Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > OSM is a pragmatic community. We're better when we're trying to move > forward than when we're just sitting around bitching. Either come up with > suggestions to make ODbL and the Community Terms work better, or campaign, > actively, for a move to 1 or 2. So change for the sake of change? I am campaigning, actively for no change. Please do not ask me to change my opinion. I have said consistently that the Australian section of the map stands to lose an enormous amount of data in a change to ODbL. Smart Europeans have suggested that we just get out there and map it. They are welcome to assist. I am saving the crocodile infested waters for particular groups of persons and the dangerous waters off Western Tasmania for another group, because our coastline is one item we will lose from the map, and I'm expecting you all to kayak around the coast to map it for us. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
I agree with Andy. This is what I understand the ODbL to be saying. Unfortunately, as with any legal text, its difficult to read and this is an unavoidable consequence of the legal system. If you need interpretation of the license, new or old, the best route may be to consult a lawyer. Cheers, Matt On Jul 8, 2010 10:18 AM, "Andy Allan" wrote: On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Oliver (skobbler) wrote: > > Hi Frederick,... Either you mis-spoke in this sentence, or you are wrong with this assertion. If you have a derived database, and make a produced work, you are required to make the derived database available under the ODbL. That's practically the whole point of the ODbL! Section 4.5b, which amongst other things is a classic "could do with some scoping parenthesis" piece of legalese, is only clarifying that if the produced work is made up from a collective database, e.g. "(derived + some other db) =>produced work" then the collective db is not considered derived - i.e. the some-other-db can stay non-ODbL licensed. But if you make a produced work (actually, if you "publicly use" said produced work), then the derived database must be shared in any case (4.4a and 4.4c). As for Frederik's initial question, part 1. is unavoidably share-alike as soon as the produced work is publicly used. Part 2 I'll leave for others. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.or... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
>2. If you manage to do your pre-processing in a way that only mixes your >static network data with OSM, resulting in a data structure that >contains information like "transit from stop X to stop Y possible for >these types of vehicles" and so on, and then your router process, upon >startup, reads this file plus another file with all the schedule data, >then you can get away with only releasing the static network file. Wouldn't in this case the Fairhurst doctrine apply? [1] Regards, Oliver [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Metadata_Layers_-_Guideline -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-public-transport-routing-and-OSM-ODbL-tp5265671p5270065.html Sent from the 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] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
>I read this and thought >"if we have people who have had lots of time to think about this proposed >licence change come to differing opinions on rather basic questions of how we >can use the data once its been put under this new license >well who understands what it is good for?" > >Anything this contrived and complex that the potential users can't sort it out >fails the usability test. I agree that the new license is far from easy. However, this thread is about finding a "hole in the license" to keep data private. And it seems there is no hole...(unless you keep it in a separate, unlinked database) The share-alike clause makes the license business unfriendly while at the same time protects the data from exploitation. It is always a trade-off. Regards, Oliver -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-public-transport-routing-and-OSM-ODbL-tp5265671p5270043.html Sent from the 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] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Oliver (skobbler) wrote: > >But if you make a produced work (actually, if you "publicly > >use" said produced work), then the derived database must be shared in > >any case (4.4a and 4.4c). > > I think I you are right with the only limitation that the "sharing" is > covered in 4.6 whereas 4.4 and 4.5 relate to the license that needs to be > combined with DB. > > I have to admit that my interpretation seems to be wrong as I also thought > that 4.4. and 4.5. were dealing with "sharing" while the actually "sharing" > or "obligation to offer the database" is handled in 4.6. > > 4.6 Access to Derivative Databases. If You Publicly Use a Derivative > Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, You must also offer > to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a > machine readable form of: a. The entire Derivative Database; or I read this and thought "if we have people who have had lots of time to think about this proposed licence change come to differing opinions on rather basic questions of how we can use the data once its been put under this new licence well who understands what it is good for?" Anything this contrived and complex that the potential users can't sort it out fails the usability test. Liz ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
