subject:"\[OSM\-talk\] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets\? ODbL\?"

On Friday 15 November 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > > there isn't OSM data in their dataset.
> >
> > And neither is there is my ocean data set - the OSM data set used
> > only contains land masses, my resulting data set (D2 in Rory's
> > terms) only contains oceans.  So no OSM data in it.
>
> I doubt this cheap trick would pass when contested in a trial.

Well - it is not my cheap trick, it is facebook's cheap trick.  I am 
just following the lead here.  There is no principal difference between 
what facebook does and what my scenario describes.

> > If the question is not "addition or subtraction" consider the
> > following scenario.  You create a data set using some AI and big
> > data process of 'potential restaurants' world wide and create a set
> > intersection between those and the restuarants in OSM would the
> > results be a derivative of OSM data?
>
> yes, if you look at the intersection (data in both sets), it would
> be. If you took only what is not in OSM, I guess it wouldn't (no data
> from OSM contained).

So the set operation chosen (difference or intersection or any other) 
decides on the legal status of the resulting data set?

You are aware that a difference is the same as an intersection with the 
complement, i.e. A \setminus B = A \cap B^c - see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement_(set_theory)

-- 
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?

2019-11-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

Am Fr., 15. Nov. 2019 um 14:21 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann :

> On Friday 15 November 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > there isn't OSM data in their dataset.
>
> And neither is there is my ocean data set - the OSM data set used only
> contains land masses, my resulting data set (D2 in Rory's terms) only
> contains oceans.  So no OSM data in it.
>
>

I doubt this cheap trick would pass when contested in a trial. If you look
at "features" you could argue like this, but everybody knows that a map of
landmass and a map of ocean areas is just the same. It has the same
geometry (or almost), it contains, directly or indirectly, the same
coastline. Your dataset is constructed by transforming the OSM data.

> > The question is not "addition or subtraction", but whether there
> > is data from OSM in the data.
>
> No the question is if when based on the same D1 facebook generates a new
> D2_a using *changed* OSM data the results are *different*.  If that is
> the case D2/D2_a is a derivative of OSM data.
>
>

we seem to be running in circles, IMHO copyright doesn't protect the
absence of certain data.

> If the question is not "addition or subtraction" consider the following
> scenario.  You create a data set using some AI and big data process
> of 'potential restaurants' world wide and create a set intersection
> between those and the restuarants in OSM would the results be a
> derivative of OSM data?

yes, if you look at the intersection (data in both sets), it would be. If
you took only what is not in OSM, I guess it wouldn't (no data from OSM
contained).

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?

2019-11-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

Am Fr., 15. Nov. 2019 um 13:44 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> I understand that training their algorithim ("AI") on Openstreetmap
> data is fine.
>
>

actually this is something I do not understand. What is called "artificial
intelligence" in this context is actually just a statistical method, so the
"intelligence" that results from this can hardly be seen as something
different than a derived database. You transform OSM data into another
state.



>
> How would anyone use the dataset without also combining it with
> Openstreetmap data?
>


this is a different question and not one we have to think about ("how
useful is this data if you don't combine it with OSM?").

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?

On Friday 15 November 2019, Martin Trautmann wrote:
>
> No. Elementary logic does not apply for legal advice.

Thanks for putting it so bluntly - that is indeed an impression i often 
get from discussions on legal matters in the OSM community.  But as 
said that makes this kind of discussion uninteresting for the pursuit 
of gaining better knowledge and understanding of the objective reality.

I don't want to prevent anyone of having discussions under different 
premises and as said from a sociological point of view this is not 
uninteresting.  But my reply to Rory was made with the intention to 
look at the matter with scientific methods.

-- 
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?

2019-11-15 Thread Wayne Emerson, Jr. via talk

/>"I don't understand why it is being claimed that facebook ... is not 
using Openstreetmap data."/
 The original claim was not about facebook "using" OSM data, it was 
that a specific dataset was "derived" from OSM data. To use the cooking 
analogy, a cake is derived from flour, oil, sugar, etc. It is not 
derived from spoons, bowls, pans or flour-sifters. In this case, OSM 
data was used as a sifter to decide which of their data to subtract from 
their data.


