Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding
Frederik Ramm writes: geocoding results seem like a produced work to me. I believe that I am decorating other open data with the results of a geocoder that contains sufficient art to make it not derived, but produced. Our usual definition of produced work doesn't look at how much art there is, but whether something is a database. If a printed map is a database (refer to Landgericht München I, 21 O 14294/00) and we treat it as a produced work, why can't another database not be a produced work as well? For example a database used for routing or a database used for (reverse)geocoding. ODBL defines it as: “Produced Work” – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database. It gives examples of works, but IMHO does not limit it to such. So if you produce a database by using the whole or a substantial part of the contents then you have a produced work. If you copy extensive listings of job offers from a newspaper you did not violate database rights (München 6 U 2812/00). If you copy the music charts listing, you did (München 29 U 4008/02). The nuances of when something is a database and when not is much different in a legal sense than what the typical technician would assume. I'm out from this legal discussion. And I recommend all not having any degree of legals and experience with database right also not to participate in this discussion any more. It's all opinions. But for legal discussions opinions don't count much (maybe unless you are the judge). Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY - ODbL negotiators?
Hello Steve, On 30.08.2015 17:14, Steve Bennett wrote: I wonder if there are any expert licence negotiators here who might be able to get involved in the discussion. I'm no such expert, but they just require attribution. Did they state any specific way of doing so? If not, then maybe just mentioning in the wiki is fine for them? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM based GPS navigations and ODbl license of OSM data
Hi, On 07.01.2015 16:30, Henning Hollburg wrote: http://stevecoast.com/2014/05/19/why-openstreetmap-is-now-navigation-ready-for-people-like-you/ Doesn't this mean that this data has to be published according to the ODbL? If not, why? As having all those databases being released might be good for the people wanting the data, it brings no benefit to OSM. The purpose of ODbL is to keep data open. That's great. My opinion is: For OSM the thing most contributors favoring a share alike license model really want is a a clause which forces data consumers to grant a license to OSMF to incorporate modified/exended data back into OSM database. ODbL does not contain such a merge clause. We could start merging 3rd party ODbL into OSM. But then have a hard time to fulfill attribution requirements. And an even harder time to get rid of the data in case of another license change in the future. We need all contributors to agree to the contributor terms, granting a license to the OSMF to re-distribute the data. Maybe we can change the license one more time to an OSM-ODbL. Not only requiring to release data as ODbL but also granting OSMF the same rights as in contributor terms. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM based GPS navigations and ODbl license of OSM data
Hi Paul, On 08.01.2015 10:31, Paul Norman wrote: On 1/7/2015 7:21 PM, Stephan Knauss wrote: And an even harder time to get rid of the data in case of another license change in the future. See http://osmfoundation.org/wiki/License#Can_third-party_ODbL-licenses_data_be_imported.3F. It works like any other imported data. that's exactly the point. ODbL is not a suitable license for data being imported into OSM. Date being inserted under the contributor terms come with much more freedom to be used by OSMF (and the membership deciding about the open license used) with respect to the license chosen for distribution. So what happens is that a user enters data to OSM (with CT agreed), then data is distributed as ODbL by OSMF. Then extended by 3rd party. That extended data i now less free to use from an OSM point of view. For OSM it would be much more convenient when the license says You are allowed to use the OSM data, but when you change it you give OSM the right to merge back your changes if they want to. Probably we should adjust the license one more time before too much incompatible data is being imported. And I'm asking for stricter regulations considering imports. Data not compatible with future license changes must not be imported at all. Other mappers are building their changes on a weak foundation. Maybe time to open a new thread as we're moving away from the original point of satnav data being released to a generic discussion. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Skybox for Good imagery
Hello, On 22.11.2014 18:19, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 11/21/2014 09:08 PM, Josh Livni wrote: We know that some of this imagery can be especially useful in Crisis Response situations, and therefore we are explicitly authorizing usage of Skybox for Good imagery in any current HOT Activation http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/HOT_activation, under the condition that changesets and/or features that are derived from Skybox for Good imagery and committed to OSM are attributed to Skybox. This could, for example, include the method of attributing Skybox as the source, or a similar method deemed appropriate by HOT. This probably calls for two things: 1. We will need a complete catalogue of HOT activations with exact time when they start and end and polygon for which the activation is valid, because any data that has a Skybox attribution and falls outside these spatio-temporal limits has to be removed. I think it's very kind of Skybox to allow