Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing of works containing geocodes pinpointed on OSM data (Richard Fairhurst)
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:49 AM, wrote: > From: Richard Fairhurst > On this specific issue: I'd suggest you consider whether your combination of > OSM-derived data and other data is a Derivative Database (has to be shared) > or a Collective Database (doesn't have to be shared). As a rough guideilne, > we say that it's Derivative if you've adapted the two datasets to work with > each other, Collective if you haven't. Thank you for the response. For the feed, basically we'd be looking at a list of points of interest in this format: PROPRIETARY DATA PROPRIETARY DATA PROPRIETARY DATA OSM OSM Would this be "adapted" or not? If yes, what if we store the geocodes in a separate file and cross-reference the two, like this? Closed: PROPRIETARY DATA PROPRIETARY DATA PROPRIETARY DATA 1 ODBL: OSM OSM > On the broader issue: I'd be interested to see a discussion as to how we > should define 'Substantial', and 'Collective' vs 'Derivative', for geocoding > (in terms of principles). I think it's reasonably uncontroversial to say > that geocoding an unsystematic set of self-collected points is a less > substantial use of OSM data than distributing the roads as part of a > connected dataset. But I've not got much further in my thinking than that. I > may go and hunt for some relevant case law (*shudders at thought of William > Hill vs BHB*)... Yes, this would be very interesting for us as well. Cheers, -jani ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] displaying results of processed OSM data
I dont beleive the services or anyone at that matter should even be of a concern to what information you behold were all going to the same place in time. Energy and vibrations advertisement is every where wats the diffrence with what your trying to say. My beliefs, treat everyone as an individual if they want to know and they are ready to know tell them. I would love to be enlightend. Salusa On Oct 16, 2012, at 9:20 PM, David Prime wrote: > We're not quite ready to come out of stealth, yet. Once I've figured out the > licensing strategy and other stuff I'll certainly post to a few of these > lists with details, the service would probably interest quite a few here. > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Zack wrote: > I think i know what you are talking about and ide love more information. Not > only is this topic something i have thought to myself but i also have more > ideas on this subject as you probibly do too. > > > > On Oct 16, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > what I'm offering here is my personal interpretation and not legal > > advice. I hope others will chime in. > > > > On 16.10.2012 19:04, David Prime wrote: > >> I'm in the process of starting a service that uses, amongst other > >> sources, OSM data to compute various travel time metrics from a location. > > > > It sounds as if your time travel metrics thereby become a database that is > > derived from OpenStreetMap data. > > > > You then "publicly use" that data by displaying it to someone. > > > > If that is correct then the license requires, in addition to proper > > attribution, that you, if requested by anyone who is a recipient of your > > "public use", make the full database of time travel metrics available to > > them unter the terms of ODBL 1.0. (*) > > > > You do not have to make available the "other sources", only the derived > > database. > > > > If you have a long processing chain where you create several interim > > databases, like > > > > (OSM+other sources) => interim DB 1 > > interim DB 1 => interim DB 2 > > interim DB 2 => interim DB 3 > > interim DB 3 => public use > > > > then the "make available" requirement applies to the last in the chain of > > interim databases, in this case, interim DB 3. > > > > To avoid confusion: > > > > 1. You do not have to make your data available proactively; you can wait > > until someone asks you for it. Depending on your audience, of course, > > making it available proactively could be easier. > > > > 2. You do not have to make your data available to *everyone* - just those > > who are the recipients of your "public use". So if you were to e.g. sell > > your analyses to an elite circle of clients, only those would have the > > right to request the data. (With the data being under ODbL, of course, they > > could then pass it on to others.) > > > > Bye > > Frederik > > > > (*) The license also has alternatives to "making the data available"; you > > could also make the process available that leads to the data. But I assume > > this is not an interesting option for you. > > > > -- > > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > > > ___ > > 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 > > ___ > 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] displaying results of processed OSM data
We're not quite ready to come out of stealth, yet. Once I've figured out the licensing strategy and other stuff I'll certainly post to a few of these lists with details, the service would probably interest quite a few here. On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Zack wrote: > I think i know what you are talking about and ide love more information. > Not only is this topic something i have thought to myself but i also have > more ideas on this subject as you probibly do too. > > > > On Oct 16, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > what I'm offering here is my personal interpretation and not legal > advice. I hope others will chime in. > > > > On 16.10.2012 19:04, David Prime wrote: > >> I'm in the process of starting a service that uses, amongst other > >> sources, OSM data to compute various travel time metrics from a > location. > > > > It sounds as if your time travel metrics thereby become a database that > is derived from OpenStreetMap data. > > > > You then "publicly use" that data by displaying it to someone. > > > > If that is correct then the license requires, in addition to proper > attribution, that you, if requested by anyone who is a recipient of your > "public use", make the full database of time travel metrics available to > them unter the terms of ODBL 1.0. (*) > > > > You do not have to make available the "other sources", only the derived > database. > > > > If you have a long processing chain where you create several interim > databases, like > > > > (OSM+other sources) => interim DB 1 > > interim DB 1 => interim DB 2 > > interim DB 2 => interim DB 3 > > interim DB 3 => public use > > > > then the "make available" requirement applies to the last in the chain > of interim databases, in this case, interim DB 3. > > > > To avoid confusion: > > > > 1. You do not have to make your data available proactively; you can wait > until someone asks you for it. Depending on your audience, of course, > making it available proactively could be easier. > > > > 2. You do not have to make your data available to *everyone* - just > those who are the recipients of your "public use". So if you were to e.g. > sell your analyses to an elite circle of clients, only those would have the > right to request the data. (With the data being under ODbL, of course, they > could then pass it on to others.) > > > > Bye > > Frederik > > > > (*) The license also has alternatives to "making the data available"; > you could also make the process available that leads to the data. But I > assume this is not an interesting option for you. > > > > -- > > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > > > ___ > > 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 > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] displaying results of processed OSM data