/>"I can create a polygon data set of the Earth surface (a simple 
rectangle in EPSG:4326) and subtract an OSM derived data set of the 
Earth land masses from that to get a data set of the oceans."/
 This might make sense in autocad which has cutting operations, but 
makes no sense in OSM. The operation described would require *adding* 
all lines tagged in OSM as "natural=coastline" to your dataset. Facebook 
is not inferring the shape of their streets based on OSM data.


As far as the licensing, it appears to me to only apply to the software 
(RapiD) not the data. But it should be more explicit.

https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook
https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/blob/master/LICENSE.md
The license summary says that it only requires preservation of copyright 
and license notices.


https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/FAQ

The real question should be: When the RapiD software is used to add 
their street data to OSM does it tag the street with copyright and 
license notices?


For the record, I do not like facebook. I have never had a facebook 
account and never will.



On 11/15/2019 8:03 AM, Nuno Caldeira wrote:
Well it's quite obvious to me that for adding or subtracting you need 
OSM data, so I have no doubts. it's like a cook recipe, if you don't 
have use it, you won't get the end result without it, adding or 
subtracting.


On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, 11:41 Christoph Hormann, > wrote:



This realization (of there being no fundamental difference between
subtracting and adding) is - as Rory already explained - not
dependent
on specific details of the ODbL or the law but derives from
elementary
logic.

-- 
Christoph Hormann

http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
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?

2019-11-15 Thread Mikel Maron

I suggest that those that want to continue this discussion do so on the 
legal-talk mailing list. It’s especially for discussing this level of detail of 
license questions.https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/ 

You all are free to ignore my suggestion, it’s not made with any moderation 
authority.

Mikel



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?

2019-11-15 Thread Martin Trautmann

On 19-11-15 12:38, Christoph Hormann wrote:

> Because the basis of most comments made does not seem to be the desire 
> to neutrally assess the situation Rory presents here and its 
> implications.  This would usually go by considering what if Rory is 
> right and data productions like this would be subject to the ODbL as 
> well as the other way round by considering what if Rory is wrong and 
> you could distribute data sets like this under any license you want.

That's probably because it's a legal question.

Everyone has the right for his right opinion. But whether that's right -
in legal terms! -  that can be very difficult to answer.

You can argue from the point of "common sense" or from the engineering
view of logical arguing. But both of it can be irrelevant and just the
opposite of what the letter of the law will be.

And jurists don't have the need to read and reply on this list.

When you ask them whether they want coffee or tea, they will charge you
three digits numbers before giving you an answer.

> I am not really interested in participating in this kind of interest 
> negotiation - because (a) the results do not depend on who has the best 
> arguments but on who can invest the most time and manpower into the 
> discussion and (b) the results would not actually be an objectively 
> better or more accurate understanding of the situation.

So then you should avoid reading topics like this on the list.
You won't be able to prevent that someone will ask questions like this -
although it will require people with legal skills to handle them properly.

However, discussing topics like this outside court room, you may learn
and gain expertise which may help for further discussions.

> From an engineering perspective the idea that adding OSM data can create 
> a derivative database but subtracting OSM data cannot does not hold up 
> of course.  I can create a polygon data set of the Earth surface (a 
> simple rectangle in EPSG:4326) and subtract an OSM derived data set of 
> the Earth land masses from that to get a data set of the oceans.  
> According to the hypothesis this would not be subject to the ODbL.

From the engineering perspective it is obvious, because the exlusive
amount of data obviously ist just a NOT of the given data.

For a legal person it's not the opposite - in fact for him it is the
absolute proof that it is not derived, because exactly nothing of it is
within the data.

Giving you the example from above, from the view of a programming
engineer or mathematician: when you ask them whether they want coffee OR
tea, they might answer YES - because they want either coffee or tea or
they don't mind whether it's coffee or tea or both. So how does this
answer help your question?

So although you and we and they do use the same words, they do not have
the same meaning.

