Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Paul Norman]

The fact that you can’t mix OSM + proprietary data and then distribute it as 
some kind of “OSM but better” without releasing the proprietary data is a 
feature of share-alike licenses, not a bug. 

 

The public domain argument is a bit of a red herring. If OSM used a PD-like 
license like PDDL or CC0 then we would be unable to make use of most of the 
external sources that we use, having to drop at a bare minimum 40% of the ways 
in the DB, and likely much more. Even if OSM went with PDDL or CC0 we wouldn’t 
truly be PD, and that could still pose issues.

 

In many ways this is similar to GPL vs BSD license debates from the software 
world, although ODbL is closer to LGPL with its weaker share-alike and produced 
works. Both licenses have their benefits and drawbacks.

 

From: Alex Barth [mailto:a...@mapbox.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:21 PM
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

 

 

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

I think that the OSM community is already very open towards commercial use;

 

This is bigger than just commercial use. The ODbL is an obstacle to contribute 
to OSM for anyone - business or not - who is bound by the constraints of using 
third party data whose license they can't control or for anyone who's bound by 
law to keep their data in the public domain.

 

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Alex Barth]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> I think that the OSM community is already very open towards commercial use;


This is bigger than just commercial use. The ODbL is an obstacle to
contribute to OSM for anyone - business or not - who is bound by the
constraints of using third party data whose license they can't control or
for anyone who's bound by law to keep their data in the public domain.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Svavar Kjarrval]

It would prohibit me from using the CC0 license if I use any data with a
ODbL license to create a derived database.

- Svavar Kjarrval

On 28/02/13 23:49, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 28/02/13 23:45, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>>
>> It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative
>> databases.
>
> That doesn't prohibit anything. You can make derivative databases. You
> just can't prohibit people from using them freely.
>
> - Rob.
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 28/02/13 23:45, Tobias Knerr wrote:


It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative
databases.


That doesn't prohibit anything. You can make derivative databases. You 
just can't prohibit people from using them freely.


- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 27/02/13 21:19, Rob wrote:


Rather than share-alike I would like to share-what-I-like but that is
not an option.


And I'd like you to make me a sandwich.

- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 27/02/13 20:24, Marc Regan wrote:

I'm also going to add we should do away with share alike in the mid
term. It's just complicated and hurting OSM. Case in point: example at
hand.

+1. If you want to do anything with OSM data besides make map tiles, the
cloud of uncertainty around what you can and can't do with the data is
pretty terrifying.


-1 This is obvious nonsense.

- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Tobias Knerr]

On 28.02.2013 01:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Just to make this one point clear:
> 
> What you *can* do with the data is pretty clear and pretty easy.

This is not really true. At the core of the ODbL is the idea that
"produced works" and "derivative databases" should be treated
differently, and that distinction is difficult to make and unclear for
everything that is not explicitly listed as one of the examples of a
produced work. Just as one example, Matthias Meißer recently forwarded a
question about the legal nature of 3D city models in the light of ODbL
to this list and apparently no one was able to clarify.

I believe that such ambiguous and complex distinctions go against the
purpose of a free license to make it easy and safe to reuse data.

You are right that there are also cases where it is clear that something
is not permitted, and the problem is merely that some of us would want
it to be legal instead. The original question probably falls into this
category. But I still wanted to point ot that this clarity does not
exist for all possible use cases.

> As I said in my op*ening paragraph, the share-alike license never
> prohibits you from doing something with the data; it just prohibits you
> from prohibiting stuff!

It also _forces_ you to prohibit stuff, by requiring ODbL for derivative
databases. For example, merging some OSM data now forces you to prohibit
the use of your improved database as a source for Wikidata - or for OSM
if we ever change our license again.

Tobias

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Rob Myers]

On 28/02/13 00:17, Frederik Ramm wrote:


As I said in my opening paragraph, the share-alike license never
prohibits you from doing something with the data; it just prohibits you
from prohibiting stuff!


<3

- Rob.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Alex Barth]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Jake Wasserman wrote:

> 'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or
> together in the same "database" software, whether that is a RDBMS, NOSQL,
> filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't derived from
> OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a Derivative Database.'


This looks off.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Olov McKie  wrote:

> 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use
> the coordinates they clicked on as part of the meta-data for a place in our
> application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database?
>  To clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the
> coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the
> map to for example London and then click somewhere in London.
>
> I was expecting this to be OK. If I were to use my old paperback world
> atlas to find the latitude and longitude of different places around the
> world, and then store those coordinates along with an awful lot of other
> information in a database, in no way would I expect whoever wrote that
> atlas to have copyright claims on my database. I see this as fair use of
> the atlas and I see the use of an application showing a map where the user
> clicks on the map as equivalent to an atlas and was therefor not expecting
> this to be an issue. As some of you see this as copying would I like to ask
> sub questions:
>


You're letting users pinpoint locations on a map created using OSM data.

How is this different from tracing roads and buildings from a map created
using OSM data?

I think most people agree that such tracing indeed creates derivative data
based on the OSM database. And I think it makes no difference if the
tracing is on a point by point basis or via lines or polygons.

So my opinion is that those coordinates should be licensed under the ODbL.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Olov McKie]

Hello All!

First off, thank you for the feedback I have gotten so far! I had an idea about 
what answers I would get on my questions, but some of your answers were not 
what I expected, so let me reason a bit about each case and I would love your 
feedback on my reasoning. Please also look on case 3 and 4 as no one has said 
anything about them yet.


1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use the 
coordinates they clicked on as part of the meta-data for a place in our 
application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database?  To 
clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the 
coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the map 
to for example London and then click somewhere in London.

I was expecting this to be OK. If I were to use my old paperback world atlas to 
find the latitude and longitude of different places around the world, and then 
store those coordinates along with an awful lot of other information in a 
database, in no way would I expect whoever wrote that atlas to have copyright 
claims on my database. I see this as fair use of the atlas and I see the use of 
an application showing a map where the user clicks on the map as equivalent to 
an atlas and was therefor not expecting this to be an issue. As some of you see 
this as copying would I like to ask sub questions:

1a. What license would a coordinate extracted this way be under? As the 
application displaying the map keeps track of the coordinates and normally can 
display any map layer (OSM and others) and we are not extracting raw data from 
the database, but just using the rendered view (CC-BY-SA) to help us orient the 
applications coordinate position to a place we can find on the globe. Will the 
coordinates extracted from the application be CC-BY-SA or ODbL? 

1b. If I move the map to a place that is not yet mapped, for instance a small 
village not at all represented on the map, but I know its location relative to 
surrounding places, roads etc., then I ask the application for its position, do 
you also see this as copying of map data?

1c. If I use another map layer (NOT OSM) to position my application to a 
specific place on the globe, then ask the application to change the mapping 
layer to an OSM representation, then ask the application for the coordinates by 
clicking on the map, would you consider this copying of OSM data?

1d. If I have a printed OSM map of the world and use that to find coordinates 
for places that I then put in our database, would you consider that copying of 
OSM data, if so, would the coordinates be CC-BY-SA or ODbL? 


2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered 
by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and let the user 
click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on, will the resulting 
database be considered a derived database?  Again, we would not extract any 
information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on. 
Presenting the markers would of course help the user find a place, such as 
London.

I saw this as very similar to case 1, and using the same atlas reference as in 
case 1 (using the map registry to find the correct page), I would consider this 
OK. But I am in this case using raw map data to display positions on the map, 
so it is definitely getting closer to copying data, and I was expecting some 
people to find this as ok and some as not ok.

 

3. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered 
by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and if we have 
more then one result ask the user to fill in more details about the place such 
as, country, region, close to major city, local name, etc until overpass only 
returns on result, would the user entered data be considered a derived 
database? To clarify, in this case would we not extract the coordinates or any 
other data from the map.

I can not see this as anything but OK, we are not storing any information from 
the map, just user entered data. But if someone has an idea how this could be 
considered copying in such a way that the ODbLs share alike clause would kick 
in, would I definitely like to hear it.


 

4. If we present several places (all data about the place including coordinates 
originates from other sources than OSM) on an OSM map to help find duplicates, 
and then lets the user click on two places marked on the map, to merge them 
into one, would the resulting database be considered a derived database?

I can not see this as anything but OK. A mapping application would solve this 
use-case with or without a map as a background layer, just visualizing the 
places on the coordinate grid with a scale present would immediately show 
duplicates so the OSM layer is only a nice visual touch and I can not see how 
it would be considered copying of OSM data. But if anyone has a different view 
p

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Jonathan Harley]

On 28/02/13 08:04, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:

On 02/28/2013 05:54 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote:

I'm a little confused.  The way I interpret your comment, merely
storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share
alike.  But on the use cases wiki page
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says:
'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or
together in the same "database" software, whether that is a RDBMS,
NOSQL, filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't
derived from OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a
Derivative Database.'  In other words, storing ODbL and non-ODbL data
together does not trigger share alike.

What I understand is that the difference between Derivative Database and
Collective Database is whether or not the data is published under a
common namespace. What storage is used does not matter.



What publication techniques you use are as irrelevant to database 
share-alike as what storage techniques you use. A set of data forms a 
Derivative Database if it's derived from OSM (modified, arranged, 
adapted etc); and if not - if it's just stored next to it or retrieved 
together with it - it's a Collective Database.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3d._If_I_use_your_data_together_with_someone_else.27s_data.2C_do_I_have_to_apply_your_license_to_their_data_too.3F
 says this in slightly different words:

"If the two datasets are independent ... this is a *Collective 
Database*. If you adapt them to work together (for example, by taking 
footpaths from the OSM data, roads from the third-party data, and 
connecting them for routing), this is a Derivative Database."



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map

[Simon Poole]

The use of the term "Database" in an intellectual property context has
essentially nothing to do with the CS/IT concept of a database. The
statement on the wiki is correct, and Alexs statement was a bit misleading.

I don't think this discussion has made any progress since the last time
it came up.  I'm still waiting for a concrete (geocoding) use case which
we would reasonably want to allow without triggering share-a-like.

Simon

 
Am 28.02.2013 05:54, schrieb Jake Wasserman:
> Alex,
> I'm a little confused.  The way I interpret your comment, merely
> storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share
> alike.  But on the use cases wiki page
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says:
> 'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or
> together in the same "database" software, whether that is a RDBMS,
> NOSQL, filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't
> derived from OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a
> Derivative Database.'  In other words, storing ODbL and non-ODbL data
> together does not trigger share alike.
>
> Just trying to get some clarification.
>
> Thanks,
> Jake
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Alex Barth  > wrote:
>
> Rob - as long as you don't mix ODbL data and other data in the
> same database, ODbL's share alike cause doesn't kick in. So using
> the OSM tiles on your web site doesn't mean that data in your web
> site is affected. I recommend reading the ODbL, it's pretty clear
> that way http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
>
> (And yes, I know, an open license shouldn't be that long and that
> complicated, but that's another story).
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Rob  > wrote:
>
> >> It would appear that any and all data associated with a
> >> website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM data is used.
>
> > What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but
> that is
> > trivially disprovable.
>
> Where is the line in the sand?
>
> For example I have a website which is driven by several
> databases whichinclude everything from website members info t
>
> I then integrate OSM into the website by including interactive
> map tiles, address searches (geocoding), POI placement /
> inclusion, routing, etc...
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 27, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Richard Fairhurst
> mailto:rich...@systemed.net>> wrote:
>
> > WhereAmI wrote:
> >> It would appear that any and all data associated with a
> >> website or mobile app becomes fair game once OSM
> >> data is used.
> >
> > What? No. No, that isn't true. I'm no fan of share-alike but
> that is
> > trivially disprovable.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> 
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-License-question-user-clicking-on-map-tp5750253p5751314.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
>
> ___
> 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] License question, user clicking on map

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 02/28/2013 05:54 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote:
> I'm a little confused.  The way I interpret your comment, merely
> storing ODbL and non-ODbL data in the same database triggers share
> alike.  But on the use cases wiki page
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases), Case 4 says:
> 'It makes no difference whether you store the data sets separately, or
> together in the same "database" software, whether that is a RDBMS,
> NOSQL, filesystem or anything else. So long as the other data isn't
> derived from OSM, the result is a Collective Database, not a
> Derivative Database.'  In other words, storing ODbL and non-ODbL data
> together does not trigger share alike.

What I understand is that the difference between Derivative Database and
Collective Database is whether or not the data is published under a
common namespace. What storage is used does not matter.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk