Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 30 October 2012 20:46, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 10/30/12 08:19, Igor Brejc wrote: > >> Some then say that these in-memory data structures are also Derivative >> Databases. In what form can you then offer such a Database to someone >> that requests it? >> > > I don't think there's a way how one could require the making available of > such a transient structure without making OSM data processing totally > impractical. > I'm pretty sure I was the one who mentioned that issue last time the question came up, or at least one of the few who did. The main issue is that there isn't really a clear line between a permanent database and a transient structure. Consider some scenarios: 1) Someone uses osmosis to import data into PostgreSQL, and then uses mapnik to render images 2) Someone uses a single tool which imports the data into a temporary PostgreSQL database, renders from it, and removes the temporary database 3) Someone uses that single tool, but with HSQL or another in-memory database that never gets written to disk 4) Someone uses a tool that uses specific in-memory data structures rather than general SQL-based ones 5) Someone uses a tool that runs on a data grid like Hadoop/Infinispan/Hazelcast, so everything is processed iteratively, transient, and spread across multiple machines. Which of those count as creating a Derivative Database and which ones don't? The term "database" doesn't have anything to do with SQL or being on disk. Also important is that as someone who receives a copy of the Produced Work, you can't tell how it's produced. What is to stop someone doing (1) and then when you ask for the database just saying "it was all done in-memory, there's no database"? Making those transient structures available is impractical as you say, but that doesn't necessarily mean the license doesn't say that. To quote the ODbL: "Database – A collection of material (the Contents) arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means offered under the terms of this License.". If I create an in-memory data structure to hold map geometry, then I'd think it's both arranged systematically and electronically accessible. Turning it the another way, say you had OSM data and another database, which you had separately rendered to images. I'm pretty sure that you could then overlay one image on another and serve the combined one to people (provided you satisfy the attribution requirements for the OSM data). If on the other hand you combined the two databases and then rendered the images, you would have a Derived Database you need to release. How is anyone else supposed to tell the difference? If they ask you to release the combined database and you replied "They were rendered separately and then combined, I don't have to release it", is there anything to do? -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 31/10/2012 11:50, Jonathan Harley wrote: On 30/10/12 13:47, Michael Collinson wrote: On 30/10/2012 13:07, Jonathan Harley wrote: [snip] One thing that's confusing me, is that http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright does not say what license applies to the contents. ODbL specifically says that it only applies to the database and a separate license is required for the contents. It suggests that a notice should be inserted "prominently in all relevant locations" which surely includes the copyright wiki page. I remember earlier discussions on this list about using ODcL for the contents. Was this what was agreed on? LWG, anyone? Hi Jonathan, The short answer is the the contributor terms control content and that the relevant wording there is heavily modelled on ODcL. As a low priority TODO, I'll trace back the exact mechanism to see if we can be more obvious about the relationships on the copyright page without using tortuous language. It has been a while. I really think it does need to be more obvious. The copyright page is the obvious place for prospective consumers of OSM data to find out what they can do with it. It doesn't currently mention the CTs, nor would a consumer who is not an OSM contributor think of looking at the CTs. ODbL itself recommends that we give a clear statement about what license applies to the database contents, and we're not doing that. Also, thanks for your clarification yesterday about copyright. It strikes me that the Community Guidelines pages are not structured in a way that's very easy for a prospective data consumer to use, and that what we need is something more goal-oriented; perhaps broken down by use-cases, "if you want to do this... your legal requirements are this". 1) does something like that exist and I've missed it? 2) if no, has the LWG considered doing something like that? 3) if no, should I have a stab at a draft for OSM-legal-talk to comment on? The main resource the LWG has worked on is the Foundation http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License FAQ which is aimed solely at end users. It expands slowly as of course we have to be very careful what we say and to say it in clear language for non-native english speakers and for unambiguity. We've considered what you have proposed, but got no further. I would therefore be delighted to take you up on your offer and thank you. It would also be great to get the OSM-legal-talk community involved as there are folks who really are end users, (LWG is not), and can better critique both the use cases and whether the answers enlighten or confuse. May I suggest that you either start a new master page as http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases or use http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases as a trial area? The whole Open_Data_License/* structure needs clean-up now the license change is through. Also the Community Guidelines page per se, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines, is designed for presenting a small number of specific grey areas and what the OSM community feels to be an elegant solution. Lastly, I am adding an initial "What should my lawyer look at?" section to the Foundation FAQ to start addressing your other comments now. Thanks for your feedback. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On 30/10/12 13:47, Michael Collinson wrote: On 30/10/2012 13:07, Jonathan Harley wrote: [snip] One thing that's confusing me, is that http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright does not say what license applies to the contents. ODbL specifically says that it only applies to the database and a separate license is required for the contents. It suggests that a notice should be inserted "prominently in all relevant locations" which surely includes the copyright wiki page. I remember earlier discussions on this list about using ODcL for the contents. Was this what was agreed on? LWG, anyone? Hi Jonathan, The short answer is the the contributor terms control content and that the relevant wording there is heavily modelled on ODcL. As a low priority TODO, I'll trace back the exact mechanism to see if we can be more obvious about the relationships on the copyright page without using tortuous language. It has been a while. I really think it does need to be more obvious. The copyright page is the obvious place for prospective consumers of OSM data to find out what they can do with it. It doesn't currently mention the CTs, nor would a consumer who is not an OSM contributor think of looking at the CTs. ODbL itself recommends that we give a clear statement about what license applies to the database contents, and we're not doing that. Also, thanks for your clarification yesterday about copyright. It strikes me that the Community Guidelines pages are not structured in a way that's very easy for a prospective data consumer to use, and that what we need is something more goal-oriented; perhaps broken down by use-cases, "if you want to do this... your legal requirements are this". 1) does something like that exist and I've missed it? 2) if no, has the LWG considered doing something like that? 3) if no, should I have a stab at a draft for OSM-legal-talk to comment on? J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
