Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
On 10/7/09, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > 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. > > 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? yep, that's the question ;-) > I'm going back to this notion of "usefulness". Firstly, is a database a > database if it is one-dimensional? My feeling is that a database must > always combine at least two values: Have one, look up the other; have > the other, look up the first. Is a list of all valid post codes in a > country still a database if it doesn't have names or geometries? Is the > list of all latitudes in OSM still a database? possibly. if we consider the IDs (or any other one dimension) to be insubstantial, then this might work. the problem comes when using the scheme that Andy suggested. it may not be practical to link to a single dimension of an OSM dataset - it might be necessary to extract multiple dimensions to do good fuzzy matching. > It could be that an extract of some OSM IDs is not even a derived database > > Assuming for a moment it were a database, then, being rather useless, is > it substantial? Could we perhaps say that if you extract only one > dimension from OSM, this can never be a substantial extract - a list of > latitudes, a list of longitudes, a list of keys or a list of values, or > a list of IDs? from the ODbL: “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. so, if we consider ID extraction to be substantial, then the answer is definitely yes - it would be an arrangement of a substantial part of the contents. if we consider IDs to be insubstantial then it would be OK. special note: the word "new" in the above definition means "other or different from the first", not "created from scratch". > 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? > But that would again raise a cascading substantial-ness problem - what > if I publish an OSM extract of Madrid and someone else counts all pubs > in there. i think counts, or any other summary statistic of the non-identifiable sort (i.e: that which would pass privacy regulations), could be considered insubstantial. the number of pubs in any given large-enough bounding box, certainly a city or country, shouldn't be considered a substantial extract. in any case, the cascading substantialness is already taken care of: if my dataset A is substantial and you derive B from that, the same standards of substantialness apply to your extract of B from A as they do to my extract of A from OSM. if A is insubstantial, then it would be impossible to make a substantial extract from that insubstantial extract. or so the theory goes ;-) 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: > 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. 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? I'm going back to this notion of "usefulness". Firstly, is a database a database if it is one-dimensional? My feeling is that a database must always combine at least two values: Have one, look up the other; have the other, look up the first. Is a list of all valid post codes in a country still a database if it doesn't have names or geometries? Is the list of all latitudes in OSM still a database? It could be that an extract of some OSM IDs is not even a derived database. Assuming for a moment it were a database, then, being rather useless, is it substantial? Could we perhaps say that if you extract only one dimension from OSM, this can never be a substantial extract - a list of latitudes, a list of longitudes, a list of keys or a list of values, or a list of IDs? 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. But that would again raise a cascading substantial-ness problem - what if I publish an OSM extract of Madrid and someone else counts all pubs in there. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Matt Amos wrote: >> this is the crux of the question. the ODbL makes no distinction >> between lat/lon data, ID data, or any other sort of data. so the >> question then becomes; if i'm using some data from an ODbL database >> and incorporating that into my database, do i have to release all of >> my database, or just the bits of it which came from or were derived >> from the ODbL database? > > Let's look at the reason why we have this whole viral license, shall we? > > (I'm taking off my "this is all stupid and we should do PD" hat for a > moment and act as if I were a share-aliker.) /me adjusts headgear also. > The idea behind this is that we don't want to give anything to people > which they then make proprietary - the worst case being that one day OSM > ceases to exist and only some proprietary copy remains. The license is > there to ensure that OSM data remains free. > > But a site that *only* takes OSM IDs in order to link to them does not > create anything of their own. If OSM one day ceases to exist then the > OSM IDs stored in that site become worthless. They only store pointers > into our database, they don't make a derived product. (If I tell you to > download a film and skip to 6'32 because that's where the action is, am > I creating a "derived work" of that film?) no, but a time code pointer into a copyrighted work isn't necessarily a good analogy for an ID extracted from a database rights-protected database. > You are right in saying that by the letter of the license, an id is data > just like anything else. But the spirit surely affects only *useful* data? i think i can hear lawyers having heart attacks over the word "useful" ;-) 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. 