Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: On 02/03/13 16:17, Erik Johansson wrote: On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: So - *must* you make your database of user-sourced geodata available to the OSM community? I answer no, so long as it resulted from a produced work and This feel very iffy, I thought this had been disproven already, I might be wrong, but that would mean that the ODBL is really totally useless. You have obviously given this much thought so I'm interested Map data copyright does not magically disappear just because you print it with a free map design. When doing methodical extraction of geo data, you are not copying the produced work, but the map data so it is still a copy of a copyrigthed database. [..] The ODbL definition of a produced work specifically includes images, and its definition of conveying the database specifically excludes produced works. In the discussion on legal-talk back in October, everyone seemed to agree that this means that produced works do not have to be licensed under ODbL. If they are not (and they usually aren't), then of course nothing derived from the produced work is either. I will reiterate, as long as you treat our data as a DB it will have to be licensed as ODbL, all produced works from ODbL data should include an attribution stating that it has information licensed under ODbL (see section 4.3a). I don't think that thread will make me change my mind but I will read it and try to spot any mistake on my part. /Erik ___ 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
Hello, Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not worried about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any case, Technically, it is possible to export in a format where accuracy is 100% preserved, e.g. any vectorized format like PDF or SVG. If you export all tags in a concatenated text string, your map is maybe not readable for humans but you could in this way rebuild the full database under a new license... Yes it is, but is it defendable? I mean could then anyone prove in court that it is a work resulting from and not the Database itself? It would take a few more steps (eg. arrange some inbetween maps to lose the trace) to do it on purpose, I think. For me this is more a question of using 'normal' tiles to make just another map, and I don't see there's a way to prohibit it in ODbL. Sincerely, Tadeusz Knapik ___ 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
Am 04.03.2013 11:29, schrieb Tadeusz Knapik: How come? ODbL doesn't enforce PW's license - if Produced Work is licenced Public Domain, how do you reach somebody who used this PD Produced Work to credit OSM? Sincerely, This is patently wrong, see ODbL 1.0 paragraph 4.3 (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). It is true that the OBbL does not prescribe a specific licence for produced works, however it -does- require the conditions in 4.3 to be adhered to. Simon ___ 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
On 04/03/13 11:53, Pieren wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not worried about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any case, Technically, it is possible to export in a format where accuracy is 100% preserved, e.g. any vectorized format like PDF or SVG. If you export all tags in a concatenated text string, your map is maybe not readable for humans but you could in this way rebuild the full database under a new license... That was touched on last time round, yes. Giving someone a vector-format image might count as conveying a database. I think it's ambiguous. The ODbL essentially treats images and databases as though one thing can never be both. It's another thing that could usefully be clarified in a future version, IMO. 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
Am 04.03.2013 13:39, schrieb Jonathan Harley: On 04/03/13 11:53, Pieren wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: Personally, I think this does leave a loophole where you could reverse engineer OSM's data from imagery, but as I said at the time, I'm not worried about it because so much accuracy would be lost. In any case, Technically, it is possible to export in a format where accuracy is 100% preserved, e.g. any vectorized format like PDF or SVG. If you export all tags in a concatenated text string, your map is maybe not readable for humans but you could in this way rebuild the full database under a new license... That was touched on last time round, yes. Giving someone a vector-format image might count as conveying a database. I think it's ambiguous. The ODbL essentially treats images and databases as though one thing can never be both. It's another thing that could usefully be clarified in a future version, IMO. There is legal precedent that a map can be both an image (on paper) and a database (don't forget that we are not discussing databases in a technical sense). In the end if something like this went to court it is likely that it would be judged on the intent, not on technicalities. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Hello All! Again thank you for all your feedback. Unfortunately after the feedback that I have gotten so far on my initial 4 use-cases, and the 4 extra sub-use-cases I added later, I still do not know for sure if the use-cases I presented would trigger the ODbL share alike clause or not. My confusion about this has though forced me, over the last weeks, to dig a lot deeper into the licenses and rules surrounding our map than I have ever done before as a contributor and a casual user. It is obvious that there still is a lot of discussion going on on how to interpret the license and what cases of copying and use, should trigger the share alike and attribute clauses, and what should not. I would like to argue that a lot of these questions are no longer open for debate. The set of rules that the redaction bot followed, to enable the license change, is by the bots work now coded into the history of our database in such a way that changing them would force us to revert the entire license change. I would suspect (I am no lawyer) that if a license dispute about OSM ever end up in court, we will not be able to argue for more copyright protection than what we gave to those contributors who did not want the license to change. I would also like to argue that, when a question comes in if a user can or can not do something without breaching our copyright, we should always start the discussion by looking for similar examples in our own change to the ODbL. I have searched for these rules, but I have not found them, at least not in the form of a list that clearly states, This is the final list of rules that the reduction bot is based upon, preferably with references to relevant sections of the bots source code. Where can I find the final version of the source code for the redaction bot that was run to do the license change? Help in finding these would be appreciated. I know about these: What is clean (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F), are these the rules the bot is based on? Some code, but it states that it is only an example ( https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change ) As I said in an earlier posting: As far as I understand our license change, it can be described as this: (Please correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit history where someone not willing to change the license (decliner) had edited anything was reverted back in history until no edits by any decliner where left, thereby creating a clean database. All cleaning operations where based on data history in the database. This could also be described as: A user has the full copyright to any point they add to the map that they add regardless of surrounding data. Left out examples of multiple users, The page What is clean talks about The Safe Approach, This is what I think I know so far, based on what I have read over the last weeks so I can not give links for reference, and if I am wrong, please correct me: The only copyright taken into account by the redaction bot is what is stored in the history of the database for a point. Redaction bot All cleaning operations where based on data history in the database. I am currently spending a lot of time thinking about the license and what can be considered copying, derived works etc. I just realized that there is one recent event that sets an unprecedented precedence in how to look upon these questions, it is of course our own recent license change to ODbL. sourcecode, get rules direct linear history of the database edits As I understand our license change, it can be described as this: (Please correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit history where someone not willing to change the license (decliner) had edited anything was reverted back in history until no edits by any decliner where left, thereby creating a clean database. All cleaning operations where based on data history in the database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [GIS-Kosova] OSM road network for Kosova
Hello Michael, Just to let you know that I never heard back from anyone on the issue of the road data for Kosovo. I am not sure how things work, but I was very unhappy that all that data was removed after hundreds of work hours made by many volunteers in Kosova to update the original dataset which was coming from a dated source. Now I see the maps has a lost of new roads but the old dataset is not incorporated, so not sure if anything can be done at all if there's a possibility to combine something. Any advise, recommendation would be welcome. Best, Bekim On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Hi Bekim, If nobody else gives you feedback I will do so next week. I am away at the moment. Regards, Michael Collinson On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:11, Bekim Kajtazi bekim.kajt...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Mike, Hopefully someone will send some feedback. Best, Bekim On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: I dont understand that myself, it seems a bit fuzzy to me but this is the right mailing list and I hope you will get some feedback, thanks mike On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Bekim Kajtazi bekim.kajt...@gmail.com wrote: Ok but I don't know how to go about and do that! That's my problem. Where is the starting point? I am ready to approve, sign, confirm anything required! Best, Bekim On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Bekim, I have been working on understanding the new license even today. it is cc-by-sa + database rights (odbl) + the right for osm to change the licence at will in the future. basically you need to grant the osm the rights to use the data, Michael can give you more info about this, thanks, mike On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Bekim Kajtazi bekim.kajt...@gmail.com wrote: Gent's, Some days ago I noticed that all those detailed roads that were on OSM in Kosova were removed. Does anyone have any information, like when? why? were removed. I am about to contact OSM and any assistance and additional information is welcome! Best, Bekim -- about.me/bekim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups GIS Kosova group. To post to this group, send email to gis-kos...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gis-kosova+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gis-kosova?hl=en. -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 -- about.me/bekim -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 -- about.me/bekim -- about.me/bekim ___ 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
