Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM DWG tools
On 9 September 2010 06:02, Eric Jarvies wrote: > I would like to make some suggestions, that otherwise seem obvious to me, but > may not seem the same to others. This prompted by my recent experience with > identifying OSM data on a notable third party site/source/repo. > > I think the DWG should have some basic, yet effective tools, with which they > can quickly and easily query specific ways, but more importantly... specific > changesets of a given way, wherein they can then easily render it, and then > easily mash it up in a map stack(with the offending sources), allowing them > to easily visually deduce similarities. If these are found, then > mathematical similarities(coordinates) should be run to further substantiate > the finding. I understand this would often times mean using screenshots, > wherein points of the screenshots would need to be selected/designated in > order to match up with OSM(projections, etc.). And the same applies to data > sources, wherein a simple tools should exist that could take and extrapolate > the data from these suspected sources, namely coordinates and tabular > attributes, wherein they are run against OSM data and all the same instances > are identified, as as all reasonable similarities. Anything, really. So > long as it has a documented procedure(repeatable by third parties), then > it'll suffice(for contributors/membership, and cases that may in face > need/depend upon it). The FSF has recently released an auditing tool for scanning binaries for existence of GPL software in them, based on a database of signatures. I don't think this could work for map data, first of all because you'd need the vector data and these services you talk about mostly just show you bitmaps. Then, it's really easy for them to slightly modify the geometries so that no automatic scan will detect the similarity, or, if it will, it will also generate tons of false-positives. And then I don't think it would be useful, there aren't so many cases of suspected infringement and when there are, accusing someone of misusing your data is too serious to rely on fuzzy matching, you will always want to be sure. (compare visually and if possible check if changes in OSM are reflected on the other map.) That said the FSF audit tool is mainly for big companies that release software but have too many people working on it to control everything that they do, so they just scan everything that leaves is released to the public to avoid getting sued by FSF or other authors. Maybe it would be useful for OSM to have a subscription to teleatlas and Navteq vector data with the API matching all incoming data against it and alerting somebody if a suspicious large upload is detected. Google map maker and Waze could do the same thing matching contributions against OSM. BTW the AMF api has a nice call that returns all versions of a way including, where "version" means any state of the way's geometry, rather than just tags and nodes ids. Potlatch can use it with deleted ways, but another client could conveniently use it to visualise the history of any way. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM DWG tools
I would like to make some suggestions, that otherwise seem obvious to me, but may not seem the same to others. This prompted by my recent experience with identifying OSM data on a notable third party site/source/repo. I think the DWG should have some basic, yet effective tools, with which they can quickly and easily query specific ways, but more importantly... specific changesets of a given way, wherein they can then easily render it, and then easily mash it up in a map stack(with the offending sources), allowing them to easily visually deduce similarities. If these are found, then mathematical similarities(coordinates) should be run to further substantiate the finding. I understand this would often times mean using screenshots, wherein points of the screenshots would need to be selected/designated in order to match up with OSM(projections, etc.). And the same applies to data sources, wherein a simple tools should exist that could take and extrapolate the data from these suspected sources, namely coordinates and tabular attributes, wherein they are run against OSM data and all the same instances are identified, as as all reasonable similarities.Anything, really. So long as it has a documented procedure(repeatable by third parties), then it'll suffice(for contributors/membership, and cases that may in face need/depend upon it). Eric Jarvies On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Eric Jarvies schrieb: >> Is Google Maps(MapMaker) now starting to use OSM data? > > From all I've heard, they probably have been for some time, and given they > are in the US, they probably can legally use our data under the current > license just like it would be PD, so they are happily doing that. > > IANAL, and all information is from hearsay, but that's how I take all that. > > Robert Kaiser > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...
Eric Jarvies schrieb: Is Google Maps(MapMaker) now starting to use OSM data? From all I've heard, they probably have been for some time, and given they are in the US, they probably can legally use our data under the current license just like it would be PD, so they are happily doing that. IANAL, and all information is from hearsay, but that's how I take all that. Robert Kaiser ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Francis Davey wrote: > On 8 September 2010 02:26, Anthony wrote: >> Probably depends what court you sue in. > > It shouldn't matter _where_ you sue. In principle at least the court > seized of the matter should apply the usual principles of private > international law to decide what the applicable law is and then apply > it. A court is highly unlikely to apply a foreign law which allows its citizens to give up rights that they are not allowed to give up under local law. On the other hand, the foreign court will likely have no problems doing so, especially since the alleged contract claims to be governed by the laws of that foreign state. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Francis Davey wrote: > Section 196 of the Copyright Act requires an assignment to > be made in writing and signed on behalf of the assignor. The > Australian provisions are almost identical to the English ones. On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 4:18 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > It's the same here in Europe (or at least in Poland), a copyright > assignment can only be done in writing. Well yeah, I believe it's the same in the United States, in that assignments must be "in writing and signed". Of course, in most US states, I believe typing one's name into a web form where it says "place signature here" qualifies as being "in writing and signed". No idea about other jurisdictions. As we've said, it appears to be moot anyway. The CT refers to a non-exclusive license in large part precisely to avoid these issues. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...
80n <80n...@...> writes: >I think we'd all love Google to use OSM content and they are welcome to do so >as long they provide the correct attribution. This is probably the right >spirit in which to approach them initially. What we'd love even more is for Google to open up their Map Maker crowdsourced data so that it can be incorporated into OSM. It makes no sense to have two rival projects to map the world. If we could reach some understanding whereby they can use our data (or at least trace from our tiles) and vice versa, that would be the ideal outcome. We're all eager to know how this turns out and what Google's response is. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...
2010/9/8 Eric Jarvies : > Eric, to be clear about what I advised - you should take this up directly > with Google, as you are the copyright holder. The OSMF and the Data Working > Group might be able to support you but they are not the copyright holder - > you are. > > > Ok. But I really have no desire to do so at this point. Instead, if after a > period of time, this currently 'assumed/speculated/non-substantiated' > activity continues, then I would of course send them an email reminding them > to attribute and adhere to the OSM license, and go from there. Right? The thing is that if your suspicion turns out to be true it is very likely not the only data on Google that is from OSM. Cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote: > > On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:58 AM, 80n wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote: > >> >> On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Sam Larsen wrote: >> >> > Eric, >> > >> > Unless you post the details of this edit on the list - then all this >> info is >> > useless for the rest of us reading it. As you can see there are way too >> many >> > emails on this list for any sane person to keep up with & this is just >> adding to >> > the overload. If you have provided the details to the data working >> group - then >> > that is great, and from our point of view they are the best people for >> you to >> > continue this investigation/discussion with. >> > >> I sent the way/info to the suggested OSM email address/people at OSM(read >> previous dialog in this thread) earlier today after having been advised(by >> Richard and 80n I believe) to do so. >> >> Eric, to be clear about what I advised - you should take this up directly > with Google, as you are the copyright holder. The OSMF and the Data Working > Group might be able to support you but they are not the copyright holder - > you are. > > > Ok. But I really have no desire to do so at this point. Instead, if after > a period of time, this currently 'assumed/speculated/non-substantiated' > activity continues, then I would of course send them an email reminding them > to attribute and adhere to the OSM license, and go from there. Right? > > You seem fairly knowledgeable in these subject matters... perhaps you could > share some wisdom/informal advise of a legal nature pertaining to > copyright/license/etc. Much of the data I am posting to OSM now, over the > past years I have licensed it out to various companies/persons for monetary > gain, wherein they could not resell, etc. the data. Now that I am posting > some of this same data of mine here in OSM under share alike/attribution > license, what happens to the status of my original data? I can still > license independently, correct? For example... i will be posting properties > to OSM, but I will not be posting property owner names, property owner > histories, etc., because I still actively sell/license that data to third > parties... but in doing so, I always provide them with the geometries. > After I post these geometries to OSM, and I later sell/license some data to > someone, and provide them with the geometries from my source data, like in > PostgreSQL or shapefile format, does that in any way conflict with the same > data I have previously posted on OSM under an entirely different license? I > am under the current understanding that there is no problem with with... I > can contribute to OSM some of my data, and that data then becomes subject to > the CC by SA license terms, whilst at the same time I can license the same > data differently to someone else... is this right? > > Eric, yes that's exactly right. > > Thanks! > > Eric Jarvies > > > > >> Eric Jarvies >> >> > Sam >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > - Original Message >> >> From: Eric Jarvies >> >> To: Licensing and other legal discussions. < >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> >> >> Sent: Tue, 7 September, 2010 19:52:22 >> >> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data... >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 7, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Richard Weait wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Eric Jarvies >> wrote: >> On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Richard Weait wrote: >> >>> >> > Also, as more data sets are opening up it is possible that Map >> Maker >> > and OSM editors are using similar sources. >> >> Yes, I understand this and the context you are explaining it in. >> But how >> >> does this apply to the edit I made to the OSM data? This edit was not >> some >> >> recently made available source that was provided to OSM, Google, and >> others, it >> >> was a just a newbee screw up by yours truly, that resulted in a very >> unique and >> >> deliberate edit to an existing OSM coastline, that subsequently ended >> up in >> >> Google's data, as is clearly(to me) being rendered now. I was just >> shocked to >> >> see that Google had inherited my screwed up edit of an existing OSM >> coastline, >> >> and that shock turned into interest, which is why I asked here if they >> are now >> >> using OSM data. In short, there really is no other 'similar source' >> in this >> >> case... they either got the coastline/way directly from OSM, or got it >> from >> >> someone else who got it directly from OSM. >> >>> >> >>> Dear Eric, >> >>> >> >>> It is hard for me to say what happened. What you describe above does >> >>> make it sound like a GMM contributor used OSM as a source after your >> >>> edit, but before you repaired it. If I haven't overlooked something; >> >>> perhaps a GMM contributor made the same newbee mistake? >> >> >> >> Well, this is what aroused my interest... after the initial shock of >> seeing my >> >> mistake for a second tim
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...
On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:58 AM, 80n wrote: > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote: > > On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Sam Larsen wrote: > > > Eric, > > > > Unless you post the details of this edit on the list - then all this info is > > useless for the rest of us reading it. As you can see there are way too > > many > > emails on this list for any sane person to keep up with & this is just > > adding to > > the overload. If you have provided the details to the data working group - > > then > > that is great, and from our point of view they are the best people for you > > to > > continue this investigation/discussion with. > > > I sent the way/info to the suggested OSM email address/people at OSM(read > previous dialog in this thread) earlier today after having been advised(by > Richard and 80n I believe) to do so. > > Eric, to be clear about what I advised - you should take this up directly > with Google, as you are the copyright holder. The OSMF and the Data Working > Group might be able to support you but they are not the copyright holder - > you are. > Ok. But I really have no desire to do so at this point. Instead, if after a period of time, this currently 'assumed/speculated/non-substantiated' activity continues, then I would of course send them an email reminding them to attribute and adhere to the OSM license, and go from there. Right? You seem fairly knowledgeable in these subject matters... perhaps you could share some wisdom/informal advise of a legal nature pertaining to copyright/license/etc. Much of the data I am posting to OSM now, over the past years I have licensed it out to various companies/persons for monetary gain, wherein they could not resell, etc. the data. Now that I am posting some of this same data of mine here in OSM under share alike/attribution license, what happens to the status of my original data? I can still license independently, correct? For example... i will be posting properties to OSM, but I will not be posting property owner names, property owner histories, etc., because I still actively sell/license that data to third parties... but in doing so, I always provide them with the geometries. After I post these geometries to OSM, and I later sell/license some data to someone, and provide them with the geometries from my source data, like in PostgreSQL or shapefile format, does that in any way conflict with the same data I have previously posted on OSM under an entirely different license? I am under the current understanding that there is no problem with with... I can contribute to OSM some of my data, and that data then becomes subject to the CC by SA license terms, whilst at the same time I can license the same data differently to someone else... is this right? Thanks! Eric Jarvies > > > Eric Jarvies > > > Sam > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message > >> From: Eric Jarvies > >> To: Licensing and other legal discussions. > >> Sent: Tue, 7 September, 2010 19:52:22 > >> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data... > >> > >> > >> On Sep 7, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Eric Jarvies wrote: > On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > >>> > > Also, as more data sets are opening up it is possible that Map Maker > > and OSM editors are using similar sources. > > Yes, I understand this and the context you are explaining it in. But > how > >> does this apply to the edit I made to the OSM data? This edit was not > >> some > >> recently made available source that was provided to OSM, Google, and > >> others, it > >> was a just a newbee screw up by yours truly, that resulted in a very > >> unique and > >> deliberate edit to an existing OSM coastline, that subsequently ended up in > >> Google's data, as is clearly(to me) being rendered now. I was just > >> shocked to > >> see that Google had inherited my screwed up edit of an existing OSM > >> coastline, > >> and that shock turned into interest, which is why I asked here if they > >> are now > >> using OSM data. In short, there really is no other 'similar source' in > >> this > >> case... they either got the coastline/way directly from OSM, or got it > >> from > >> someone else who got it directly from OSM. > >>> > >>> Dear Eric, > >>> > >>> It is hard for me to say what happened. What you describe above does > >>> make it sound like a GMM contributor used OSM as a source after your > >>> edit, but before you repaired it. If I haven't overlooked something; > >>> perhaps a GMM contributor made the same newbee mistake? > >> > >> Well, this is what aroused my interest... after the initial shock of > >> seeing my > >> mistake for a second time... first on OSM, and then now on Google > >> MapMaker(I'm > >> talking a considerable stretch of coastline), I then looked at what is > >> and what > >> is not possible to edit on Go
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Eric Jarvies wrote: > > On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Sam Larsen wrote: > > > Eric, > > > > Unless you post the details of this edit on the list - then all this info > is > > useless for the rest of us reading it. As you can see there are way too > many > > emails on this list for any sane person to keep up with & this is just > adding to > > the overload. If you have provided the details to the data working group > - then > > that is great, and from our point of view they are the best people for > you to > > continue this investigation/discussion with. > > > I sent the way/info to the suggested OSM email address/people at OSM(read > previous dialog in this thread) earlier today after having been advised(by > Richard and 80n I believe) to do so. > > Eric, to be clear about what I advised - you should take this up directly with Google, as you are the copyright holder. The OSMF and the Data Working Group might be able to support you but they are not the copyright holder - you are. > Eric Jarvies > > > Sam > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message > >> From: Eric Jarvies > >> To: Licensing and other legal discussions. < > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> > >> Sent: Tue, 7 September, 2010 19:52:22 > >> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data... > >> > >> > >> On Sep 7, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Eric Jarvies wrote: > On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > >>> > > Also, as more data sets are opening up it is possible that Map Maker > > and OSM editors are using similar sources. > > Yes, I understand this and the context you are explaining it in. But > how > >> does this apply to the edit I made to the OSM data? This edit was not > some > >> recently made available source that was provided to OSM, Google, and > others, it > >> was a just a newbee screw up by yours truly, that resulted in a very > unique and > >> deliberate edit to an existing OSM coastline, that subsequently ended up > in > >> Google's data, as is clearly(to me) being rendered now. I was just > shocked to > >> see that Google had inherited my screwed up edit of an existing OSM > coastline, > >> and that shock turned into interest, which is why I asked here if they > are now > >> using OSM data. In short, there really is no other 'similar source' in > this > >> case... they either got the coastline/way directly from OSM, or got it > from > >> someone else who got it directly from OSM. > >>> > >>> Dear Eric, > >>> > >>> It is hard for me to say what happened. What you describe above does > >>> make it sound like a GMM contributor used OSM as a source after your > >>> edit, but before you repaired it. If I haven't overlooked something; > >>> perhaps a GMM contributor made the same newbee mistake? > >> > >> Well, this is what aroused my interest... after the initial shock of > seeing my > >> mistake for a second time... first on OSM, and then now on Google > MapMaker(I'm > >> talking a considerable stretch of coastline), I then looked at what is > and what > >> is not possible to edit on Google MapMaker... and coastlines are NOT > possible > >> to edit by contributors, or at least my user account will not allow it. > >> > >>> And if there > >>> is no other innocent explanation; you didn't make the edit on GMM > >>> yourself did you? ;-) > >> > >> No, I have never contributed data to the MapMaker repo. > >> > >>> Then 80n's description above is correct. > >>> Infringement is much more likely to be a result of ignorance rather > >>> than malice. It is still infringement but it might best be resolved > >>> with a please and thank you than with a nasty-gram. > >> > >> I was merely curious if Google had started using OSM data, simply > because I > >> was painfully reminded of that terrible coastline screw-up I made, that > was the > >> bane of my initial OSM editing experience(not knowing that the > coastline is not > >> rendered immediately/regularly). So apart from the initial shock of > seeing it > >> replicated on Google's MapMaker a week or two after the initial > incident > >> occurred, I was just downright curious why it would be there, as I > thought > >> Google did not use OSM data. So this was a curious fact finding > mission > >> wrought from a screwed-up coastline editing experience... nothing more. > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> I do still recommend that you share the location and details with > >>> OSMers you trust with more experience than you have; you did describe > >>> yourself as a newbee. > >> > >> I emailed the way to the email address you provided me previously, > thank you. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> You might, as 80n described, decide to pursue this with GMM yourself. > >>> I'd probably try to reach the GMM contributor who made that edit, > >> > >> I could not find indication of this... I was not allowed to edit the > GMM > >> coastlin
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...
On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Sam Larsen wrote: > Eric, > > Unless you post the details of this edit on the list - then all this info is > useless for the rest of us reading it. As you can see there are way too many > emails on this list for any sane person to keep up with & this is just adding > to > the overload. If you have provided the details to the data working group - > then > that is great, and from our point of view they are the best people for you to > continue this investigation/discussion with. > I sent the way/info to the suggested OSM email address/people at OSM(read previous dialog in this thread) earlier today after having been advised(by Richard and 80n I believe) to do so. Eric Jarvies > Sam > > > > > - Original Message >> From: Eric Jarvies >> To: Licensing and other legal discussions. >> Sent: Tue, 7 September, 2010 19:52:22 >> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data... >> >> >> On Sep 7, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Richard Weait wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Eric Jarvies wrote: On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Richard Weait wrote: >>> > Also, as more data sets are opening up it is possible that Map Maker > and OSM editors are using similar sources. Yes, I understand this and the context you are explaining it in. But how >> does this apply to the edit I made to the OSM data? This edit was not some >> >> recently made available source that was provided to OSM, Google, and others, >> it >> was a just a newbee screw up by yours truly, that resulted in a very unique >> and >> deliberate edit to an existing OSM coastline, that subsequently ended up in >> Google's data, as is clearly(to me) being rendered now. I was just shocked >> to >> see that Google had inherited my screwed up edit of an existing OSM >> coastline, >> and that shock turned into interest, which is why I asked here if they are >> now >> using OSM data. In short, there really is no other 'similar source' in >> this >> case... they either got the coastline/way directly from OSM, or got it from >> someone else who got it directly from OSM. >>> >>> Dear Eric, >>> >>> It is hard for me to say what happened. What you describe above does >>> make it sound like a GMM contributor used OSM as a source after your >>> edit, but before you repaired it. If I haven't overlooked something; >>> perhaps a GMM contributor made the same newbee mistake? >> >> Well, this is what aroused my interest... after the initial shock of seeing >> my >> mistake for a second time... first on OSM, and then now on Google >> MapMaker(I'm >> talking a considerable stretch of coastline), I then looked at what is and >> what >> is not possible to edit on Google MapMaker... and coastlines are NOT >> possible >> to edit by contributors, or at least my user account will not allow it. >> >>> And if there >>> is no other innocent explanation; you didn't make the edit on GMM >>> yourself did you? ;-) >> >> No, I have never contributed data to the MapMaker repo. >> >>> Then 80n's description above is correct. >>> Infringement is much more likely to be a result of ignorance rather >>> than malice. It is still infringement but it might best be resolved >>> with a please and thank you than with a nasty-gram. >> >> I was merely curious if Google had started using OSM data, simply because I >> was painfully reminded of that terrible coastline screw-up I made, that was >> the >> bane of my initial OSM editing experience(not knowing that the coastline is >> not >> rendered immediately/regularly). So apart from the initial shock of seeing >> it >> replicated on Google's MapMaker a week or two after the initial incident >> occurred, I was just downright curious why it would be there, as I thought >> Google did not use OSM data. So this was a curious fact finding mission >> wrought from a screwed-up coastline editing experience... nothing more. >> >> >> >>> >>> I do still recommend that you share the location and details with >>> OSMers you trust with more experience than you have; you did describe >>> yourself as a newbee. >> >> I emailed the way to the email address you provided me previously, thank >> you. >> >> >>> >>> You might, as 80n described, decide to pursue this with GMM yourself. >>> I'd probably try to reach the GMM contributor who made that edit, >> >> I could not find indication of this... I was not allowed to edit the GMM >> coastline whilst logged into Google... perhaps other users are able to do >> so... >> but I doubt it. >> >>> if >>> that information is available. Or, you may decide to ask somebody >>> else in the community to do that for you. Perhaps somebody at your >>> local OSM meetups, mapping parties or local chapter. >> >> I am my local chapter :( >> >>> Or you can >>> report this to the Data Working Group though they prefer if you have >>> made some
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...
Eric, Unless you post the details of this edit on the list - then all this info is useless for the rest of us reading it. As you can see there are way too many emails on this list for any sane person to keep up with & this is just adding to the overload. If you have provided the details to the data working group - then that is great, and from our point of view they are the best people for you to continue this investigation/discussion with. Sam - Original Message > From: Eric Jarvies > To: Licensing and other legal discussions. > Sent: Tue, 7 September, 2010 19:52:22 > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data... > > > On Sep 7, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Eric Jarvies wrote: > >> On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > > > >>> Also, as more data sets are opening up it is possible that Map Maker > >>> and OSM editors are using similar sources. > >> > >> Yes, I understand this and the context you are explaining it in. But how >does this apply to the edit I made to the OSM data? This edit was not some >recently made available source that was provided to OSM, Google, and others, >it >was a just a newbee screw up by yours truly, that resulted in a very unique >and >deliberate edit to an existing OSM coastline, that subsequently ended up in >Google's data, as is clearly(to me) being rendered now. I was just shocked >to >see that Google had inherited my screwed up edit of an existing OSM >coastline, >and that shock turned into interest, which is why I asked here if they are >now >using OSM data. In short, there really is no other 'similar source' in this >case... they either got the coastline/way directly from OSM, or got it from >someone else who got it directly from OSM. > > > > Dear Eric, > > > > It is hard for me to say what happened. What you describe above does > > make it sound like a GMM contributor used OSM as a source after your > > edit, but before you repaired it. If I haven't overlooked something; > > perhaps a GMM contributor made the same newbee mistake? > > Well, this is what aroused my interest... after the initial shock of seeing > my >mistake for a second time... first on OSM, and then now on Google >MapMaker(I'm >talking a considerable stretch of coastline), I then looked at what is and >what >is not possible to edit on Google MapMaker... and coastlines are NOT possible >to edit by contributors, or at least my user account will not allow it. > > > And if there > > is no other innocent explanation; you didn't make the edit on GMM > > yourself did you? ;-) > > No, I have never contributed data to the MapMaker repo. > > > Then 80n's description above is correct. > > Infringement is much more likely to be a result of ignorance rather > > than malice. It is still infringement but it might best be resolved > > with a please and thank you than with a nasty-gram. > > I was merely curious if Google had started using OSM data, simply because I >was painfully reminded of that terrible coastline screw-up I made, that was >the >bane of my initial OSM editing experience(not knowing that the coastline is >not >rendered immediately/regularly). So apart from the initial shock of seeing >it >replicated on Google's MapMaker a week or two after the initial incident >occurred, I was just downright curious why it would be there, as I thought >Google did not use OSM data. So this was a curious fact finding mission >wrought from a screwed-up coastline editing experience... nothing more. > > > > > > > I do still recommend that you share the location and details with > > OSMers you trust with more experience than you have; you did describe > > yourself as a newbee. > > I emailed the way to the email address you provided me previously, thank you. > > > > > > You might, as 80n described, decide to pursue this with GMM yourself. > > I'd probably try to reach the GMM contributor who made that edit, > > I could not find indication of this... I was not allowed to edit the GMM >coastline whilst logged into Google... perhaps other users are able to do >so... >but I doubt it. > > > if > > that information is available. Or, you may decide to ask somebody > > else in the community to do that for you. Perhaps somebody at your > > local OSM meetups, mapping parties or local chapter. > > I am my local chapter :( > > > Or you can > > report this to the Data Working Group though they prefer if you have > > made some initial attempt at contact on your own. > > No, this was not my objective... I merely wanted to know if GMM was now an > OSM >user, and if not, I just wanted folks at OSM to be made aware, if for no >other >reason then to be made aware. > > > > > If GMM does not > > provide a method to contact editors, the idea of contacting Google Map > > Mapker as a whole does sound a bit daunt
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?
On 7 September 2010 22:59, wrote: >> 2) The "worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable >> license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything >> within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other" >> gives them that. >> > > I got far enough through the Australian Copyright Act at the weekend to > discover that this won't extend to Australia. > Assignment of Australian copyright cannot be done over the internet. > There are new High Court rulings regarding digital signatures which will > have to be read to confirm this, but click-through is unlikely to meet the > standard required. It's the same here in Europe (or at least in Poland), a copyright assignment can only be done in writing. There's no talk about assignment in the Contributor Terms though, it's a grant of rights. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
