Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Extent of share alike?

[David Vaarwerk]

Thanks for your all the responses, they do help.

I think keeping the map and the business data separate with a double 
license is the best solution as suggested.

So I will have a map with only OSM data, obviously anything I put in will
become
CC. I am happy to share the geographic location (lat. long.) of all
businesses
if OSM wants or can take this info (the obvious problem is space on the
map 
and that businesses are constantly moving - updating becomes an issue).

To keep things separate on another web page within the site I will serve
from a 
separate database business information (phone number, website, service
etc) 
that will have no geographic location information in it. The only overlap 
will be a business name. As far as I can see OSM doesn't record the street
address 
of cafe's etc only their location.

Thanks

David Vaarwerk

-- 
David Vaarwerk
Manager
Mineral Data
Services
www.mineraldata.com.au
email: da...@mineraldata.com.au
mobile: 0422 541 857

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Extent of share alike?

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El Lunes, 2 de Noviembre de 2009, David Vaarwerk escribió:
> However, my question is, how far does the share alike
> section of the Creative Commons licence go. I want to share the map data
> with OSM but not the other sections of the work.

Then you double-license the map data: one version goes OSM under CC-by-sa or 
ODbL, the other version goes (c) into your guide. Share-alike does *not* 
apply to your work, only to one distribution of your work.


Problems may arise only when you use already existing OSM data in your guide. 
In this case, the share-alike component of either CC-by-sa or ODbL would 
apply to the data set it is being put into. Most likely, you would have to 
share alike all your geographical data. Both CC-by-sa and ODbL don't apply to 
collections, so you don't have to share alike any databases that are separate 
from the one containing OSM data.


Hope that helps,
-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega 

http://ivan.sanchezortega.es
Proudly running Debian Linux with 2.6.30-1-amd64 kernel, KDE 3.5.10, and PHP 
5.2.11-1 generating this signature.
Uptime: 13:57:29 up 7 days, 21:22,  3 users,  load average: 0.80, 0.72, 0.64


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Extent of share alike?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Matt Amos wrote:
> does that mean that no-one can redistribute a screenshot of the
> application? 

Yes, that's my reading, unless you invoke some superior right to "fair 
use" or "citation" or whatever applicable in your country; which would 
of course make any copyright discussion obsolete. - I regularly use 
screenshots from proprietary web sites in my talks and I believe I have 
the right to do so without even looking at their license, but I am not 
100% sure that this is within the law.

> the CC BY-SA portion would imply that the screenshot
> would be CC BY-SA, but the license on the "other layer" of the image
> wouldn't allow that.

Correct. I think that CC-BY-SA creates an incentive for the secretive 
data provider to, instead of combining his own data and CC-BY-SA data 
server-side and delivering it to the customer, furnish the customer with 
a bit of software and feed him CC-BY-SA and proprietary data through 
separate channels. That way, the data is combined on the users' 
computer, leaving him user with a dead-end undistributable (but usable!) 
lump of data.

Surely a win for Freedom!

Bye
Frederik

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Illegal activity

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> I'm not particularly au fait with national copyright law in mainland 
> Europe. Doubtless you can answer on France: I can't see anything in 
> German law that would give protection. 

I have lost thread of what kind of protection exactly you are talking 
about, but German copyright law stipulates that photos - and this is 
commonly read as "including photos taken from the air through automated 
means", have 50 years of copyright protection during which any use (!) 
of the photos requires permission from the copyright holder:

http://dejure.org/gesetze/UrhG/72.html

Some lawyers say that because German copyright requires a person as the 
rights owner, any kind of automated photography cannot be copyrighted. 
Others, and they seem to form the majority, say that the person who 
"conditions" the machinery used to take the photos becomes the rights 
owner. There is some German-language discussion of this here: 
http://www.schmunzelkunst.de/saq2.htm#luftbild

Bye
Frederik



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Extent of share alike?