us to use their imagery to improve OSM and do some good. To make things not more complicated than they need to be: Could Google/Skybox provide a specific URL for each imagery set and give permission to use this imagery indefinitely as the original intent was for a HOT activation and assuming we credit the source in the changeset accordingly? Sounds a lot easier than having to implement bounding polygon checks and correlate this with date and time. I don't know details of how you provide the data, but according to this page it's geotiff files. https://mapsengine.google.com/00979750194450688595-08887688179650036554-4/mapview/?authuser=0 That file would be either opened directly in JOSM using a plugin or served by HOT/3rd party as tiled bitmaps. Is this something you could consider making the usage of the imagery easier from a legal point of view? Thank you, Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On 12.07.2014 00:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Generally what I think about when reading geocoding: you'd take a list of addresses and use the database to localize (translate) them in geo coordinates. This seems to fit perfectly to the derivative db description: “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new Database. - See more at: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/#sthash.l1YXFGoW.dpuf So based on this interpretation you could do geocoding without any requirements (in terms of attribution or share-alike) as long as it is insubstantial. As a single geocode run returns only one, maybe a hand full of locations it's certainly insubstantial. So can be freely used. Only when you start to use the process to systematically recreate a database from the process the ODbL kicks in. Refer: 6.2 This License does not affect any rights of lawful users to Extract and Re-utilise insubstantial parts of the Contents, evaluated quantitatively or qualitatively, for any purposes whatsoever, including creating a Derivative Database (subject to other rights over the Contents, see Section 2.4). The repeated and systematic Extraction or Re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the Contents may however amount to the Extraction or Re-utilisation of a Substantial part of the Contents. - See more at: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1-0/#sthash.zN2GeAfp.ZYQaM1VQ.dpuf Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
Hello Alex, Alex Barth writes: I just updated the Wiki with a proposed community guideline on geocoding. Please review: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline Thank you for working on these legal guidelines. A task the typical developer is not keen to work on. A while ago there was a discussion about the word geocode which seems to be a trademark in some jurisdictions. So opposed to the general term geocoding the word geocode might need to be used with care. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Geocode_Trademark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocoding The document itself describes nicely what use creates a produces work and what a derived database. Is it correct that from a legal point of view the ODbL already protects people from circumventing the share-alike by recreating the database from multiple produced works? I think it did. Still it might be worth mentioning in the guidelines that a large scale geocoding with the purpose to recreate a substantial part of the original database is no longer a produced work but a derived database and triggers ODbL share-alike. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] attribution=Permission NOT granted for reuse
On 23.06.2014 09:02, Andreas Goss wrote: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/3Qw likely unintended upload. Should be reverted. Did you contact the user already? note=This data has been extracted from a Western Power database and should not be uploaded to the OSM database. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Review of IndianaMap as potential datasource
If the data is creative commons we can't use it. We can't neither fulfill the attribution nor is it compatible with the contributor terms which allows changing the license. Stephan On April 19, 2014 5:19:54 PM CEST, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Well no, Mike, I don't think so. What rights a publisher grants to Wikipedia has nothing to do with what rights a publisher grants to OpenStreetMap. Wikipedia has no ownership interest in OpenStreetMap, nor vice-versa. If wikipedia is granted rights, it is not exclusive, if the data is under a public domain or creative commons then osm can use it. There is no data on wikipedia except fair use pictures that cannot be used in osm. mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements
On 13.01.2014 18:06, Frederik Ramm wrote: Jonathan, On 13.01.2014 13:17, Jonathan Harley wrote: What would happen if every data source started mandating that our attribution must be in the corner? The thing is that for us, for OpenStreetMap, the attribution is our main remuneration. We give our data away for free but in return, we expect to get at least a little bit of exposure, a little help in building our brand to borrow some marketing speak. Our own legal FAQ published at http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License says: In other words, you should expect to credit OpenStreetMap in the same way and with the same prominence as would be expected by any other map supplier. I'm reading it as it's fine to put OSM credits on a credits page if all credits are there. As long as other map suppliers like Google and Bing are happy by being only credited on a separate page, we're happy as well to be on the same page. What's not OK would be showing the Google credits in the corner and hide OSM somewhere behind a link. If this is not what this paragraph intended to state, please write it in a way which is easier to understand by non native speakers. As there is a similar looking page in out wiki which is linked from the very prominently placed copyright link on the main page it might be a good idea to revise that page or replace it completely by the (at least I assume) more authoritative page of the OSMF. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ I have placed a warning on that page and refer to the OSMF. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements
