously doubt of the validity of this legal theory, but even if it is correct, it is not in OSMs best interest to pursue such restriction. It does not gain us anything, and causes a lot of collateral PR damage in the process. On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 6:29 PM stevea wrote: > I don't know. I've expressed my opinion(s) on the matter, and believe the > LWG should chime in with "an" (the?) answer. > > SteveA > California > > > On Nov 14, 2019, at 3:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > sent from a phone > > > >> On 15. Nov 2019, at 00:19, stevea wrote: > >> > >> But the "ultimate test" of "can the new work be made without OSM data?" > remains a good one, in my opinion, because then, the author can be told, > "well, then, go do so, please, otherwise offer us attribution of some sort" > (whether legally required, or not). > > > > > > if you distribute a dataset and say: all roads but not those in > OpenStreetMap, isn’t this already attribution? The question is whether > you’d want to force them to distribute under ODbL rather than MIT (and > maybe what the downstream users have to attribute). > > > > Cheers Martin > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
I don't know. I've expressed my opinion(s) on the matter, and believe the LWG should chime in with "an" (the?) answer. SteveA California > On Nov 14, 2019, at 3:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > sent from a phone > >> On 15. Nov 2019, at 00:19, stevea wrote: >> >> But the "ultimate test" of "can the new work be made without OSM data?" >> remains a good one, in my opinion, because then, the author can be told, >> "well, then, go do so, please, otherwise offer us attribution of some sort" >> (whether legally required, or not). > > > if you distribute a dataset and say: all roads but not those in > OpenStreetMap, isn’t this already attribution? The question is whether you’d > want to force them to distribute under ODbL rather than MIT (and maybe what > the downstream users have to attribute). > > Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
sent from a phone > On 15. Nov 2019, at 00:19, stevea wrote: > > But the "ultimate test" of "can the new work be made without OSM data?" > remains a good one, in my opinion, because then, the author can be told, > "well, then, go do so, please, otherwise offer us attribution of some sort" > (whether legally required, or not). if you distribute a dataset and say: all roads but not those in OpenStreetMap, isn’t this already attribution? The question is whether you’d want to force them to distribute under ODbL rather than MIT (and maybe what the downstream users have to attribute). Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
Yuri, I appreciate your analogies and making the point about "derived." Yes, we are inspired by architecture we see, if we incorporate a little finial from a public building in our new roof project, do we owe the architecture money, or a nod? There are plenty of examples like this in real life, we all "stand on each other's shoulders" to some extent in everything we do, whether it is a language / culture we share, or identifiable elements that somebody might point to and say "well, clearly, here is a case of 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,' as clearly you were inspired by another work." That happens, I realize, it is part of the human endeavor. I'm making the point (especially as I say "inspiration") that if OSM data "inspire" the new work, it might be derived. It is certainly "inspired," but it might not legally be derived. Once again, I don't know where to draw the legal line, but I do have an opinion that if new works cannot be made without OSM, some attribution should be made to OSM. Maybe legally yes, attribution is required, maybe legally, no, it isn't. But the "ultimate test" of "can the new work be made without OSM data?" remains a good one, in my opinion, because then, the author can be told, "well, then, go do so, please, otherwise offer us attribution of some sort" (whether legally required, or not). These are ultimately questions for the Legal Working Group, however, I do hope they are inspired by the strong feelings and opinions of OSM volunteers about our data / works. SteveA California > On Nov 14, 2019, at 3:09 PM, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > > stevea, I would not be exactly the same person without OSM. Does it mean ODbL > applies to me? A hammer was used to build a house, but the house does not > have hammer's copyright. Just because some data was used in the process does > not necessarily mean that whoever saw that data taints everything they touch > from thereon with ODbL license. In some cases it does, like when portions of > OSM data make it into the final product, but I seriously doubt that if > someone computes average time OSM editors contribute to the OSM project, and > publishes that average, and afterwards someone else publishes how often > someone publishes papers about OSM community, they must use ODbL license... > Even though that last research paper would not be possible without the first > research paper, which would not be possible without OSM data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
