Edward, please use this BBB link: https://osmvideo.cloud68.co/user/gui-ztm-dqh
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:23 AM Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Dec 10, 2020, 18:32 by bainton@gmail.com:
>
> though can't see how to set up Push to Talk
>
> big blue cog => audio input tab
Hi Edward,
OSMF and its working groups have traditionally used the HOT server.
Mumble is not a Web application.
However, we are looking at moving to BBB. A BBB link for this meeting
has not been circulated yet, so please use Mumble for the time being.
Best,
Kathleen
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 9:36
Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 27. Oct 2020, at 22:15, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > Again, not conducting a comprehensive survey here, but if 95% of the
> polygons match OSM polygons, then even
Tom,
I think the description is rather unclear as to what the polygons are made
of. Lars-Daniel's original description made it down like they were OSM
polygons combined with each other, or otherwise simplified of details. A
quick glance at the website seemed to confirm this.
OTOH, his second email
Hi Lars-Daniel,
Even assuming the polygons are from a Derivative Database, I don't see a
reason for the data to be released under
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline
Why would the polygons, which appear to be simply algorithmically
> 1. As far as I can tell from the copyright statement and use cases
> this is a produced work and SIL International, Map Maker, Ltd. And
> worldgeodatasets.com will retain their copyright for their parts of the
> produced work(overall map design, language polygons, admin boundaries and
>
Given that this is a US county agency, I take it they view the data as
public domain. That's a pretty common view for government entities in the
US.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2020, 1:14 PM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> But license is still needed, right?
>
> Or is it OK to interpret "Agency has no
Yes, it's fine. That is simply a disclaimer, not a limitation on use.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 11:14 AM wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been in contact with the Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning
> Agency (SOCPA), an Onondaga County NY agency, about the licensing of a
> building footprint layer they
wrote:
> Thanks: I thought maybe 'others can use your content' meant we could.
>
> I'll keep hunting, but no CC photos of that patch of water that I've found
> so far.
>
> Any problem with linking to it only, in the meantime?
>
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 17:53, Kathleen Lu
No, that's just standard language that says Australia247.info can use the
photo, it says nothing about what OSM wiki or anyone can do. You would need
to get permission from the user. I suggest looking for a CC licensed photo.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:45 PM Edward Bainton
wrote:
> Hi legal
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:30 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> Am Do., 24. Sept. 2020 um 12:05 Uhr schrieb Tom Hughes :
>
>> On 24/09/2020 10:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> > it contains changesets, notes, etc. but not diary posts or changeset
>> > comments (correct me if I’m wrong).
>>
> What I meant by legal assessment is that I would like to know what OSMF's
> layers
> think of this. I would assume that the OSMF has some sort of legal
> department,
> like the people who have drafted some of the fundamental legal documents
> (like
> Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Contributor
>
>
> why not remove “geo-database of the”? If someone added the geo-database,
> maybe they wanted to exclude other databases or parts of the project? Are
> there terms for diary posts? Are diary posts distributed under the ODbL?
>
> Well, updating the Contributor Terms would be an enormous
GITNE,
I don't know what distinction you are drawing between opinion and legal
assessment. I cannot give you legal advice as I am not your lawyer, but my
legal opinion, based on the terms of the Contributor Agreement, is that
changeset comments are part of OSM's geo-database. Note that the terms
Hi GITNE,
Can you also specify what you think the problem is? I get the feeling that
you have an objection to changeset comments being posted in Slack. I'm
assuming such comments appear in the OSMUS slack group which is popular
with mappers. Why do you think this is a bad thing?
(To be clear, I
ost of the digital data and its royalties". This
applies only to digital maps (scanned/vector) purchased from NAMRIA.
If it is not the data itself but rather derived from it, then there are no
restrictions.
-Kathleen
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:57 AM Kathleen Lu via legal-talk
A few thoughts:
I'd want to talk to a Philippine lawyer, because frankly, these two
sentences seem to contradict each other:
*No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the
Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office
wherein the work is created shall
At least in English,
"not reuse the Information in a way that suggests that it is official or
that Licensor approves your use of the Information;
take all reasonable steps to ensure that the uses permitted above do not
mislead others and that the Information itself is not misrepresented."
reads as
My personal take (not official guidance):
Question 1:
If I store calculated results based on OSM data in a database table
(without the actual OSM data itself), such as the number of specific
POIs, travel times, travel distances and so on - the database is then a
collective database, a derivative
I would point you to
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline
in particular the last example.