On 13.01.2014 23:41, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 13.01.2014 22:52, Stephan Knauss wrote: As long as other map suppliers like Google and Bing are happy by being only credited on a separate page, Are they? No idea. Do their terms allow to use the tiles directly without using their own JS-API which enforces the attribution in the corner? BTW: Someone mentioned Mapbox: Mapbox does not display attribution but Terms Feedback. At least if you follow their introduction on how to show a simple map. No word about attribution. https://www.mapbox.com/mapbox.js/example/v1.0.0/ a click leads to a copyright page mentioning OSM, no link to us but to ODbL. https://www.mapbox.com/about/maps/ Showcase of Mapbox shows some of their customers. Foursquare: No attribution. A click away they mention OSM but not ODbL Pinterest: can't say without sign up, but based on screenshot attribution is About this map Hipmunk: no attribution. Clearly uses OSM data So having a correct attribution seems to be a quite hard task, even for a company so closely related to OSM as mapbox is. Probably they also did not read the legal page which recommends: If you are producing library code that offers OpenStreetMap data or tiles, you should make sure library users are aware of these terms. We strongly recommend that you display this credit by default when your library is used. ;) Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] About CC-4.0 and ODbl
On 01.10.2013 06:28, Pekka Sarkola wrote: Questions: Is CC-BY-4.0 compatible with OSM current license (ODbl)? If data is released under CC-BY-4.0: can we import it to OSM? To my understanding not even ODbL would be suitable for import into OSM. To be suitable for OSM it must conform with the contributor terms which allow a future license change. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
Hello Kate, On 29.08.2013 02:24, Kate Chapman wrote: For OSM to be on the safe side: Would it be possible to document the permissions you have for tracing in a clearly understandable way in the wiki? The current license text leaves a bit of uncertainty what a derived imagery product is. I can document in the wiki my understanding of it. The legal interpretation of the US government by their own lawyers that the initial use of the derived vectors need to be for humanitarian use, after that it is fine to remain under the ODbL license in OSM. The reason for this is the US Government-wide license for commercial satellite imagery is not supposed to cut into potential commercial sales of that imagery. So it would not be possible to release that imagery for what would be initially a commercial use. So why not simply add a clause saying Imagery is used by the members of the HOT for providing humanitarian aid as expressed in our policy. Derived data will be stored in the Openstretmap database in accordance with the contributor terms and is available under the ODbL also after end of the humanitarian project. The NextView license is the US Government-wide license utilized for commercial satellite imagery. It is not going to be possible to add a clause to it. I appreciate your work for HOT and like the idea that OSM data is used to really improve the situation of people. However, reading this it sounds to me we (as OSM) fully rely on the legal interpretation of USG lawyers of what use of derived vectors is allowed. What happens if a year after providing the imagery they realize that there are companies selling processed data based on OSM and this data is based on imagery released for HOT. What happens if they suddenly decide that this use is not covered as it's neither humanitarian nor non-commercial? Would we have to revert large scale of date and all additions built on top of it? I'm much in favor of having the data donor fully understand of what are the consequences of their donation. So they can agree to that and not feel tricked into something later. And the OSM community can build their improvements on a solid foundation. So if it's not possible to add anything to the NextView license: Can we have a letter from them confirming they fully understand what will happen with the data in OSM and they still consider it being OK and covered by their license? Should be not problem at all if they understood it in the beginning... If they have issues about handing out a letter confirming commercial use of OSM data derived from their imagery being fine then we can't accept their imagery either. I understand that you probably interpret the license in favor for HOT, but if this is tainting the data in OSM we have to find a different solution for HOT - wost case keeping this data separate. To make it fully clear: I'm not talking about the imagery. I'm talking about the vector data derived from the imagery. It is absolutely fine if the imagery is only available to members of the HOT and they use it only for the humanitarian case for which they had been provided, after completion of the job the imagery can be removed again. But the vector data has to be available for OSM under the regulations of our contributor terms. Meaning available as ODbL or any other license we might switch to in the future. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
Hi,
i think Richard points to the right direction.