even if we would have a right to be quoted for the absent data, IMHO it would be silly to pursue the case. I‘d rather spend the resources on those cases where they are actually using OpenStreetMap data and not sufficiently attributing it. There’s a lot of cases, Facebook being one of them. I also find it strange that the geocoding guideline sees geocoding results as produced works, but then waives the attribution requirement for their use (only the geocoder must attribute, the results seem to be free of any attribution requirements) https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
stevea, I would not be exactly the same person without OSM. Does it mean ODbL applies to me? A hammer was used to build a house, but the house does not have hammer's copyright. Just because some data was used in the process does not necessarily mean that whoever saw that data taints everything they touch from thereon with ODbL license. In some cases it does, like when portions of OSM data make it into the final product, but I seriously doubt that if someone computes average time OSM editors contribute to the OSM project, and publishes that average, and afterwards someone else publishes how often someone publishes papers about OSM community, they must use ODbL license... Even though that last research paper would not be possible without the first research paper, which would not be possible without OSM data. On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 5:53 PM stevea wrote: > While exactly "the data" may not be "in" the derived work, because of the > process of their creation, "their spirit" are in the derived work, as they > were a part of the new data's production. That strongly seems "derived" to > me, whether that "spirit" is inspirational or gives rise to "do include > this, don't include that." These decisions are based upon OSM data, so OSM > is being "derived" to make the new work. > > Again, if the data aren't derived from OSM, please create them exactly the > same withOUT OSM data and "then we shall see" (whether OSM data are > necessary or optional for the new work's duplicate creation). If you can > do that without OSM data, please do so. If you MUST use OSM data (even if > no actual OSM data end up in the final work), then please agree that the > final work is at least partly derived from OSM data. > > This doesn't seem that difficult to do on a verbal level, though again, > I'm not sure of how it holds up legally. > > SteveA > California > > > On Nov 14, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > I guess the law often doesn’t work like common sense. ODbL says it > protects the database or a substantial extract of it. Where’s the data from > OSM in this dataset? > > > > Cheers Martin > > >> On 14. Nov 2019, at 23:25, stevea wrote: > >> > >> But if you DO use that "OSM over-layer," then please: agree with > common sense that those work are derived from OSM, even if they do not > contain OSM data in them. They contain data "helped" by OSM data, so they > are derived (I would argue). > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
While exactly "the data" may not be "in" the derived work, because of the process of their creation, "their spirit" are in the derived work, as they were a part of the new data's production. That strongly seems "derived" to me, whether that "spirit" is inspirational or gives rise to "do include this, don't include that." These decisions are based upon OSM data, so OSM is being "derived" to make the new work. Again, if the data aren't derived from OSM, please create them exactly the same withOUT OSM data and "then we shall see" (whether OSM data are necessary or optional for the new work's duplicate creation). If you can do that without OSM data, please do so. If you MUST use OSM data (even if no actual OSM data end up in the final work), then please agree that the final work is at least partly derived from OSM data. This doesn't seem that difficult to do on a verbal level, though again, I'm not sure of how it holds up legally. SteveA California > On Nov 14, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > I guess the law often doesn’t work like common sense. ODbL says it protects > the database or a substantial extract of it. Where’s the data from OSM in > this dataset? > > Cheers Martin >> On 14. Nov 2019, at 23:25, stevea wrote: >> >> But if you DO use that "OSM over-layer," then please: agree with common >> sense that those work are derived from OSM, even if they do not contain OSM >> data in them. They contain data "helped" by OSM data, so they are derived >> (I would argue). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
sent from a phone > On 14. Nov 2019, at 23:25, stevea wrote: > > But if you DO use that "OSM over-layer," then please: agree with common > sense that those work are derived from OSM, even if they do not contain OSM > data in them. They contain data "helped" by OSM data, so they are derived (I > would argue). I guess the law often doesn’t work like common sense. ODbL says it protects the database or a substantial extract of it. Where’s the data from OSM in this dataset? Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