I think i know what you are talking about and ide love more information. Not only is this topic something i have thought to myself but i also have more ideas on this subject as you probibly do too. On Oct 16, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > what I'm offering here is my personal interpretation and not legal advice. > I hope others will chime in. > > On 16.10.2012 19:04, David Prime wrote: >> I'm in the process of starting a service that uses, amongst other >> sources, OSM data to compute various travel time metrics from a location. > > It sounds as if your time travel metrics thereby become a database that is > derived from OpenStreetMap data. > > You then "publicly use" that data by displaying it to someone. > > If that is correct then the license requires, in addition to proper > attribution, that you, if requested by anyone who is a recipient of your > "public use", make the full database of time travel metrics available to them > unter the terms of ODBL 1.0. (*) > > You do not have to make available the "other sources", only the derived > database. > > If you have a long processing chain where you create several interim > databases, like > > (OSM+other sources) => interim DB 1 > interim DB 1 => interim DB 2 > interim DB 2 => interim DB 3 > interim DB 3 => public use > > then the "make available" requirement applies to the last in the chain of > interim databases, in this case, interim DB 3. > > To avoid confusion: > > 1. You do not have to make your data available proactively; you can wait > until someone asks you for it. Depending on your audience, of course, making > it available proactively could be easier. > > 2. You do not have to make your data available to *everyone* - just those who > are the recipients of your "public use". So if you were to e.g. sell your > analyses to an elite circle of clients, only those would have the right to > request the data. (With the data being under ODbL, of course, they could then > pass it on to others.) > > Bye > Frederik > > (*) The license also has alternatives to "making the data available"; you > could also make the process available that leads to the data. But I assume > this is not an interesting option for you. > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > 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] displaying results of processed OSM data
Hi, what I'm offering here is my personal interpretation and not legal advice. I hope others will chime in. On 16.10.2012 19:04, David Prime wrote: I'm in the process of starting a service that uses, amongst other sources, OSM data to compute various travel time metrics from a location. It sounds as if your time travel metrics thereby become a database that is derived from OpenStreetMap data. You then "publicly use" that data by displaying it to someone. If that is correct then the license requires, in addition to proper attribution, that you, if requested by anyone who is a recipient of your "public use", make the full database of time travel metrics available to them unter the terms of ODBL 1.0. (*) You do not have to make available the "other sources", only the derived database. If you have a long processing chain where you create several interim databases, like (OSM+other sources) => interim DB 1 interim DB 1 => interim DB 2 interim DB 2 => interim DB 3 interim DB 3 => public use then the "make available" requirement applies to the last in the chain of interim databases, in this case, interim DB 3. To avoid confusion: 1. You do not have to make your data available proactively; you can wait until someone asks you for it. Depending on your audience, of course, making it available proactively could be easier. 2. You do not have to make your data available to *everyone* - just those who are the recipients of your "public use". So if you were to e.g. sell your analyses to an elite circle of clients, only those would have the right to request the data. (With the data being under ODbL, of course, they could then pass it on to others.) Bye Frederik (*) The license also has alternatives to "making the data available"; you could also make the process available that leads to the data. But I assume this is not an interesting option for you. -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] displaying results of processed OSM data
Hi, I'm in the process of starting a service that uses, amongst other sources, OSM data to compute various travel time metrics from a location. I'm not quite clear on what the legal requirement is for attribution when I'm displaying the result of some work I have done on the OSM data and not the OSM data itself. I'm going to give a credit to osm contributors regardless, but I'm curious as to what the licence demands in this situation. Many thanks, David Prime ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing of works containing geocodes pinpointed on OSM data
Jani Patokallio wrote: > Any advice would be appreciated, as I still have a faint flicker > of hope that we can get this past the corporate legal team > and possibly even contribute back to OSM! On this specific issue: I'd suggest you consider whether your combination of OSM-derived data and other data is a Derivative Database (has to be shared) or a Collective Database (doesn't have to be shared). As a rough guideilne, we say that it's Derivative if you've adapted the two datasets to work with each other, Collective if you haven't. On the broader issue: I'd be interested to see a discussion as to how we should define 'Substantial', and 'Collective' vs 'Derivative', for geocoding (in terms of principles). I think it's reasonably uncontroversial to say that geocoding an unsystematic set of self-collected points is a less substantial use of OSM data than distributing the roads as part of a connected dataset. But I've not got much further in my thinking than that. I may go and hunt for some relevant case law (*shudders at thought of William Hill vs BHB*)... cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Licensing-of-works-containing-geocodes-pinpointed-on-OSM-data-tp5730883p5730991.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