(Other official guidelines are at
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines - please
note that text at
I don't think you even need to get into
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Metadata_Layers_-_Guideline
or the substantial question.
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline
and
Hi Robin,
Have you had a chance to review the Community Guidelines?
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines
In particular, I would think that the Horizontal Layers Guideline
("Examples of where you DO NOT need to share your non-OpenStreetMap data:
You use OpenStreetMap as
Hi Cj,
Easiest method would be for you to update
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors with this information.
(But please do note the import guidelines if you are thinking about
importing)
Best,
Kathleen
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 5:26 AM Cj Malone wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I recently saw
Dec 19, 2019 at 4:13 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 20. Dec 2019, at 00:16, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > This is not what the Substantial Guideline says. It says that fewer than
&
the guideline is about individual results, not about aggregations, for
> which the share alike provisions persist. From my interpretation this also
> implies that the attribution requirements persist for individual results,
> because otherwise it would not be clear that you cannot aggregate them.
>
> “substantial” does not mean it has to be a certain percentage of the whole
> db, you can see this from the substantial guideline, which has fixed limits
> that are not growing with the db. “substantial” means it’s more than one or
> two features (OpenStreetMap-Foundation has declared they see
it will contain a lot of postcode information from the original
> OpenStreetMap database, in adapted/translated form.
This doesn't seem correct to me. In the final set, each point will only
tell you yes/no whether it was in a particular postcode. That's not very
much info at all.
>
> To create
te:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 16. Dec 2019, at 22:09, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> That's what the guidelines are for!
> We can't cover every possible example because there are too many, but as I
> already said, I
> It is kind of unfortunate, because OSM as far as I am informed, wouldn't
> be interested in the specific dataset (of real estate prices) anyway.
>
> If it's not the type of data that OSM would be interested in, then why
doesn't it fall under the Collective Database Guideline?
the non-OSM data
That's what the guidelines are for!
We can't cover every possible example because there are too many, but as I
already said, I think your usecase is covered by the Geocoding Guideline.
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline
> Why
obviously prefer it if you added the data straight
> back to our database, but you do not have to, *as long as the public can
> easily get a copy of what you have done.* If you do not publicly
> distribute anything, then you do not have to share anything.
>
>
> Às 19:34 de 13/12/2019
Hi Christoph,
I think that there is a premise to your list that I do not quite agree
with. ODbL says:
3.1 Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, the Licensor
grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, terminable (but
only under Section 9) license to Use the Database for
nt body.*
>
>
>- *If a change is made to another free and open license, it is active
>contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation."*
>
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 18:56 Frederik Ramm, wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen
make a
Derivative Database. But Mattias has been very clear that is not what he's
doing. He just wants to display the subparts of a list of points he already
has on a different layer than the other subparts.
-Kathleen
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 12:49 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Kathleen,
>
> On 12
No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data.
There are two reasons.
First, this example is analogous to the FAQ here:
Jurisdiction dependant, but here are two general concepts which I think are
relevant:
As the statute you quoted specifies, when copyright will belong to the
employer, it tends to depend on if the copyrightable work was made within
the scope of the employee's job. (If you're a software programmer,
o the ODbL? I thought, ODbL is a
> generic databank license and not OSM specific.
>
>
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 14. Oktober 2019 um 19:57 Uhr
> *Von:* "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk"
> *An:* "Licensing and other legal discussions." <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org&g
I don't think the analogy is quite right.
The Geocoding Guidelines say:
Geocoding Results can be latitude/longitude pairs (as typical in forward
Geocoding Results), and/or full or partial addresses and/or point of
interest names (as typical in reverse Geocoding Results).
Latitude/longitude pairs
Recall that under the geocoding guidelines, it is not considered a
substantial extra if "only names, addresses, and/or latitude/longitude
information are included in the Geocoding Results," "the collection is not
a systematic attempt to aggregate all or substantially all Primary Features
of a
different data types...