Hello All! Forgive me for the previous unfinished version of this mail, here is the complete version. Again thank you for all your feedback. Unfortunately after the feedback that I have gotten so far on my initial 4 use-cases, and the 4 extra sub-use-cases I added later, I still do not know for sure if the use-cases I presented would trigger the ODbL share alike clause or not. My confusion about this has though forced me, over the last weeks, to dig a lot deeper into the licenses and rules surrounding our map than I have ever done before as a contributor and a casual user. It is obvious that there still is a lot of discussion going on on how to interpret the license and what cases of copying and use, should trigger the share alike and attribute clauses, and what should not. I would like to argue that a lot of these questions are no longer open for debate. The set of rules that the redaction bot followed, to enable the license change, is by the bots work now coded into the history of our database in such a way that changing them would force us to revert the entire license change. I would suspect (I am no lawyer) that if a license dispute about OSM ever end up in court, we will not be able to argue for more copyright protection than what we gave to those contributors who did not want the license to change. I would also like to argue that, when a question comes in if a user can or can not do something without breaching our copyright, we should always start the discussion by looking for similar examples in our own change to the ODbL. I have searched for these rules, but I have not found them, at least not in the form of a list that clearly states, This is the final list of rules that the reduction bot is based upon, preferably with references to relevant sections of the bots source code. Where can I find the final version of the source code for the redaction bot that was run to do the license change? Help in finding these would be appreciated. I know about these: What is clean (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F), are these the rules the bot is based on? Some code, but it states that it is only an example ( https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change ) As I said in an earlier posting: As far as I understand our license change, it can be described as this: (Please correct me if I am wrong) All objects that had an edit history where someone not willing to change the license (decliner) had edited anything was reverted back in history until no edits by any decliner where left, thereby creating a clean database. All cleaning operations where based on data history in the database. This could also be described as: A user has the full copyright to any point they add to the map that they add regardless of surrounding data. If I now look upon my initial use-case questions again and but this time start by looking for similarities in our license change and the set of rules it was based upon, what conclusions do I reach? (As always correct me if I assume anything about the license change that is incorrect.) 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. If a user adds a point to OSM they have full copyright over that point and are free to also add the same point to another database, or as in this case, only add the point to another db. We as a community can not claim any copyright over this point even though our map is used as a base for the placement of the point. We get to claim no copyright here as we gave no copyright to decliners where their data made up the base map on which we added our points before the license change. 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. As long as the presenting of alternatives does not directly expose the underlying point from the OSM db, for example by clicking on a marker and thereby copying the exact coordinates from the db, than this is basically same as 1. If the coordinates are copied, it would be a case where the share alike clause should kick in. I do not see that case 3 and 4 change in the light of our own license change. Comments? /Olov
[OSM-legal-talk] produced work vs. derivative db
after reading all the documents/wiki/mailinglist I am still confused: what forces producers to publish a derivative database and not just produced work? usecase: a user takes a substantial part of osm db, hand modifies it (eg changes name of a street to correct one, make a new hiking route ...) and then publishes it as an online tilemap/printed map. claiming it to be a produced work under a commercial licence. is it a produced work? is it also a derivative database? (if so, which odbl clause kicks in to state this?) thanks michal -- michal palenik www.freemap.sk www.oma.sk http://wiki.freemap.sk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] produced work vs. derivative db
