Let me answer from the perspective of the new licence that is in preparation.
My company intends to charge for services using OSM data, not traffic related, but our situations are similar from a legal perspective. We are currently reviewing the new proposed OSM licence in draft form and my company has just commissioned legal advice on this in order to confirm that it is suitable for our business. We will also provide input into the drafting process as necessary. My understanding of the new licence is as follows: The OSM Database will be available on a share-alike by attribution licence. Any 'Derivative Work' created from the OSM Database will also need to be made available for free on a similar 'share-alike by attribution' licence (so for example if you spot a problem in the OSM database and change it internally in your copy of the DB then this is a Derivative Work and as soon as you make services or products using this data available to the public then you have to make the Derivative DB available to the public in a accessible way. If however you create a 'Collective Database' consisting of the unaltered OSM Database and one of more other independent and distinct datasets then you do not have to publish the integrated dataset (but you still do have to publish any changes you make to the OSM component, the 'derivative datasbase') and you have to acknowledge the source of the OSM component. Ok, so you should be able to import the OSM dataset, change it, publish it as share-alike, but you should then be able to merge it with other datasets, possibly containing your traffic data (assuming that this speed data constitutes an 'independent and distinct dataset) and you are set up with the data for your service. Now you can put your paid-for service on top of this. My understanding is that this is entirely ok and you can charge whatever people will pay and put it behind fire-walls and passwords as much as you like. You are charging for the processing and the service, not the data and you are making the OSM component of your data available FOC using a suitable SA licence. It is also my understanding that that any maps or visualisations or analysis generated from this dataset using this new licence can be copyrighted, this means that you can produce software or services to produce beautiful rendering of the OSM data together with other data and you can protect this work and possibly try to sell it. There is a 'but' here, and it is a big but. It is this one; since the same OSM data that you are using is also available to people offering free services and given that the OSM community if very dynamic and clever then you are going to be competing with 'free', so your product/service had better be good enough, if not then you are going to get trampled, or worse just ignored! In summary, I think this licence will be very good for the project for a number of reasons. 1) It gives much stronger protection to the OSM database and ensures that additions are published in a format that will be available and useable by the wider community. 2) It clarifies the rules around combining OSM data with other datasets, some of which have different licence terms. 3) It creates a much clearer situation for people wishing to use OSM data for commercial services. These commercial users should then become strong supporters of the project itself with all sorts of potential benefits to the OSM. I should be more informed by the end of next week when we have had some answers from the lawyer and I should then be able to help bring the new licence to a successful conclusion. Regards, Peter Miller CEO, Ito World Ltd http://www.itoworld.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of legal-talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 27 September 2008 12:00 > To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Spam] legal-talk Digest, Vol 25, Issue 24 > > Send legal-talk mailing list submissions to > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of legal-talk digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM (Iv?n S?nchez Ortega) > 2. Re: [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM (Frederik Ramm) > 3. Re: [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM (Iv?n S?nchez Ortega) > 4. Re: [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM (Frederik Ramm) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:14:49 +0200 > From: Iv?n S?nchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM > To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > El Viernes, 26 de Septiembre de 2008, Julison escribi?: > > Hi all, > > I'm not sure it this list is the correct place to post that question, > but > > there it goes: > > No - the correct list is legal-talk, so please follow up the conversation > there. > > > I'm developing a traffic info service as a layer into OpenStreetMap, > > primarily for Sao Paulo, Brazil.. I'm in a very beginning in that > project. > [...] > > My question is: Can I legally charge a service that it will run over a > > OpenSource (and free) service, if I provide extras info that doesn't > exist > > in OpenStreetMaps? > > Short answer: yes. > > > Long answer: The majority of license-aware OSM users do believe that, as > long > as you keep the information layers separate, the attribution of both > layers > separate, and a normal user can tell apart which is which, putting several > layers together is not considered a derivative work but a collaborative > work, > and the CC-by-sa license does not have to be enforced to turn the other > layers into CC-bt-sa -covered material. > > Even if the CC-by-sa license would ever "contaminate" your traffic and > routing > data, the license does not have the "nc" component, so you'd be able to > charge money (though in the worst case, you'd have to release traffic data > under CC-by-sa after you're charged for it). > > > > (eu lamento que n~ao peguei o meu GPS quando fui para al? - si n~ao, agora > Trindade ficar?a no mapa) > > > Cheers, > -- > ---------------------------------- > Iv?n S?nchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Don't look back, the lemmings are gaining on you. > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 197 bytes > Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. > Url : http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal- > talk/attachments/20080926/23beb2b6/attachment-0001.pgp > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:26:36 +0200 > From: Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM > To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." > <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi, > > Iv?n S?nchez Ortega wrote: > > putting several > > layers together is not considered a derivative work but a collaborative > work, > > "collective" > > Bye > Frederik > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:30:41 +0200 > From: Iv?n S?nchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM > To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > El S?bado, 27 de Septiembre de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribi?: > > Hi, > > > > Iv?n S?nchez Ortega wrote: > > > putting several > > > layers together is not considered a derivative work but a > collaborative > > > work, > > > > "collective" > > /me bangs head against wall repeteadly. > > -- > ---------------------------------- > Iv?n S?nchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > El recuerdo es el ?nico para?so del cual no podemos ser expulsados. > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 197 bytes > Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. > Url : http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal- > talk/attachments/20080926/f628d160/attachment-0001.pgp > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:53:48 +0200 > From: Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM > To: Iv?n S?nchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi, > > Iv?n S?nchez Ortega wrote: > > /me bangs head against wall repeteadly. > > Don't. The Foundation has already budgeted your head for 2009. > > Bye > Frederik > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > > End of legal-talk Digest, Vol 25, Issue 24 > ****************************************** _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