Richard Weait writes:
Were any potential data donor, or imagery donor in this case, able to
state, I grant use of {dataset} to OpenStreetMap contributors for use
under the terms of the OpenStreetMap License and Contributor Terms,
well that might be a useful shortcut.
i understand that often imagery is handed out in the context of
humanitarian aid and should only be used in this context.
For OSM to be on the safe side: Would it be possible to document the
permissions you have for tracing in a clearly understandable way in the
wiki? The current license text leaves a bit of uncertainty what a derived
imagery product is.
So why not simply add a clause saying Imagery is used by the members of
the HOT for providing humanitarian aid as expressed in our policy. Derived
data will be stored in the Openstretmap database in accordance with the
contributor terms and is available under the ODbL also after end of the
humanitarian project.
That way it's clear to OSM contributors as well as to data donors what is
going to happen.
if an imagery provider would not like the above sentence He wouldn't like
the current situation either and might cause trouble later. So it wouldn't
change anything and add more clarity to the process.
Stephan
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed
On 26.08.2013 00:14, Paul Norman wrote: I worry: OSM data can be used for any purpose, including commercial ones. The license above explicitly forbids commercial gain: At no time should this imagery or LIDP be used for other than USG-related purposes and must not be used for commercial gain. Will it harm OSM if we have larger scale data from this source included in the database? Without a link to the full license it's impossible to interpret, but if a LIDP was something like a reprojection or other transform of the imagery, it would not necessarily be an issue. Not understanding what the definition of LIDP is makes it so difficult for me to understand the license. Martin replied earlier and he did interpret it as not suitable for OSM. Can you provide the full license so that we can see what the classify tracings as? Unfortunately that was all license text available. It comes from HOT context. I noticed that a lot of imagery and data available for that humanitarian context comes with a clear non-commercial clause. I worry this is tainting the database. Do the data donors know that data stays in the OSM database even after the humanitarian incident is resolved and can (and will) be used for commercial purposes? Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed
Hello, I need some help in understanding a license for using imagery. Is a license called NextView compatible with OSM contributor terms (and ODbL)? My understanding of Literal Imagery Derived Products is that this is the vector data we create by tracing from imagery. I'm a bit uncertain about the exact meaning. I'm no native speaker and have problems translating the word literal in combination with Imagery. The license text says: “This data is licensed for use by the US Government (USG) under the NextView (NV) license and copyrighted by Digital Globe or GeoEye. The NV license allows the USG to share the imagery and Literal Imagery Derived Products (LIDP) with entities outside the USG when that entity is working directly with the USG, for the USG, or in a manner that is directly beneficial to the USG. The party receiving the data can only use the imagery or LIDP for the original purpose or only as otherwise agreed to by the USG. The party receiving the data cannot share the imagery or LIDP with a third party without express permission from the USG. At no time should this imagery or LIDP be used for other than USG-related purposes and must not be used for commercial gain. The copyright information should be maintained at all times. Your acceptance of these license terms is implied by your use.” Later it's suggested: In other words, you may only use NextView imagery linked from this site for digitizing OpenStreetMap data for humanitarian purposes. I worry: OSM data can be used for any purpose, including commercial ones. The license above explicitly forbids commercial gain: At no time should this imagery or LIDP be used for other than USG-related purposes and must not be used for commercial gain. Will it harm OSM if we have larger scale data from this source included in the database? Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [GIS-Kosova] OSM road network for Kosova