> This realization (of there being no fundamental difference between 
> subtracting and adding) is - as Rory already explained - not dependent 
> on specific details of the ODbL or the law but derives from elementary 
> logic.

No. Elementary logic does not apply for legal advice. You must first
convert the question to proper legal terminology - and then translate
back the answer to terms that we can understand.

Schönen Gruß
Martin

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?

On Friday 15 November 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> > From an engineering perspective the idea that adding OSM data can
> > create a derivative database but subtracting OSM data cannot does
> > not hold up of course.  I can create a polygon data set of the
> > Earth surface (a simple rectangle in EPSG:4326) and subtract an OSM
> > derived data set of the Earth land masses from that to get a data
> > set of the oceans. According to the hypothesis this would not be
> > subject to the ODbL.
>
> You are generalizing in a way that is not suitable.

No, i am not, i am falsifying the hypothesis given by providing an 
example that contradicts the hypothesis.

> [...] IMHO
> there isn't OSM data in their dataset.

And neither is there is my ocean data set - the OSM data set used only 
contains land masses, my resulting data set (D2 in Rory's terms) only 
contains oceans.  So no OSM data in it.

> The question is not "addition or subtraction", but whether there
> is data from OSM in the data.

No the question is if when based on the same D1 facebook generates a new 
D2_a using *changed* OSM data the results are *different*.  If that is 
the case D2/D2_a is a derivative of OSM data.

If the question is not "addition or subtraction" consider the following 
scenario.  You create a data set using some AI and big data process 
of 'potential restaurants' world wide and create a set intersection 
between those and the restuarants in OSM would the results be a 
derivative of OSM data?  This would only differ from facebooks road 
data in calculating an intersection rather than a difference as 
facebook does for the roads.

Needless to say i think that if your answer is that this is not an OSM 
derivative that would be a recipe to de-ODBL-ify any subset of OSM 
data.

-- 
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?

2019-11-15 Thread Nuno Caldeira

Well it's quite obvious to me that for adding or subtracting you need OSM
data, so I have no doubts. it's like a cook recipe, if you don't have use
it, you won't get the end result without it, adding or subtracting.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, 11:41 Christoph Hormann,  wrote:

>
> This realization (of there being no fundamental difference between
> subtracting and adding) is - as Rory already explained - not dependent
> on specific details of the ODbL or the law but derives from elementary
> logic.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> 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?

2019-11-15 Thread Joseph Eisenberg

I don't know anything about the legal aspects, but logically I don't
understand why it is being claimed that facebook releasing a list of
possible roads, which specifically excludes all roads in
Openstreetmap, is not using Openstreetmap data.

I understand that training their algorithim ("AI") on Openstreetmap
data is fine.

But the data that they have released is specifically a list of
features which look like roads on aerial imagery, excluding those
which are already included in the Openstreetmap database, right?

How would anyone use the dataset without also combining it with
Openstreetmap data?

Now if facebook wants to release a dataset of "all things that look
like roads in aerial imagery according to our algorithm (which BTW was
trained on OSM), that's fine.

But they have already gone one step further and then added all
`highway=` features in Openstreetmap to the dataset - in this case by
subtracting those features which are already a very closely aligned to
a `highway` way.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 11/15/19, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> Am Fr., 15. Nov. 2019 um 12:41 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann
> >:
>
>> Because the basis of most comments made does not seem to be the desire
>> to neutrally assess the situation Rory presents here and its
>> implications.
>> What it seems instead happens here is that people look at the situation
>> and develop a spontaneous reaction in terms of "should this be possible
>> or not" and then specifically search for ways to argue in support of
>> this opinion.
>
>
>
> I am exempting myself from this, because I would not like Facebook to be
> able to use OSM data and not follow the license, but I believe they can in
> this case. ;-)
>
>
>
>> From an engineering perspective the idea that adding OSM data can create
>> a derivative database but subtracting OSM data cannot does not hold up
>> of course.  I can create a polygon data set of the Earth surface (a
>> simple rectangle in EPSG:4326) and subtract an OSM derived data set of
>> the Earth land masses from that to get a data set of the oceans.
>> According to the hypothesis this would not be subject to the ODbL.
>>
>
>
> You are generalizing in a way that is not suitable. What was stated was
> that there must be OSM data (in original or derived form) in the data to
> make the license kick in. In the case presented by Rory, IMHO there isn't
> OSM data in their dataset. It will not be possible to deduct any kind of
> OSM data from their dataset. In your example, you clearly have derived OSM
> data in your new dataset, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to get back to
> the original data (or part of it). The question is not "addition or
> subtraction", but whether there is data from OSM in the data.
>
> 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?