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:33 AM Lars-Daniel Weber
wrote:
> From: "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk"
> > Lars-Daniel already said that they are kept in separate columns and not
> > de-duplicated. There is no requirement that, in order to function as a
Cost is a relevant factor in database protection law, which is one of the
>> rights covered by the licence. First, a database is not protected unless
>> there has been "substantial investment" in its making.
>>
>
>
>
> "substantial investment" is not the same as monetary cost. The human time
>
> Extracting than 100 elements (non repeatable) from the databse accounts
> > for substantial.
>
The licence doesn't say this at all.
The ODbL defines substantial as:
“Substantial” – Means substantial in terms of quantity or quality or a
combination of both. The repeated and systematic
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:16 AM Lars-Daniel Weber
wrote:
> From: "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk"
> > In my view, if you are keeping the two zip codes in different columns
> > and not removing duplicates, then essentially what you have is one
> > property tha
> Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of
> > simplified OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL.
>
> Actually, it's like 40% OSM borders (hard borders, like roads, rivers,
> topography and administrative stuff) and 60% own borders, which don't
> appear
In my view, if you are keeping the two zip codes in different columns and
not removing duplicates, then essentially what you have is one property
that is "OSM ZIP" and one property that is "proprietary ZIP", and they are
two different properties that are not used to improve each other, so it is
a
In my mind, the tile license (CC-BY-SA) sits on top of the database
license, as the license to a produced work by the OSMF. So if what is
extracted is solely what was in the database, then the extraction is not
material that the tile license covered (the tile license cannot actually
change the
Ah, apologies, Jan, I was too hasty in my assessment. If you click on the
CC-BY link, you will see that only the "School District" dataset is CC-BY.
If you do inquire, I would first ask if the dataset you are interested in
is in the public domain, as that is possible under US law, and would be
Hi Jan,
Specifically, here's is an example of the Geographic Boundaries page that
indicates a CC-BY license:
http://data.houstontx.gov/group/geographic-boundaries
On the left side, at the bottom of the list of information. I would surmise
that this applies to all the geographic boundary datasets,
The produced work guideline goes down the slippery slope of trying to
> define a produced work though the intention of the creator. This was
> always a highly questionable approach. Not only because intention in
> general is hard to determine objectively but also because the ODbL does
> not
Agreed, my opinion is that generally a scenery generating program should be
considered a produced work.
It's possible the program reads from a derived database, depending on
whether map features were added, but that *database* could be made
available under ODbL. The program being GPL shouldn't
There is fairly limited case law on what constitutes "substantial
investment" under the database law. Here is an article discussing a couple
of cases where significant investment was rejected, and one where it was
accepted (sadly all in the context of sports, not geodata) -
r the obtaining,
verification or presentation of the contents." (Note that investment in
creating/setting the hours does not count.)
Best,
Kathleen
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 12:34 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 10. Jul 2019, at 18:35, Kat
For a single store I believe the answer is yes, since you're
> extracting un-copyrightable facts. But if there are a significant
> number of stores (as in this case), then the information becomes part
> of a database, which is by default protected by database rights (at
> least in the EU). You
Re the "misleading" license - I do not think that anyone at Tesco who wrote
that to cover the entire website was thinking of how it would specifically
apply to the hours of shops, as opposed to, for example, a phishing site
that attempted to emulate the Tesco site.
The different with the
u
>
> 2019-05-14 8:08 GMT+09:00, Martin Koppenhoefer :
> >
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 14. May 2019, at 00:14, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> If by "Each wikidata people repeat this operation manu
Hi,
If by "Each wikidata people repeat this operation manually." you mean that
each individual Wikipedia editor makes their own decision about whether to
copy the lat/long, and it is not a coordinated or automated effort (not a
"systematic attempt to aggregate" per the Geocoding Guidelines), then
Hello Gian and Sandro,
IMO, from an ODbL it is definitely okay or you to extract URLs and crawl
them, and publish the crawled data (though you'd need to attribute OSM for
the URLs).
But if you are combining OSM URLs with proprietary URLs, and then
publishing both, then there's the question of
57 matches
Mail list logo
