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 <[email protected]> wrote:
sent from a phone
On 15. Nov 2019, at 00:19, stevea <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