I'm not an attorney, but I do have an opinion. Just because there "is no data from OSM in the dataset" does not mean they are (or aren't) derived. If OSM data were used in conjunction with its production, I think an argument can be made that those work are derived. The question would be: "can these data be created exactly as they are WITHOUT any OSM data (used as an over-layer, for example)?" If so, OK, then "don't do that" and create them that way and there isn't any question. But if you DO use that "OSM over-layer," then please: agree with common sense that those work are derived from OSM, even if they do not contain OSM data in them. They contain data "helped" by OSM data, so they are derived (I would argue). SteveA California > On Nov 14, 2019, at 2:19 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > I would believe it isn’t a derived work, as there is no data from > OpenStreetMap in the dataset. > > I agree with Mateusz, if they trained their ai with OpenStreetMap data, you > could take the position that every outcome of their blackbox is > OpenStreetMap-derived, but AFAIK it is a gray area. > > > Ciao Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
I would believe it isn’t a derived work, as there is no data from OpenStreetMap in the dataset. I agree with Mateusz, if they trained their ai with OpenStreetMap data, you could take the position that every outcome of their blackbox is OpenStreetMap-derived, but AFAIK it is a gray area. Ciao Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
There seems to be a misunderstanding of the definition of "Derived". In order for something to be considered derived it needs to contain some elements from which it was derived. The end product described by facebook contains no OSM data, therefore it is literally the opposite of a derived product. As far as licensing I can't comment on that. On 11/14/2019 4:50 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 14 Nov 2019, 22:12 by yuriastrak...@gmail.com: Let me get this straight: * I create a dataset from public data sources, e.g a list of roads, and publish it under the Public Domain dedication (i.e. CC0).?? (I agree that MIT is weird here). * Afterwards, I make a subset of my original data by removing any roads I found elsewhere, e.g. in a proprietary source. * And now you are saying that the new _subset_ of my original public domain data is no longer public domain because I removed values that exist??in a proprietary source? Yes, it is a derivative work. (AFAIK) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
14 Nov 2019, 22:12 by yuriastrak...@gmail.com: > Let me get this straight: > > * I create a dataset from public data sources, e.g. a list of roads, and > publish it under the Public Domain dedication (i.e. CC0). (I agree that MIT > is weird here). > * Afterwards, I make a subset of my original data by removing any roads I > found elsewhere, e.g. in a proprietary source. > * And now you are saying that the new _subset_ of my original public domain > data is no longer public domain because I removed values that exist in a > proprietary source? > Yes, it is a derivative work. (AFAIK)___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
Let me get this straight: * I create a dataset from public data sources, e.g. a list of roads, and publish it under the Public Domain dedication (i.e. CC0). (I agree that MIT is weird here). * Afterwards, I make a subset of my original data by removing any roads I found elsewhere, e.g. in a proprietary source. * And now you are saying that the new _subset_ of my original public domain data is no longer public domain because I removed values that exist in a proprietary source? I think this is taking it a bit too far, but IANAL... You are obviously welcome to take it to court, but I think it will be a breach of trust if OSMF would spend donated funds on fighting windmills. If anything, it will stop any serious organization from ever touching anything related to OSM - as they would never know what lawsuits might be brought up against them, thus effectively killing OSM. I feel there are some members of OSM community that ideologically opposed to Facebook in general. I can understand that position, but I don't think it should affect our judgement of the actual contribution, which only makes our data better. The last thing we would want is for OSM to become a legal minefield. On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:47 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > 14 Nov 2019, 21:38 by r...@technomancy.org: > > Facebook provide download dumps of their machine detected roads on a > country by country basis > > IANAL, but as far as i know you are > 100% right. > > Also, is their road detection powered > by already mapped OSM roads? > In such case it would be ODBL even > before substraction of what is in OSM. > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