>But if you make a produced work (actually, if you "publicly >use" said produced work), then the derived database must be shared in >any case (4.4a and 4.4c). I think I you are right with the only limitation that the "sharing" is covered in 4.6 whereas 4.4 and 4.5 relate to the license that needs to be combined with DB. I have to admit that my interpretation seems to be wrong as I also thought that 4.4. and 4.5. were dealing with "sharing" while the actually "sharing" or "obligation to offer the database" is handled in 4.6. 4.6 Access to Derivative Databases. If You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a machine readable form of: a. The entire Derivative Database; or Regards, Oliver -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-public-transport-routing-and-OSM-ODbL-tp5265671p5269382.html Sent from the 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] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Oliver (skobbler) wrote: > > Hi Frederick, > >>However, in terms of ODbL the >>route description they produce will be a produced work which is based on >>a database derived from OSM > > a derivative database that is only used to create a Produced Work is > excluded from the share-alike: Either you mis-spoke in this sentence, or you are wrong with this assertion. If you have a derived database, and make a produced work, you are required to make the derived database available under the ODbL. That's practically the whole point of the ODbL! Section 4.5b, which amongst other things is a classic "could do with some scoping parenthesis" piece of legalese, is only clarifying that if the produced work is made up from a collective database, e.g. "(derived + some other db) =>produced work" then the collective db is not considered derived - i.e. the some-other-db can stay non-ODbL licensed. But if you make a produced work (actually, if you "publicly use" said produced work), then the derived database must be shared in any case (4.4a and 4.4c). As for Frederik's initial question, part 1. is unavoidably share-alike as soon as the produced work is publicly used. Part 2 I'll leave for others. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
>> Sure, any Derivative Database that is made available to a 3rd party falls
>> under the share-alike. No doubt about that. This handled in section 4.4.
>> The
>> exceptions are handled in the following section 4.5.
>>
>> In case of "your" Produced Work, you make the Produced Work available to
>> a
>> 3rd party and not the Derived Database on which the Produced Work is
>> based.
>
>This constitutes a "public use" of the derived database and triggers
>share-alike for the derived database. There is no exception.
>
The Derivate Database for the Produced Work is considered non-existing
because of 4.5. Otherwise the introduction of a "Produced Work" becomes
irrelevant and a "Produced Work" could be considered as a database. For
everything else the Collected Database definition would sufficient
("assembled into a collective whole").
Regards,
Oliver
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-public-transport-routing-and-OSM-ODbL-tp5265671p5269102.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Exemptions from Contributor Terms
Hi all, I asked about this a while ago in the middle of another thread, but didn't get an answer. When switching to ODbL we have to deal with the licensing of imported data, but even if it gets relicensed to ODbL or a compatible license, there is the Contributor Terms to deal with. We either need to get the copyright holder's agreement, or exempt the dataset from requiring CT agreement and so require the copyright holders permission for any future re-licensing. Knowing if an exemption would be good will require a decision about whether the benefit of the dataset outweighs the cost of being tied to the copyright holder for future relicensing. For example I imagine the AND data would be considered useful enough but my personal contributions wouldn't be. I wanted to know what the guidelines for what gets an exemption are, how to apply, and how a decision gets made. I'm asking because there are several CC-licensed[0] datasets we've imported for Australia, and I've got another decent size one I'm getting ready (national parks, state forests and conservation areas). Knowing if it's safe to import, or a waste of time because I can't get an exemption, would be good. [0] CC-BY 2.5 Au specifically, please send any discussion of it's compatibility with ODbL to it's own thread. -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
Hi, Oliver (skobbler) wrote: Sure, any Derivative Database that is made available to a 3rd party falls under the share-alike. No doubt about that. This handled in section 4.4. The exceptions are handled in the following section 4.5. In case of "your" Produced Work, you make the Produced Work available to a 3rd party and not the Derived Database on which the Produced Work is based. This constitutes a "public use" of the derived database and triggers share-alike for the derived database. There is no exception. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