On 04/03/13 16:53, Michal Palenik wrote: after reading all the documents/wiki/mailinglist I am still confused: what forces producers to publish a derivative database and not just produced work? Clause 4.6 of the ODbL, which says if you publish a produced work you must make the database it was produced from available. usecase: a user takes a substantial part of osm db, hand modifies it (eg changes name of a street to correct one, make a new hiking route ...) and then publishes it as an online tilemap/printed map. claiming it to be a produced work under a commercial licence. is it a produced work? The online tilemap and printed map are a produced work. is it also a derivative database? (if so, which odbl clause kicks in to state this?) The database is a derivative database as defined in the definitions section. Correcting names and adding hiking routes which connect with OSM's data is exactly the sort of data the share-alike clause is intended to capture. thanks michal HTH! Jonathan. -- 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] produced work vs. derivative db
may i add a question into faq/use cases: Q: I want to publish a slippy map/printed map based on OSM data. Is it a produced work or derivated database? A: The slippy map itself is a produced work, however the database you used has to meet the same requirements as published derived database or a collective database. In other words, publishing this produced work implies that you have the same obligations as when publishing the database itself. or a better wording. which would clarify the odbl-ty of the data. On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 05:15:04PM +, Jonathan Harley wrote: On 04/03/13 16:53, Michal Palenik wrote: after reading all the documents/wiki/mailinglist I am still confused: what forces producers to publish a derivative database and not just produced work? Clause 4.6 of the ODbL, which says if you publish a produced work you must make the database it was produced from available. usecase: a user takes a substantial part of osm db, hand modifies it (eg changes name of a street to correct one, make a new hiking route ...) and then publishes it as an online tilemap/printed map. claiming it to be a produced work under a commercial licence. is it a produced work? The online tilemap and printed map are a produced work. is it also a derivative database? (if so, which odbl clause kicks in to state this?) The database is a derivative database as defined in the definitions section. Correcting names and adding hiking routes which connect with OSM's data is exactly the sort of data the share-alike clause is intended to capture. thanks michal HTH! Jonathan. -- 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 -- michal palenik www.freemap.sk www.oma.sk http://wiki.freemap.sk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [GIS-Kosova] OSM road network for Kosova
I cannot help you bekim, It seems that the licensing is a lost cause. I for one have stopped wasting time on it. mike On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Bekim Kajtazi bekim.kajt...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Michael, Just to let you know that I never heard back from anyone on the issue of the road data for Kosovo. I am not sure how things work, but I was very unhappy that all that data was removed after hundreds of work hours made by many volunteers in Kosova to update the original dataset which was coming from a dated source. Now I see the maps has a lost of new roads but the old dataset is not incorporated, so not sure if anything can be done at all if there's a possibility to combine something. Any advise, recommendation would be welcome. Best, Bekim On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Hi Bekim, If nobody else gives you feedback I will do so next week. I am away at the moment. Regards, Michael Collinson On 20 Sep 2012, at 19:11, Bekim Kajtazi bekim.kajt...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Mike, Hopefully someone will send some feedback. Best, Bekim On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: I dont understand that myself, it seems a bit fuzzy to me but this is the right mailing list and I hope you will get some feedback, thanks mike On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Bekim Kajtazi bekim.kajt...@gmail.com wrote: Ok but I don't know how to go about and do that! That's my problem. Where is the starting point? I am ready to approve, sign, confirm anything required! Best, Bekim On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Bekim, I have been working on understanding the new license even today. it is cc-by-sa + database rights (odbl) + the right for osm to change the licence at will in the future. basically you need to grant the osm the rights to use the data, Michael can give you more info about this, thanks, mike On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Bekim Kajtazi bekim.kajt...@gmail.com wrote: Gent's, Some days ago I noticed that all those detailed roads that were on OSM in Kosova were removed. Does anyone have any information, like when? why? were removed. I am about to contact OSM and any assistance and additional information is welcome! Best, Bekim -- about.me/bekim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups GIS Kosova group. To post to this group, send email to gis-kos...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to gis-kosova+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gis-kosova?hl=en. -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 -- about.me/bekim -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 -- about.me/bekim -- about.me/bekim -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 Free Software Foundation Europe Fellow http://fsfe.org/support/?h4ck3rm1k3 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