On Thursday 14 November 2019, Rory McCann wrote: > > That webpage says the data is MIT licenced (_data_ under MIT is odd, > but whatever). The files are zipfiles with a licence file also saying > MIT. The description is “Country exports contain only the AI > predicted roads that are missing from OpenStreetMap”. That makes me > think this data is a dervived database of OSM, and hence should be > ODbL. I think you are correct - and the OSMF seems to share this position - see the last example of "you DO need to share" on https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline and the last example on https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Collective_Database_Guideline_Guideline > A Facebook employee, long time OSMer, and fellow candidate for the > OSMF board, answered the same way³. While OSMF board candidates are of course in principle free to state their opinion on any forum of their choosing candidates should realize that doing so on a venue that requires community members to disclose personal data to a third party corporation to be able to participate or even to access the record of such communication is a very strong political statement. Given that only one of this year's board candidates openly states to be working for facebook on their OSM user page - am i right to assume that the person you are talking about is Michal Migurski? -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
14 Nov 2019, 21:38 by r...@technomancy.org: > Facebook provide download dumps of their machine detected roads on a > country by country basis IANAL, but as far as i know you are 100% right. Also, is their road detection powered by already mapped OSM roads? In such case it would be ODBL even before substraction of what is in OSM.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
Hello all, Facebook provide download dumps of their machine detected roads on a country by country basis¹. It's great to see direct access to this data, allowing us to look at that data without having to use a raw API. Well done Facebook. That webpage says the data is MIT licenced (_data_ under MIT is odd, but whatever). The files are zipfiles with a licence file also saying MIT. The description is “Country exports contain only the AI predicted roads that are missing from OpenStreetMap”. That makes me think this data is a dervived database of OSM, and hence should be ODbL. If Facebook (or anyone) generate a road dataset, which we'll call D1, from running their machine learning/neural network programme on aerial imagery, and then removes roads from D1 which are in OSM, creating dataset D2, then surely D2 is a “derived database” of OSM, and hence ODbL requires D2 to also be ODbL, right? OSM data was used in the creation of D2. To me D1 is “raw data derived from aerial imagery”, but D2 is “raw data dervived from aerial imagery, plus OSM data”? I asked if it should be ODbL, and Facebook reported that their legal team believe MIT is correct². We are extracting the data from Maxar satellite images (you can learn about all the details from our publications) and our legal team believes this is the correct license. I am not planning to comment on the legal issues further; thank you for your curiosity. A Facebook employee, long time OSMer, and fellow candidate for the OSMF board, answered the same way³. Good question Rory. That data is not derived from OSM. It’s just the raw road geometry inferences from aerial imagery. The history of Facebook & OSM hasn't been 100% smooth sailing, and it would be unfortunate if Facebook were to not obey the share-alike aspect of our licence. I think we all agree that if FB released it under ODbL, then everyone would be happy, and I urge them to do that. Or am I missing something? Someone with more legal or licence knowledge please correct me (or confirm I'm right)! Rory ¹ https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Available-Countries ² https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/issues/7 ³ https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CK3BZ8FC0/p1573224740019300 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] bridging chatrooms
enabling IRC to telegram posts would likely also attract spammers, we have had some few spam incidents on OSM Telegram groups, but with an IRC bridge it may increase a lot... Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] bridging chatrooms
Hi, In the run-up to SotM there were some (justified) complaints that the chatroom for the event was only available using Telegram. I'm not interested in a discussion about whether this is no issue at all or rather a Big Issue. I'd rather just fix the issue, without forcing anyone to change. It should be relatively easy to bridge Telegram to IRC. But it seems to require a tool installed on a server. Is there anyone who has experience with this? And especially: is willing to host it somewhere? I have a similar issue with a room I've set up in Matrix. It bridges perfectly to IRC, but the bridge to Telegram hosted by tchncs.de keeps failing. Does anyone here know how to fix such issues? I think it might be an interesting solution to have an OSMF hosted Matrix server and use that as a central hub to bridge several chat systems to each other. It is also annoying that discussion on some platforms can only be accessed if you have an account for that platform. On some platforms, the person who started the channel, can just delete all messages. And of course there's also the risk that the platform operator disappears or starts charging for access to history. So a next step would be to start archiving conversations in a searchable way. Maybe something like CSV, maybe just using (for example) an OSMF hosted Matrix server. This could then maybe be linked to OSM accounts. Semi-public archiving would need to be opt-in, since people often consider chat a fleeting medium which they would prefer not to be quoted on. -- Joost Schouppe ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