Hello Bekim, Bekim Kajtazi writes: In relation to the Legit, yes, your not the first one to raise this question. I would be happy if you or someone within OSM community can provide an example of Legit or Not Legit topo map as a source, if not for this case then at least for the future. Most topo maps are NOT suitable as a source for the use in OpenStreetMap. Not even when drawing (copying) the geometry by hand. An exception would be if we have permission from the copyright holder to do so (then document it!) or the map is out of copyright. This period differs, but as a rule of thumb you could assume something between 50 and 100 years depending on your legislation. More details in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Out-of-copyright_maps which also lists other potential datasources: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potential_Datasources Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Wiki fotos with Unkunown license
On 28.09.2012 10:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: What does Unknown license mean for fotos in the wiki? Isn't there a requirement for them to be at least available under cc-by-sa? An example is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Ballroom.jpg Google image search found this picture for sale on this stock photo agency: http://www.inmagine.com/crb273/crb273017-photo I suggest to try contacting the wiki-user who uploaded the picture to clarify the license and remove the picture completely if we don't get an appropriate answer in time. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] importing ODBl data
Mike Dupont writes: On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote: This is a good reason to have contributor terms. the contributor terms introduce more problems, like the fact that it prevents anyone from importing any derived works. lets say i download the new cc-by-sa+odbl database make changes and publish them, then you want to import them back, you cannot because I did not agree to the terms. That's the price you have to pay for your peace of mind to be sure to have clean data in your database with the current license and any future. Apache Foundation has the same problem. They can only bring back data with a signed contributor paper. so the sharealike just fails when you introduce cts with a copyright assignment, in my opinion, or am I missing something? Sharealike is for people who use OSM data. It prevents from 3rd party taking the data and turn it into proprietary stuff. Basically the CTs prevent any other compatible OSM servers to share data with osm, it creates an island of data with no way to share with anyone except via usage. From OSM to 3rd party is fine, the way back is IMHO not possible with the current contributor terms. Problems would start once we change the license again. So modifying the CTs to exclude the or any other license clause might improve the situation. But we could never upgrade the license. Also sounds like a bad idea given the experience gained with the switch to ODbL. We do not want to have a redaction bot 3.0. OSM contributors must grant OSMF all rights to use and redistribute the data, might be called in German uneingeschränktes Nutzungsrecht ~ nonexclusive, unlimited right of use. The current terms use some different words but it sounds exactly like this. I see no point where you are required to give away your copyright. In German law this is not possible at all and OSMF explicitly states non-exclusive. So you keep all the rights of your data. You can't withdraw your permission in the future if you dislike the OSMF way. This protects the future of the project but it costs you some interoperability. Only original copyright holder can pass the needed rights to OSMF and thus only these can contribute. It sounds like a good way to prevent from white-washing tainted data by passing through a 3rd party. If an import can't give the usage rights I think we should not import this data. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal status of LoroDev source code
Hello, On 31.05.2012 21:55, follo...@silentsoftware.co.uk wrote: The GPL licence is not compatible with CPL 2.0 licence agreement*, thus legally the LoroDux developers, and thus OpenStreetMap have no right to use or distribute my part of the modified code in any form. Thank you for granting rights to that LoroDux project. Just want to mention that just being listed on our wiki does not mean the software was created or approved by OpenStreetMap or OSMF. Looks like this project was able to convince the lost owners to supply a mailing list. Still it is just one of many projects using OSM data. Actually OpenStreetMap provides open data that anyone can use according to (currently) CC-BY-SA and create applications with it, even commercial. The wiki mentions Lulu Ann as author of LoroDux. Would be a good idea to contact her directly at her published mail: Lulu-Ann at gmx.de Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] remapping with anonymous public trace
On 01.12.2011 07:50, maning sambale wrote: removed as well. Given the above assumptions, is OK to re-map using anonymous traces? Just for clarification: You talk about GPS traces, right? I would say it's perfectly OK to use them. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
Hi, On 09.08.2011 22:43, 80n wrote: Expecting the crowd to go and re-map stuff wholesale, for somebody else's benefit is just absurd, it's never going to happen. You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not someone else's benefit, but a benefit for the whole community. The data is not simply replaced, but mostly improved by having more high-resolution imagery available. You can read the whole success story in the forum. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Hi, John Smith writes: On 4 July 2011 22:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO the node position is never a derived work when it is updated. So for the case of the untagged node (if isolated an not part of a way, i.e. unlikely) we could keep the whole object. The position of nodes are often derived from the position of other nodes. so assume the nodes are part of a way that is not available under new CTs. The mapper who agreed did not only move part of the nodes replacing their information with new one and confirming the existence. He also adds new nodes in the middle of the way to have it look eg more smooth. You suggest, that because the way is not clearly licensed all nodes of that way have to be deleted, ignoring the individual license state of the nodes because they could be derived? I'm not a lawyer but as this is legal talk I'm sure someone can explain why this is the case. I always thought that to claim a copyright you need some minimum threshold of originality. OSM is a project about data collecting not about art. I have serious doubts that the individual painting of the shape of a road is high enough to claim a copyright. So why should a single node do? From the original created node is nothing left but an automatically generated id for which only the server could claim a copyright for the high creative effort of generating the id. The way containing the nodes is replaced by a new way (different shape) that is licensed as CC-BY-SA as it is a derived work. Only the shape was modified. The original author could still hold parts of copyrights (if they exist). But back to the question: what about the nodes? Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 05.06.2011 02:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: means for them. I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just holding out until the last minute; and I know there are some who simply wanted to delay their decision until later. These have actively declined the license. What about all these mappers who can't be reached any more? Anonymous edits (uid=0)? I have some recent statistic of a comparably small community. For Thailand currently 31% of all contributors (that are still visible in the planet as last author) have not responded. Of these 162 mappers a quite large number of 41 (25%) has not contributed over the past two years. Quite likely they won't respond to the email ever. These edits sum up to 2,18 percent of the total nodes. I have the feeling that remapping this data has a lot less potential for a conflict than remapping data of a somewhat active contributor who recently declined but may change his mind. How to deal with these edits? What to advise in regard to abandoned accounts? My statistic only counts contributions in this small area. for more reliable figures the global last edit date would be needed. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
On 04.01.2011 08:53, Steve Bennett wrote: The OSMF board mandates the LWG to enforce mandatory acceptance of the CT and ODBL in order to edit the database by March 31st. Have I misunderstood the situation, or is that pretty much the size of it: on April 1st, all Nearmap-derived data (and presumably data from certain other providers who also use a strict CC-BY-SA licence) will be wiped? you misunderstood. After 31st March you have to mandatory agree to CT in order to continue to EDIT. eg: After this date no NEW nearmap data could be inserted unless compatible with CT. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] openstreetmap.org copyright
80n wrote: El día Friday 23 July 2010 15:02:19, Alex Protyagov dijo: Would you please educate me on what legally should be done in order to develop a commercial application that uses cached maps from openstreetmap.org http://openstreetmap.org ? You just have to comply with the CC-by-sa The data is CC-BY-SA. An example of proper attribution can be found here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright In case you are referring to tiles from tile.openstreetmap.org also have a look at the tile usage policy: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tile_usage_policy Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