[Matt Amos]

On 11/2/09, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> Matt Amos wrote:
>>> However, my question is, how far does the share alike
>>> section of the Creative Commons licence go. I want to share the map data
>>> with OSM but not the other sections of the work.
>>
>> this lack of clarity is one of the problems with the CC BY-SA license.
>> the short answer is: i'm not sure. the longer answer is: the image you
>> render to the screen must be CC BY-SA licensed,

the even longer answer is... ;-)

> ... not so fast! We generally say that:
>
> * if you produce an image that contains OSM and other data, then deliver
> this image to the client computer, then the whole image is CC-BY-SA.
>
> but
>
> * if you produce two different images, one with OSM and one with other
> data, and the two are overlaid on the client computer (by software
> acting on behalf of the user), then your second image can be licensed
> whatever you want. Only if the user (who is considered to have created a
> derived product by asking software running on his computer to take two
> images and merge them) then further publishes the image - which you may
> or may not allow as the image contains your data! - would the image have
> to be made CC-BY-SA.

does that mean that no-one can redistribute a screenshot of the
application? the CC BY-SA portion would imply that the screenshot
would be CC BY-SA, but the license on the "other layer" of the image
wouldn't allow that.

> Otherwise it would not be possible to e.g. overlay OSM data and CGIAR
> "noncommercial use only" hill shading in an OpenLayers application.

indeed. for what it's worth i think that overlaying data onto CC BY-SA
data/tiles is fine. but i'm not so sure about it that i'd make
something on that basis without retaining a lawyer!

cheers,

matt

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Illegal activity

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>Sent: 02 November 2009 11:52 AM
>To: t...@openstreetmap.org
>Cc: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Illegal activity
>
>Pieren wrote:
>> It's not the question about laws in France, Germany or US vs England.
>> It's the question to know if OSM database can survive if it contains
>> data from illegal sources, independently of the country.
>>
>> Richard is convinced that the content of the photos is not protected
>> and I agree on that point. But he just decides to ignore all the
>> investments spent to rectify and georeference these photos on which
>> his derivative work is based. And this investment and work is
>> protected.
>
>Heh. I haven't decided to ignore it. I'm just not 100% convinced as yet
>that it alters the clear lead set out by Bauman v Fussell.
>
>US law is unambiguous: the doctrine of idea-expression merger means that
>rectification doesn't make any difference. UK law is not clear, and you
>have to interpret sweat-of-the-brow in the light of Bauman v Fussell and
>Antiquesportfolio v Fitch. Canada is very interesting: Weetman v Baldwin
>(heard in a fairly junior court) cites "accuracy not previously attained
>by other mapmakers of the region in question... facilitated by a
>particular process pioneered by a mapmaker" which can be interpreted in
>wild and exciting ways.
>
>I'm not particularly au fait with national copyright law in mainland
>Europe. Doubtless you can answer on France: I can't see anything in
>German law that would give protection. It's been suggested that EU
>database right could also give some protection to rectification. I can't
>yet see it myself (particularly in light of BHB vs William Hill), but
>then, database right is really the modern day equivalent of the
>Schleswig-Holstein Question:
>
>"Only three people," said Palmerston, "have ever really understood the
>Schleswig-Holstein business: the Prince Consort, who is dead; a German
>professor, who has gone mad; and I, who have forgotten all about it."

Richard, you are clearly in the wrong profession :-)

Cheers

Andy



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Illegal activity

[Richard Fairhurst]

Pieren wrote:
> It's not the question about laws in France, Germany or US vs England.
> It's the question to know if OSM database can survive if it contains
> data from illegal sources, independently of the country.
>
> Richard is convinced that the content of the photos is not protected
> and I agree on that point. But he just decides to ignore all the
> investments spent to rectify and georeference these photos on which
> his derivative work is based. And this investment and work is
> protected.

Heh. I haven't decided to ignore it. I'm just not 100% convinced as yet 
that it alters the clear lead set out by Bauman v Fussell.

US law is unambiguous: the doctrine of idea-expression merger means that 
rectification doesn't make any difference. UK law is not clear, and you 
have to interpret sweat-of-the-brow in the light of Bauman v Fussell and 
Antiquesportfolio v Fitch. Canada is very interesting: Weetman v Baldwin 
(heard in a fairly junior court) cites "accuracy not previously attained 
by other mapmakers of the region in question... facilitated by a 
particular process pioneered by a mapmaker" which can be interpreted in 
wild and exciting ways.

