[talk-au] ODBL and real life...
For the longest time it was claimed ODBL would better protect data than CC-by-SA in some jurisdictions, with the US being one of those. However the opposite seems true, since the above claim was based on the premise that creating maps wasn't a creative enterprise. The ODBL doesn't place a limit on what license produced works can be licensed as, they can be published as PD/CC0. In any case unless the copyright license contains no derivative clauses people are then able to derive data from produced works and that derived data can be used to build a vectorised database. There is one clause here where countries with database rights, when the data re-enters those countries the database right might re-apply, but this doesn't apply for countries like the US (or Australia for that matter). Although I'm told that the above section of Database Directive in EU is untested in court, and I think some CC licenses already waive database rights and going into the future I believe creative commons plan to include this in more licenses. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
Forgot to mention that SVG files are most likely produced works, even those they aren't raster images, so converting to SVG and then back to map data would potentially be pretty trivial. In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On 20 June 2011 00:55, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely difficult for them to argue that is a produced work and not a database. That's assuming a single party acting on bad faith, 2 independent parties operating independently would be able to claim otherwise. There is a simple guideline on the wiki: (from 2009) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. No. See above. You are assuming that a single party or both parties involved are operating under bad faith, in all likelihood there could be a range of places to source data from, even OSM.org for that matter, with a secondary party operating in the US. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 19 June 2011 14:38, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Forgot to mention that SVG files are most likely produced works, even those they aren't raster images, so converting to SVG and then back to map data would potentially be pretty trivial. Nearly 12 months since you raised this thread last it was also answered then. Yes, SVG is an interesting case. If the SVG is produced for display it is simplified and normalised, making it a extremely poor data source for re-import into a new database. (same as per images) Depends what data you want to extract. If you just want to extract factual information, an SVG produced for display is perfectly fine. Of course, I don't see anything in the ODbL which allows you to extract those facts from a produced work. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On 19 June 2011 14:38, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Forgot to mention that SVG files are most likely produced works, even those they aren't raster images, so converting to SVG and then back to map data would potentially be pretty trivial. Nearly 12 months since you raised this thread last it was also answered then. Yes, SVG is an interesting case. If the SVG is produced for display it is simplified and normalised, making it a extremely poor data source for re-import into a new database. (same as per images) If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely difficult for them to argue that is a produced work and not a database. There is a simple guideline on the wiki: (from 2009) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. No. See above. / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On 19 June 2011 16:00, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 June 2011 00:55, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely difficult for them to argue that is a produced work and not a database. That's assuming a single party acting on bad faith, 2 independent parties operating independently would be able to claim otherwise. There is a simple guideline on the wiki: (from 2009) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. No. See above. You are assuming that a single party or both parties involved are operating under bad faith, in all likelihood there could be a range of places to source data from, even OSM.org for that matter, with a secondary party operating in the US. I am sure theortical (and legally risky) loopholes could be found for example as you describe above. We could have contructed painfully restrictive terms to be placed on the produced works, but is there really a realistic threat? End of the day we are an open project who distribute open data under extremely liberal terms. The barrier to successfully reverse engineering produced works is high, while downloading ALL our data from http://planet.osm.org is extremely low. We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg* And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future. Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On 20 June 2011 03:12, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: I am sure theortical (and legally risky) loopholes could be found for example as you describe above. We could have contructed painfully A simple admission that the previous email is a valid argument would have sufficed We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg* And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future. Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti Nice spin on things, except they need to adhere to copyright like everyone else, however what I've pointed out is completely legit and has no recourse. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg* And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future. Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti I viewed these maps and understand why you have made the claim that the licence has been subverted, with no attribution given, assuming that the finding of the displaced person camps and damaged bridges etc was OSM volunteer work. I've not seen this example mentioned in the LWG or Board minutes, so I don't know when you contacted UNITAR / UNOSAT to have this clarified. I cannot however, follow your logic that it won't happen with a differently licensed map. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On 20/06/11 07:20, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg* And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future. Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti I viewed these maps and understand why you have made the claim that the licence has been subverted, with no attribution given, assuming that the finding of the displaced person camps and damaged bridges etc was OSM volunteer work. I've not seen this example mentioned in the LWG or Board minutes, so I don't know when you contacted UNITAR / UNOSAT to have this clarified. I cannot however, follow your logic that it won't happen with a differently licensed map. With all due apologies to any good lawyers reading this, no license whatsoever deters uncaught dishonesty; and at best still curbs those of good intent. I thought communal projects were supposed to encourage the opposite behaviour? Hasn't it occurred to anybody this is simply the wrong tool - for a problem of its own making? Cue old joke about how good it feels to stop hitting yourself on the head.. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On 19 June 2011 22:20, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg* And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future. Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti I viewed these maps and understand why you have made the claim that the licence has been subverted, with no attribution given, assuming that the finding of the displaced person camps and damaged bridges etc was OSM volunteer work. I should have been clearer. OSM is attributed on the right hand side of the map, but they (UN) are violating the letter of our CC-BY-SA license. There would be no violation under ODbL. I've not seen this example mentioned in the LWG or Board minutes, so I don't know when you contacted UNITAR / UNOSAT to have this clarified. I cannot however, follow your logic that it won't happen with a differently licensed map. Do you care that they are not sticking to the letter of our existing license? I certainly don't care, but I would prefer see them not in theoretical violation... I am an advocate of the ODbL because it makes our lives easier and makes it easier for people to use our map data without getting tangled up in licensing. Now returning to thread... Sure we could make 'produced works' more restrictive, but the negative consequences would out way the benefit. The Open Knowledge Foundation / Open Data Commons (organisation which created ODbL license) and LWG's legal council think there is sufficient protection already without the need of adding a restrictive 'no reverse engineering' clause requirement on the produced works*, which I think John Smith is advocating for. This has all been discussed to death during the drafting phase of the ODbL license back in 2008/2009. *: Correct me if I am wrong, but the GPL also doesn't have a restrictive 'no reverse engineering' clause. / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On Jun 19, 2011 7:17 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 19 June 2011 22:20, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg* And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future. Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti I viewed these maps and understand why you have made the claim that the licence has been subverted, with no attribution given, assuming that the finding of the displaced person camps and damaged bridges etc was OSM volunteer work. I should have been clearer. OSM is attributed on the right hand side of the map, but they (UN) are violating the letter of our CC-BY-SA license. There would be no violation under ODbL. What is the violation under cc-by-sa? and where are they offering a copy of their modified database? I've not seen this example mentioned in the LWG or Board minutes, so I don't know when you contacted UNITAR / UNOSAT to have this clarified. I cannot however, follow your logic that it won't happen with a differently licensed map. Do you care that they are not sticking to the letter of our existing license? I certainly don't care, but I would prefer see them not in theoretical violation... I am an advocate of the ODbL because it makes our lives easier and makes it easier for people to use our map data without getting tangled up in licensing. I'd be an advocate of the ODbL if it weren't for the fact that it makes it much much harder (nearly impossible) to use map data without getting tangled up in licensing (the need to offer a copy of the modified database, which in some cases may no longer exist). Now returning to thread... Sure we could make 'produced works' more restrictive, but the negative consequences would out way the benefit. The Open Knowledge Foundation / Open Data Commons (organisation which created ODbL license) and LWG's legal council think there is sufficient protection already without the need of adding a restrictive 'no reverse engineering' clause requirement on the produced works*, which I think John Smith is advocating for. This has all been discussed to death during the drafting phase of the ODbL license back in 2008/2009. *: Correct me if I am wrong, but the GPL also doesn't have a restrictive 'no reverse engineering' clause. The GPL isn't sold as a license which restricts the use of factual information obtained from reverse engineering. / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL and real life...
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Jun 19, 2011 7:17 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: *: Correct me if I am wrong, but the GPL also doesn't have a restrictive 'no reverse engineering' clause. The GPL isn't sold as a license which restricts the use of factual information obtained from reverse engineering. LGPL would be a better analogy anyway, and it is clear that LGPL derivatives cannot be released under a less restrictive license, only under a more restrictive one. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
