Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
Matt Amos wrote: > are you suggesting that we change our guideline on what is substantial? I am. Well, not so much "change", more "clarify". "Substantial" in EU Database Directive terms can mean quantitative and/or qualitative. I agree that extracting a "pubs of Britain" dataset and distributing it would be quantitatively substantial, so the ODbL Derivative Database applies. However, in this case, we have a Collective Database made up of these three databases: 1. OSM pubs (Derivative Database) 2. CiderInTheMorning data (presumably proprietary) 3. table mapping OSM ids to CITM ids The third table is _not_ qualitatively substantial, as the OSM<->CITM mapping (done by name and locality matching) does not "represent, in terms of obtaining, verification or presentation, significant investment". Nor is it quantitatively substantial, because it doesn't contain any actual OSM data. Therefore it isn't a Derivative Database. I think this flows clearly from ODBL but that we could do with a brief clarification in our guidelines to reassure people this is ok. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
Matt Amos wrote: > can the SA requirement be satisfied by saying that we consider the > extracted IDs to be an ODbL part of a collective database, where the > proprietary data is the other part? it would require the ODbL part > (i.e: the list of IDs) to be made available, but nothing else. This is my thought also. Frederik Ramm replied: > It would work, but I'm trying to think if this would have adverse side > effects. > > Can this be compared to Google importing all of OSM into MapMaker > and then only making available the OSM part and not anything newly > created? Would that still count as a collective database? If not, then > where is the boundary? The boundary is the ODBL definition (and interpretations thereof): "Collective Database: Means this Database in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent databases in themselves that together are assembled into a collective whole" So you have to decide whether the two databases are independent of each other. Independent cannot mean "no links at all"; we're talking about a single ("collective whole") database here, and databases are meant to have relational queries run on them. Rather, it means "one database was created without extracting Substantial copyrightable[1] content from the other". Think of the dictionary definition: "not determined or influenced by someone or something else". That's clear enough to me, at least. But if you want to work through the two examples using the traditional (-ly flawed ;) ) approach of applying programmers' logic to legalese: a) CiderInTheMorning loads an OSM pub extract (a Derivative Database) into their database. The result is a Collective Database. A new table, pub_to_osm, maps CiderInTheMorning pub ids to OSM node ids. This table is essentially produced by matching the name of the pub and the location. For example, if CiderInTheMorning has an entry for "Rose & Crown, Charlbury", it's trivial to find the OSM ID from that - either by a query or by hand. This trivial linkage does not attract any copyright[1], and is effectively just an artefact of producing a Collective Database. There is therefore no further virality. b) Google adds OSM data for Vietnam to their existing MapMaker project in the country. If the two datasets can be kept independent of each other, then yes, they can claim it's a Collective Database. But as we know, that's impossible. Footpaths have to link to roads. Duplication has to be removed. Roads have to be redrawn so they don't go over shorelines. And so on. This substantial linkage is subject to copyright[1] and therefore the virality 'infects'[2] Google's existing and new user-contributed data. I probably haven't phrased this as clearly as I could, but the key points are to apply ODBL's usual "Substantial" test to the linkage; to remember that "Substantial" is applied qualitatively and quantitatively (usual Waelde reference here); and yes, to publish our interpretation of "Substantial" as a guideline. cheers Richard [1] or neighbouring rights as per usual [2] those who are offended by these words may substitute their preference -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ODbL-%22virality%22-questions-tp25719138p25801874.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Matt Amos wrote: > i think the more useful case to most people will be to use the OSM > data geographically. if i started beerintheOSM i'd want to use OSM for > as much of the geographic data as possible - that's kinda the point of > OSM isn't it? > > so, assuming beerintheOSM has a list of IDs, names and locations of Just to be clear you assume that there are no geodata that isn't in the OSM database? If there is also a non OSM database with lat/lon for pubs then that should be share-alike, but for the stuff that isn't geodata I can't really say I don't agree with Frederik. Using OSM ID will link your database in the same way as linking shared libraries does. Hence making your database share-alike, again the question is what data should be share-alike. /erik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
On 10/8/09, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Matt Amos wrote: >>> Or could we perhaps even specify that anything that doesn't use our >>> geometry is not substantial? A list of all pubs in Madrid would be >>> substantial since it needs geometry; a list of all pubs on the planet >>> would not be substantial. That would neatly cover anyone wanting to use >>> any number of OSM IDs for linking as he would never use the geometry >>> from OSM. >> >> are you suggesting that someone wanting to run beerintheOSM would have >> to have a worldwide scope? it wouldn't even be possible to be >> country-specific because that would give it a geographic scope and >> therefore depend on the geometry? > > I was thinking that if he relies on *our* geometry then he's making a > substantial extract, whereas if he uses some other means to list the > pubs in, say, England and then just references our nodes, that's ok then. does that mean it's not ok to look at the lat/lon to find the list of pubs, but it's ok to look at the name tag? is that still true if i produce a planet derivative which automatically adds is_in tags based on the administrative boundary data - he can use that is_in tag? > In one case he has the data already (name of pub + as much knowledge > about the location as required for his application) and only links to > OSM as an additional source of info. In the other case he is using OSM > to find information in the first place. i think the more useful case to most people will be to use the OSM data geographically. if i started beerintheOSM i'd want to use OSM for as much of the geographic data as possible - that's kinda the point of OSM isn't it? so, assuming beerintheOSM has a list of IDs, names and locations of pubs, let's say extracted by xapi query using the UK bbox, does that mean it would have to release its whole database, or just the OSM-derived parts of that database? cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
Hi, Matt Amos wrote: >> Or could we perhaps even specify that anything that doesn't use our >> geometry is not substantial? A list of all pubs in Madrid would be >> substantial since it needs geometry; a list of all pubs on the planet >> would not be substantial. That would neatly cover anyone wanting to use >> any number of OSM IDs for linking as he would never use the geometry >> from OSM. > > are you suggesting that someone wanting to run beerintheOSM would have > to have a worldwide scope? it wouldn't even be possible to be > country-specific because that would give it a geographic scope and > therefore depend on the geometry? I was thinking that if he relies on *our* geometry then he's making a substantial extract, whereas if he uses some other means to list the pubs in, say, England and then just references our nodes, that's ok then. In one case he has the data already (name of pub + as much knowledge about the location as required for his application) and only links to OSM as an additional source of info. In the other case he is using OSM to find information in the first place. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk