Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in OpenDataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file
- Original Message - From: "Richard Fairhurst" To: Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in OpenDataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file David Groom wrote: However where you *don't* add data, but merely process the OSM data, either by extracting some sub-set of it, or simply by transforming it from one form of database to another, then what is the point of requiring compliance with ODbL clause 4.6. You seem to be assuming that compliance _would_ be required. I'm not sure whether it would be. It's possible that the diff between (say) a full planet and a regional subset isn't qualitatively Substantial and therefore doesn't need to be released. But ODbL defines "substantial " as "Means substantial in terms of quantity or quality ", so whilst is not necessarily "qualitatively Substantial " I would argue that a regional subset was "quantitatively Substantial ". We also have be mindful of the OSM guideline of substantial [1], which seems to indicate that only very small extracts counts as insubstantial. That may also be true for transforming from one form of database to another. (In any case, even if it is, the requirement could be fulfilled by putting a single line on a wiki page somewhere with the Osmosis/ogr2ogr/whatever command line you used.) But let's say that you produce a Derivative Database that contains a very cool optimised routing graph from OSM data: no new data, just processed. The share-alike viewpoint might be that it's genuinely useful to OSM to have either the full Derivative, or the algorithm. That would be "the point". Yes I can see that. My concern is that I had assumed that one of the objectives in moving from CC-BY-SA was to make it easier for people to use the data in the OSM database, and yet now we seem to be moving towards placing more requirements on the users of OSM data, which to my mind is not necessarily going to increase the chances of OSM data being used in the first place. But then that's just my opinion, other will I'm sure have different views. Regards David [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline (Again, IRMFI, as you probably know I'm a PD sort myself.) cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file
David Groom wrote: > However where you *don't* add data, but merely process the OSM data, > either by extracting some sub-set of it, or simply by transforming it from > one form of database to another, then what is the point of requiring > compliance with ODbL clause 4.6. You seem to be assuming that compliance _would_ be required. I'm not sure whether it would be. It's possible that the diff between (say) a full planet and a regional subset isn't qualitatively Substantial and therefore doesn't need to be released. That may also be true for transforming from one form of database to another. (In any case, even if it is, the requirement could be fulfilled by putting a single line on a wiki page somewhere with the Osmosis/ogr2ogr/whatever command line you used.) But let's say that you produce a Derivative Database that contains a very cool optimised routing graph from OSM data: no new data, just processed. The share-alike viewpoint might be that it's genuinely useful to OSM to have either the full Derivative, or the algorithm. That would be "the point". (Again, IRMFI, as you probably know I'm a PD sort myself.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Exception-in-Open-Data-License-Community-Guidelines-for-temporary-file-tp6504201p6533566.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] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file
- Original Message - From: "Richard Fairhurst" To: Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file Jonathan Harley wrote: Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4). I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database doesn't reduce the amount of information. The canonical case, often cited by those who say OSM needs a share-alike licence, is to prevent commercial map providers taking the data we have and they don't (e.g. footpaths), adding it to the data they have but we don't (e.g. complete road network), and not giving us anything back. IRMFI, not because I believe it myself. :) cheers Richard That would certainly seem a very good thing. In lots of peoples opinion where you *add* data, then it is good if that data can be shared back to the community. However where you *don't* add data, but merely process the OSM data, either by extracting some sub-set of it, or simply by transforming it from one form of database to another, then what is the point of requiring compliance with ODbL clause 4.6. Regards David ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open Data License/Community Guidelines for temporary file
Jonathan Harley wrote: > Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4). > I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database > doesn't reduce the amount of information. The canonical case, often cited by those who say OSM needs a share-alike licence, is to prevent commercial map providers taking the data we have and they don't (e.g. footpaths), adding it to the data they have but we don't (e.g. complete road network), and not giving us anything back. IRMFI, not because I believe it myself. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Exception-in-Open-Data-License-Community-Guidelines-for-temporary-file-tp6504201p6532530.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] Exception in Open Data License/Community Guidelines for temporary file
On 29/06/11 19:56, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, James Livingston wrote: If I use software that builds an in-memory data structure which you believe to be a database in order to make a produced work, how would you suggest that I fulfil my obligation to make such derived database available on request? I have absolutely no idea. It's one of the many things I don't know about how the produced works part of the ODbL will work in practice. Thinking about this more, the problem would only occur if you have a black-box software wich might or might not create a database internally, and the thing that falls out of the black box is a produced work that you will publicly use. Because then, and only then, will you have to share the derived database upon which the produced work is based. If, on the other hand, out of the black box comes a derived database, then you can simply share *that* database and nobody cares what happened in the black box, because you only have to share the last in a chain of derived databases that leads to a produced work, right? I think that's right - that's the only one which you're publicly using. Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4). I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database doesn't reduce the amount of information. When you want to render geodata, it typically involves discarding most of the metadata, getting rid of points from ways, and transforming lat/long to cartesian co-ordinates in a projection. The resulting database is always going to have a lot less information than the original, and be difficult or impossible to translate back into OSM (without the OSM IDs or original lat/long). So what's the point of the huge burden of being required to make it available on request? Who benefits? Jonathan. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
