Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger
> From: John Bazik [mailto:m...@johnbazik.com] > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:55 PM > To: Licensing and other legal discussions. > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger > > > Well there's a pretty strong precedent by the largest user of OSM data > > to not consider user data part of the same database as the map data: > > osm.org > > I'm glad to hear that. > > So, is it fair to say that, as an OSM database user, one can distinguish > derivative and non-derivative data field by field, without considering > the schema? That is, the "derivative database" is just that collection > of fields that are considered derivative? What do you mean by fields? Keep in mind that databases don't even necessarily involve computers, and the same law still applies. I really think it's best to avoid any RDMS terms. One description for the OSM map database (planet.osm) is a database of georeferenced shapes (including points) with associated data (what the shape represents) and meta-data (time edited, user edited by, etc). I am very tempted to try converting some OSM data from the XML format to a database made by a set of index cards, instead of the normal database made of a few tables in a RDMS "database". > > This makes it clear that share-alike isn't triggered just by > > associating information (such as user accounts) with the map, but by > > the addition of observed physical features (routes being taken by > > users, perhaps?) > > I'm particularly interested in the application of the ODBL, in OSM's > case, to routes. How are routes "observed physical features?" I > understand that if one were to create an OSM-derived database of > roadways that added on-street parking information, that that added data > is an observed physical feature of those roadways that would trigger the > sharealike provision. You appear to of misquoted me, I don't think I said what you have in your quotation. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger
I see that most serious uses of OSM would be substantial. It's really the qualitative part that I find difficult to parse. > It sounds like you're confusing computer science and RDMS databases with the > legal concept of a database. For the rest of this message, I'm talking about > the legal concept of a database. Thanks for drawing the distinction between database systems and databases in the legal sense. It seems the latter allows for arbitrary divisions of data, irrespective of database organization. > Well there's a pretty strong precedent by the largest user of OSM data to > not consider user data part of the same database as the map data: osm.org I'm glad to hear that. So, is it fair to say that, as an OSM database user, one can distinguish derivative and non-derivative data field by field, without considering the schema? That is, the "derivative database" is just that collection of fields that are considered derivative? > This makes it clear that share-alike isn't triggered just by > associating information (such as user accounts) with the map, but by > the addition of observed physical features (routes being taken by > users, perhaps?) I'm particularly interested in the application of the ODBL, in OSM's case, to routes. How are routes "observed physical features?" I understand that if one were to create an OSM-derived database of roadways that added on-street parking information, that that added data is an observed physical feature of those roadways that would trigger the sharealike provision. But how is it that routes - ordered collections of road segments - are considered derivative? And what distinguishes a derivative route from a non-derivative one? John ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger
On 22/07/13 11:46, Paul Norman wrote: From: John Bazik [mailto:jba...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger What consitutes substantial? I've read many threads on this, but I find myself no more able to determine what that might be. If there's ambiguity about the term substantial, it's coming from the relevant laws. The ODbL is just echoing the database directive. Insubstantial is much like fair use. The license should not attempt to define these terms. I don't see substantial as relevant for most use-cases discussed on the list, they have been substantial in quantity. I agree that most use-cases discussed here have been obviously substantial, and I agree that the license shouldn't attempt to fix a definition of substantial in stone. But given that this is such a FAQ, clearly we should have some guidance available. [...] I fear the definition of a derivative work is akin to Justice Potter's famous construction, "I know it when I see it." Last time this issue was discussed on this list, last autumn, many people seemed to be in agreement that the current community guideline on substantial at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline was too example-based and that what's needed was a statement of principle instead. Michael Collinson proposed the following wording: OpenStreetMap considers Open Data to be a usefully collected set of intelligently or machine-made physical observations only. Purely algorithmic augmentation of data and re-casting of data to use, store or transmit it in different manners is not part of the data IP. Share Alike may however apply to physical observations inside the augmented or re-cast data; in this case the physical observations must be provided to the public in a commonly used or documented open format as per ODbL clause 4.6b. This makes it clear that share-alike isn't triggered just by associating information (such as user accounts) with the map, but by the addition of observed physical features (routes being taken by users, perhaps?) A bunch of people expressed agreement with this at the time, but nobody has updated the wiki. Should I JFDI? Would anyone object? 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] sharealike trigger
> From: John Bazik [mailto:jba...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 10:19 PM > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] sharealike trigger > > What consitutes substantial? I've read many threads on this, but I > find myself no more able to determine what that might be. If there's ambiguity about the term substantial, it's coming from the relevant laws. The ODbL is just echoing the database directive. Insubstantial is much like fair use. The license should not attempt to define these terms. I don't see substantial as relevant for most use-cases discussed on the list, they have been substantial in quantity. > And the sharealike trigger is pulled whether the substantial data is > already in OSM or isn't, but "could be." Technically, any data that > references an OSM foreign key could be in OSM. It sounds like you're confusing computer science and RDMS databases with the legal concept of a database. For the rest of this message, I'm talking about the legal concept of a database. > Routes, "in some cases," are of interest. What if the only meta > information associated with routes is the users of another service and > their opinions? Giving up user account information is obviously > problematic for any organization, commercial or non-profit. Well there's a pretty strong precedent by the largest user of OSM data to not consider user data part of the same database as the map data: osm.org itself. osm.org users are more closely tied to the map database then any external service is likely to be, but they're treated as a collective databases. If they were one database then the user info would have to be distributed under the ODbL, or if the user data couldn't be distributed due to other laws (e.g. privacy laws), then the map data couldn't be distributed at all. Off hand, I can think of several databases stored in the same RDMS "database" on osm.org - user database - notes database - map database - GPX database - message database - oauth client database > I fear the definition of a derivative work is akin to Justice Potter's > famous construction, "I know it when I see it." The real question is when is something one database and when is it multiple collective databases. The gray area is a lot smaller than some people believe. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