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: > this is the crux of the question. the ODbL makes no distinction > between lat/lon data, ID data, or any other sort of data. so the > question then becomes; if i'm using some data from an ODbL database > and incorporating that into my database, do i have to release all of > my database, or just the bits of it which came from or were derived > from the ODbL database? Let's look at the reason why we have this whole viral license, shall we? (I'm taking off my "this is all stupid and we should do PD" hat for a moment and act as if I were a share-aliker.) The idea behind this is that we don't want to give anything to people which they then make proprietary - the worst case being that one day OSM ceases to exist and only some proprietary copy remains. The license is there to ensure that OSM data remains free. But a site that *only* takes OSM IDs in order to link to them does not create anything of their own. If OSM one day ceases to exist then the OSM IDs stored in that site become worthless. They only store pointers into our database, they don't make a derived product. (If I tell you to download a film and skip to 6'32 because that's where the action is, am I creating a "derived work" of that film?) You are right in saying that by the letter of the license, an id is data just like anything else. But the spirit surely affects only *useful* data? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] reciprocal data agreements
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Richard, > > Richard Weait wrote: >> Imagine a data provider using perhaps cc-by, or a BSD style permissive >> license contributes their data to OSM. >> Imagine then that they would like to monitor changes in OSM to data >> that originated from their source. >> Imagine then that they would like to incorporate those changes, with >> or without further vetting, back into their dataset under their >> license. > > I agree that this would be very desirable; however it would allow our > sacred data to leave the protecting cage of ODbL and live on under a > CC-BY-SA or, God forbid, a BSD license which would be unpalatable to > many contributors. if they've got balls of steel, they could just claim that CC BY-SA doesn't apply to factual data and just take the current OSM data ;-) on a more serious note, this is very much like the Biba model. if we order licenses by property: BY-SA, BY, 0, then it follows a write-down, read-up model. in other words, even if we had a BSD type license, our data could be incorporated into BY-SA projects, but not into PD projects. the only way to become a universal donor also means rejecting non-PD imports. personally, i think that imports are bad, m'kay? so i'm not that bothered ;-) cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] reciprocal data agreements
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Richard, > > Richard Weait wrote: >> Imagine a data provider using perhaps cc-by, or a BSD style permissive >> license contributes their data to OSM. >> Imagine then that they would like to monitor changes in OSM to data >> that originated from their source. >> Imagine then that they would like to incorporate those changes, with >> or without further vetting, back into their dataset under their >> license. > > I agree that this would be very desirable; however it would allow our > sacred data to leave the protecting cage of ODbL and live on under a > CC-BY or, God forbid, a BSD license which would be unpalatable to > many contributors. [changed cc-by-sa to cc-by above] Indeed. We use a viral license, in part, because we want folks to contribute their data to OSM. We all benefit from the additional data donated to OSM. The donor has done exactly as we asked, and donated to OSM under the OSM license for the greater good. What more can a data contributor do? They contribute their best data; we all do. Perhaps we improve it further. Perhaps we update it faster. Perhaps they do. Do we want to encourage the free exchange of data-improvements between the original donor and OSM? Do we eat our own dog food, or do we eat our young? ;-) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> as a concrete example, let's pretend i have a site, beerintheOSM,
>> which rates pubs and allows commenting and photo uploads. if i'm
>> storing the reviews linked against pubs linked against OSM
>> (name/location/ID), i definitely have to release the
>> (name/location/ID) records
>
> Wait a minute.
>
> If I run "beerintheOSM" as a crowdourced project - say, a Wiki - and
> people can enter new pubs, and the names are entered by those who create
> the entries, and I don't even store lat/lon locations, I just allow my
> users to add an OSM node id in some kind of template which I then use to
> retrieve and display the map for the area, then surely I do not have to
> release the records?
>
> * The name was not taken from OSM
> * the location is not even stored in my database
> * the OSM ID... well yes this would have to be released but not with
> context, i.e. I could simply release a list of OSM IDs saying "these are
> used in beerintheOSM somewhere
this is the crux of the question. the ODbL makes no distinction
between lat/lon data, ID data, or any other sort of data. so the
question then becomes; if i'm using some data from an ODbL database
and incorporating that into my database, do i have to release all of
my database, or just the bits of it which came from or were derived
from the ODbL database?
> If anyone doubts the above then think what would happen if I didn't use
> the OSM ID to draw a map, instead the OSM ID would just be listed there
> in the text ("by the way, this pub is OSM node #1234") - which is the
> same from a database perspective. Surely such reference cannot trigger
> any viral effect?
that reference isn't any different from any other datum from the
database, hence the question ;-)
cheers,
matt
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Dan Karran wrote: > What would happen if the beerintheOSM site encouraged their users to > add new pubs to their site, would that data - the equivalent of what > would have come from OSM, had they come from there - need to be > released as well, or again something we should just encourage the site > to release? good question. even if OSM IDs or lat/lons are OK for linking purposes, where do we draw the line on what is "attached" data, like reviews, and what is new data added to the ODbL extract, requiring it to be available? cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
