Hello Christoph,
On 09/23/2020 at 01:27 PM Christoph Hormann wrote:
On Wednesday 23 September 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
GITNE's point was not about changeset data, it was about changeset
discussions. I agree there is no doubt that changesets are part of
the geodatabase (at least for me), but for changeset comments it
seems the situation isn't so clear, it could be seen as an edge case
(either way could be defended by arguments), athough I agree that
through linking it to the changeset_id it is within the geodatabase.
I see - yes, that is slightly different in nature - though i think all
of the arguments i gave in principle still apply (including in
particular that the OSMF publishes the changeset discussions under ODbL
as well).
Thank you for sharing your point of view, or interpretation of the Contributor
Terms.
The main difference i think is that contributions to changeset
discussions have a higher likeliness to in themselves be subject to
copyright (and not just database protection).
Right, this is what I am concerned about too. Because this goes beyond changeset
discussions. It applies to map notes and blog posts too. And personally, imho
there are good reasons to not license other types of contributions than map data
contributions under the ODbL. For example, take citations or excerpts from
scientific works, patents, or government documents in comments, notes, or blog
posts. Sure, contributors are primarily responsible for lawfully publishing
content on the OSM website/service but on the other hand the OSMF has to protect
itself too. The OSMF should not automatically “re-license” content it has no
direct control over or knowledge of. Map content is far more limited in scope
than free-form text, so it is fair and relatively easier to express and enforce
the ODbL on this type of content.
So, to sum things up, imho there are two ends of the story to this issue. One
end of the story is that OSMF's non-geo-database content “acquisition” does not
seem be covered by any contributor agreement (this the end you disagree with me
over). The other end is that non-geo-database content cannot be simply
re-licensed by the OSMF to ODbL terms. In other words, the question is what
license terms apply to consumers of non-geo-database content? Furthermore, is
the ODbL simply by its nature even applicable to non-geo-database (or
non-database per se) content at all?
Regards
GITNE
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