2019-11-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

Am Fr., 15. Nov. 2019 um 12:41 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann :

> Because the basis of most comments made does not seem to be the desire
> to neutrally assess the situation Rory presents here and its
> implications.
> What it seems instead happens here is that people look at the situation
> and develop a spontaneous reaction in terms of "should this be possible
> or not" and then specifically search for ways to argue in support of
> this opinion.



I am exempting myself from this, because I would not like Facebook to be
able to use OSM data and not follow the license, but I believe they can in
this case. ;-)



> From an engineering perspective the idea that adding OSM data can create
> a derivative database but subtracting OSM data cannot does not hold up
> of course.  I can create a polygon data set of the Earth surface (a
> simple rectangle in EPSG:4326) and subtract an OSM derived data set of
> the Earth land masses from that to get a data set of the oceans.
> According to the hypothesis this would not be subject to the ODbL.
>


You are generalizing in a way that is not suitable. What was stated was
that there must be OSM data (in original or derived form) in the data to
make the license kick in. In the case presented by Rory, IMHO there isn't
OSM data in their dataset. It will not be possible to deduct any kind of
OSM data from their dataset. In your example, you clearly have derived OSM
data in your new dataset, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to get back to
the original data (or part of it). The question is not "addition or
subtraction", but whether there is data from OSM in the data.

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?


(Deliberately replying to myself since this is not meant as a reply to 
anyone specifically)

If i try for a moment to ignore the fact that this matter has 
significant meaning for the OSM community and its social cohesion (the 
social contract between mappers and data users etc.) this is actually a 
quite interesting sociological experiment.

Because the basis of most comments made does not seem to be the desire 
to neutrally assess the situation Rory presents here and its 
implications.  This would usually go by considering what if Rory is 
right and data productions like this would be subject to the ODbL as 
well as the other way round by considering what if Rory is wrong and 
you could distribute data sets like this under any license you want.

What it seems instead happens here is that people look at the situation 
and develop a spontaneous reaction in terms of "should this be possible 
or not" and then specifically search for ways to argue in support of 
this opinion.  This in my experience is how at least 2/3 of all 
discussions in OSM on legal questions happen meanwhile.  This is very 
non-productive and annoying because it results in what is essentially a 
negotiation between different interests presented in the discussion 
instead of actual knowledge and insight into the matter (Erkenntniss in 
German) as it would result from the scientific approach (i.e. making a 
hypothesis and scrutinizing it with scepticism).

I am not really interested in participating in this kind of interest 
negotiation - because (a) the results do not depend on who has the best 
arguments but on who can invest the most time and manpower into the 
discussion and (b) the results would not actually be an objectively 
better or more accurate understanding of the situation.

From an engineering perspective the idea that adding OSM data can create 
a derivative database but subtracting OSM data cannot does not hold up 
of course.  I can create a polygon data set of the Earth surface (a 
simple rectangle in EPSG:4326) and subtract an OSM derived data set of 
the Earth land masses from that to get a data set of the oceans.  
According to the hypothesis this would not be subject to the ODbL.

This realization (of there being no fundamental difference between 
subtracting and adding) is - as Rory already explained - not dependent 
on specific details of the ODbL or the law but derives from elementary 
logic.

-- 
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?

2019-11-14 Thread Michael Collinson

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?

2019-11-14 Thread Kathleen Lu via talk

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
>

Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?

2019-11-14 Thread Yuri Astrakhan

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?

2019-11-14 Thread Yuri Astrakhan

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?