I'm not particularly au fait with national copyright law in mainland 
Europe. Doubtless you can answer on France: I can't see anything in 
German law that would give protection. It's been suggested that EU 
database right could also give some protection to rectification. I can't 
yet see it myself (particularly in light of BHB vs William Hill), but 
then, database right is really the modern day equivalent of the 
Schleswig-Holstein Question:

"Only three people," said Palmerston, "have ever really understood the 
Schleswig-Holstein business: the Prince Consort, who is dead; a German 
professor, who has gone mad; and I, who have forgotten all about it."

Follow-ups to legal-talk.

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Extent of share alike?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hallo,

Matt Amos wrote:
>> However, my question is, how far does the share alike
>> section of the Creative Commons licence go. I want to share the map data
>> with OSM but not the other sections of the work.
> 
> this lack of clarity is one of the problems with the CC BY-SA license.
> the short answer is: i'm not sure. the longer answer is: the image you
> render to the screen must be CC BY-SA licensed,

... not so fast! We generally say that:

* if you produce an image that contains OSM and other data, then deliver 
this image to the client computer, then the whole image is CC-BY-SA.

but

* if you produce two different images, one with OSM and one with other 
data, and the two are overlaid on the client computer (by software 
acting on behalf of the user), then your second image can be licensed 
whatever you want. Only if the user (who is considered to have created a 
derived product by asking software running on his computer to take two 
images and merge them) then further publishes the image - which you may 
or may not allow as the image contains your data! - would the image have 
to be made CC-BY-SA.

Otherwise it would not be possible to e.g. overlay OSM data and CGIAR 
"noncommercial use only" hill shading in an OpenLayers application.

Bye
Frederik

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Extent of share alike?

[Matt Amos]

On 11/2/09, David Vaarwerk  wrote:
> I have made a map and business guide from scratch that you can
> see here http://www.mineraldata.com.au/wp/index.html [1]. I would like to
> share the map data with OSM and use OSM as a base map for this and other
> maps/ business guides - I assume there is no problem with this as long as I
> attribute the work.

wow. that looks awesome!

> However, my question is, how far does the share alike
> section of the Creative Commons licence go. I want to share the map data
> with OSM but not the other sections of the work.

this lack of clarity is one of the problems with the CC BY-SA license.
the short answer is: i'm not sure. the longer answer is: the image you
render to the screen must be CC BY-SA licensed, and therefore allow
people to do all the things they can do with a CC BY-SA work. but you
may have other rights in your data depending on your jurisdiction.
whether you can use these to prevent sharing of the business directory
is a question for a Real Lawyer.

> Is someone able to clarify this? Can
> I just share the map data?

actually, you don't have to share the map data. CC BY-SA considers
only the published work, which in your case is the image that the
flash app renders to the screen. only that work needs to be CC BY-SA,
although we obviously welcome sharing more!

for a (maybe) definitive answer, you might want to contact a lawyer.
it's a hassle, but they're the only people who can give you real legal
advice.

cheers,

matt

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adding UK post box information

[Ed Avis]

Gervase Markham  writes:

>[]

>>Can the manually located postboxes, based on OSM data and a list of
>>postbox street locations from the Royal Mail, be added to OSM?
>
>Yes.

I have started work on a tool to sync these
(code at ).  So far it just generates
a report for manual fixing, but I will make it a bot fairly soon.  I have
entered the data for one postcode area, E10.

However I would like to check again with the legal mailing list, because I'm
planning to import not just the location of the postbox (which has been found
by hand by contributors to the Dracos site, as discussed) and its 'ref' number,
but also the postcode and address listed in the file.

For example the following row from
:

Ref=E10 18
PC=E10 5AH
Loc1=Capworth Street
Loc2=(blank)
Latitude=51.5729084
Longitude=-0.0116965
Last M-F=17:30
Last Sat=11:30

gets turned into the following in OSM:

node with lat=51.5729084, lon=-0.0116965, and tags:
amenity=post_box
ref=E10 18
postal_code=E10 5AH
addr:street=Capworth Street

It appears to me that adding these two extra tags postal_code and
addr:street (and sometimes addr:housenumber) from the data file should
be okay, but I wanted to check with this list.  If these are felt to be
a step too far then I will just add the lat,lon and ref.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk