Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work (was: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline)
Hi, On 09/23/2015 01:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote: > This could be well done within the confines of the ODbL by endorsing the > "Geocoding is Produced Work" > guideline > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-July/007900.html Frankly, even if I was of the opinion that it would be desirable for the ODbL to not apply to geocoding, I don't think that "Geocoding is Produced Work" could ever fly, legally, at least in countries that have a sui generis database law. I mean, nobody cares about a single on-the-fly geocoding result (this easily falls under the "substantial" guideline) but if you repeatedly query an ODbL database with the aim of retrieving from it, say, a million lat-lon pairs to store in your own database, then how in the world could this new database ever be *not* a derivative? Even if you were to define a single geocoding result as a produced work, combining a large number of them in a database would still get you a derived database again. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
Hi, I'm deliberately taking this out of the geocoding context here to make a point regarding the mixing of OSM and non-OSM data: On 09/23/2015 01:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote: > mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs > should not extend the ODbL to non-OSM POIs and so forth. What we'd like to avoid is someone making a business of selling "the better OSM" by adding to our data other, separately curated, proprietary data, thereby improving OSM without sharing any of the improvements back. That would enable someone to offer e.g. a "better navigation app" that was largely based on OSM but had proprietary data improvements, and the exposure OSM would get from that would be worth nothing as nobody else could use that same database. This would be a use case that the license is specifically designed against and we must take care not to weaken our position here. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding
Hi, On 09/23/2015 04:49 AM, Randy Meech wrote: > I used the MapQuest Nominatim > service to geocode and/or reverse geocode all the global tide stations > used in the app. What would the community have me do? As a step one, and before we discuss the potential licensing consequences, would you agree that 1. What you have created to power your app is a database. 2. The database you have created is partly derived from a non-OSM source (as far as the "there is a tide station at this address" is concerned). 3. The database you have created is partly derived from OSM (as far as "this address is at location lon=x, lat=y" is concerned). Is there any doubt about any of these three statements either on your side or anyone else's? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:43 PM Tom Lee wrote: > If more people can run geocoding services built on OSM data, more people > will have an incentive to improve the map in order to improve their > results. I'm not merely speculating: I spend most of my time working on the > Mapbox geocoder these days. If, when a user reports a missing small town > boundary for a reverse geocode, I could fix the problem by adding the > boundary to OSM, I would be delighted. > Totally agreed on this. When we set up the free Nominatim service at MapQuest years ago, part of the thesis (besides utilizing spare compute power freed up by declining AOL dial-up customers ;) was to create a large group of developers who would use the services and improve the data, an effort that I believe was successful. I've heard many anecdotes of individuals and teams doing just as Tom suggests -- fixing the data to improve their geocoding results. We talk of OSM as a community of individuals, but some of those individuals are in companies and working on projects that need geocoding -- they can improve the data in non-automated ways just like anyone else & should be encouraged by clarity on the license. We never worried about what people did with our Nominatim service, we passed along the license and let people do what they wanted. I wonder how many companies are in a licensing grey area now as a result, and I also wonder how much it really matters in the end. For example -- I have a side project I built years ago called Tides Near Me. It's the most popular tides app in the iTunes & Google Play stores, and also has a decent web presence. I used the MapQuest Nominatim service to geocode and/or reverse geocode all the global tide stations used in the app. What would the community have me do? I'm actually curious, let's use this as a litmus test, what should I do with this database? What do we want? Personally, because I haven't improved any OSM-relevant data that I'm not sharing back, I don't see how it would benefit anyone to open this (but I also wouldn't really care about opening it). What do you think I should do and why? -Randy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding
> Turning this around, when do you think share-alike should apply in a geocoding context? I think there are two goals that a successful geocoding guidance should meet: 1. Enable greater use of OSM data for geocoding, including scenarios in which sharealike provisions must not be applied (e.g. geocoding personally identifiable or sensitive business information) 2. Protect the integrity of the OSM project and its sharealike requirements -- i.e., don't open a backdoor by which the project can be copied without ODbL attaching. At the risk of putting words in others' mouths, I've seen some people argue that a third goal should be met: compelling geocoding users to share the results of their geocodes. It's sometimes suggested that this could be a valuable source of POIs. I don't think this is a workable goal for a guidance. Even if it did induce people to contribute data back (rather than simply avoiding OSM geocoding), it seems unrealistic to expect the community to figure out how to establish that there are no other IP rights at play, nor to shepherd each contribution through the import process. But more to the point, this is the wrong theory of action for how geocoding can compel people to improve the map. If more people can run geocoding services built on OSM data, more people will have an incentive to improve the map in order to improve their results. I'm not merely speculating: I spend most of my time working on the Mapbox geocoder these days. If, when a user reports a missing small town boundary for a reverse geocode, I could fix the problem by adding the boundary to OSM, I would be delighted. As things stand, I need to correct these errors by pursuing a much more complicated process with a proprietary data vendor. Tom ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:58 PM Tom Lee wrote: > Martin, > > > Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal > point of view, how it should be interpreted? > > > Correct--it's currently unclear how the license applies to many important > use cases. Partly this is because it's untested: OSM is the only important > user of ODbL [...] > Also, unlike copyright, the ODbL is based on legal terms and concepts that are largely untested and undefined. As I've explained on this list before[1], some very basic terms like "substantial" are not well-defined in the statute or caselaw. In some cases, that vagueness may be helpful for OSM; in other cases, not so much. Luis [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-April/007809.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Please unsubscribe this email from your list
I don't know how to login to your site. Your list is clogging my email. Can you please remove this email? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
On 2015-09-22 16:26, Alex Barth wrote: Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike to third party data elements intermingled with OSM data elements of the same kind. E. g. mixing OSM and non-OSM addresses should not extend ODbL to non-OSM addresses, mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs should not extend the ODbL to non-OSM POIs and so forth. This would explicitly go against the license if it's a qualitative rather a quantitative statement. Calling something "geocoding" is a distraction. Look at what processes are involved (copying a database) and what the results are (a substantial or non-substantial amount of the database being copied). - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding
On 2015-09-22 16:38, Paul Norman wrote: I'm trimming the cc list and taking this to a new thread, since it's independent of the metadata guideline. On 9/22/2015 4:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote: Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike to third party data elements intermingled with OSM data elements of the same kind. E. g. mixing OSM and non-OSM addresses should not extend ODbL to non-OSM addresses, mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs should not extend the ODbL to non-OSM POIs and so forth. It's that time again! :-) Turning this around, when do you think share-alike should apply in a geocoding context? As with any other context, and as described by the license, when a substantial portion of the database is copied. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding
On 9/22/2015 4:38 PM, Paul Norman wrote: I'm trimming the cc list and taking this to a new thread, since it's independent of the metadata guideline. On 9/22/2015 4:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote: Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike to third party data elements intermingled with OSM data elements of the same kind. E. g. mixing OSM and non-OSM addresses should not extend ODbL to non-OSM addresses, mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs should not extend the ODbL to non-OSM POIs and so forth. Turning this around, when do you think share-alike should apply in a geocoding context? I realized after sending that it's more appropriate to say "when do you think share-alike does apply", not "should apply". ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding
I'm trimming the cc list and taking this to a new thread, since it's independent of the metadata guideline. On 9/22/2015 4:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote: Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike to third party data elements intermingled with OSM data elements of the same kind. E. g. mixing OSM and non-OSM addresses should not extend ODbL to non-OSM addresses, mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs should not extend the ODbL to non-OSM POIs and so forth. Turning this around, when do you think share-alike should apply in a geocoding context? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Simon Poole wrote: > One of the big grey areas remaining wrt our distribution licence is > defining if, and how you can link from external data to an OpenStreetMap > derived dataset. Nailing this down is, in my opinion, key to progress in > getting rid of other areas of contention (for example geo-coding). > The Fairhurst Doctrine won't get us all the way on geocoding. It still leaves open what happens in scenarios where elements of the same kind in third party databases are geocoded with OSM data and others with third party data. This is a highly relevant scenario as OSM data particularly for geocoding (addresses, POIs) is usually not complete enough. The ability to use OSM for geocoding and "backfill" it with (non-license-compatible) third party data is exactly what would would make a gradual adoption of OSM possible. Overall, I'd love to see us moving towards a share alike interpretation that applies to "OSM as the map" and allows for liberal intermingling of narrower data extracts. In plain terms: to specifically _not_ extend the ODbL via share alike to third party data elements intermingled with OSM data elements of the same kind. E. g. mixing OSM and non-OSM addresses should not extend ODbL to non-OSM addresses, mixing OSM and non-OSM POIs should not extend the ODbL to non-OSM POIs and so forth. This could be well done within the confines of the ODbL by endorsing the "Geocoding is Produced Work" guideline https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-July/007900.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
Please unsubscribe. Please. I don't know how to login. On 9/22/15, 5:27 PM, Simon Poole wrote: Naturally musings about hypothetical better worlds in which OSM has a different licence (and in which we undoubtedly would be having exactly the same discussions) are just as off topic in this thread as stipulations that company XYZ is violating the licence. Could we pls have some comments on the subject at hand. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
Naturally musings about hypothetical better worlds in which OSM has a different licence (and in which we undoubtedly would be having exactly the same discussions) are just as off topic in this thread as stipulations that company XYZ is violating the licence. Could we pls have some comments on the subject at hand. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
Hi, this is not the right group to discuss the matter but let me just say that your statement On 09/22/2015 10:57 PM, Tom Lee wrote: > It's dismaying to see the landscape fractured. I would like OSM to become a > better legal > home (or at least partner) for all geodata, including new datasets like > LIDAR, traffic and street-level imagery. is certainly not universally held in OSM, and that > Those projects are going > elsewhere right now. is a welcome effect, rather than a shortcoming of OSM, for those who see OSM as a project of makers rather than a receptacle for other people's geodata. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
Martin, Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal point of view, how it should be interpreted? Correct--it's currently unclear how the license applies to many important use cases. Partly this is because it's untested: OSM is the only important user of ODbL (with allowances for some geo datasets that have been released under ODbL in the hopes of being imported). There is much more that could and should be done to clarify use and establish norms without revisions to the license. This proposal could be a useful step forward. A couple of us at Mapbox are taking a careful a look at the specifics, and plan to weigh in with more thoughts. I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise of introducing more and more examples and guidelines how to interpret the legal text, because every additional word is augmenting the risk of introducing loopholes and weakening our position in a potential prosecution of infringers. As you note, infringements have never been prosecuted. But right now, every day, data is being collected in places other than OSM because of uncertainty regarding the license (cf OpenAddresses, OpenTraffic). I came to Mapbox to work on open data, having spent six years advocating for it at a nonprofit called the Sunlight Foundation. It's dismaying to see the landscape fractured. I would like OSM to become a better legal home (or at least partner) for all geodata, including new datasets like LIDAR, traffic and street-level imagery. Those projects are going elsewhere right now. I understand your desire to preserve a strong position for hypothetical future infringement claims. But this goal clearly only makes sense insofar as it serves the larger goal of creating a useful project. The point of OpenStreetMap is not to win lawsuits, after all. Tom ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
I've added a clarification to the example in question as it is causing some contention. Simon Am 22.09.2015 um 22:39 schrieb Simon Poole: > > Am 22.09.2015 um 22:14 schrieb alyssa wright: >> What does this mean? "uses ratings from OSM " >> > Again: it is just a hypothetical example. > > Obviously using a real life use case and declaring that as > non-conformant or whatever in a not yet agreed to guideline would not be > sensible (just imagine the outrage). > > Not to mention the ability of the OSM community to dig out many years > stale and obviously out of date wiki pages and to pretend that they are > meaningful implies that anything that we put in writing is going to be > quoted for the next couple of decades regardless of what guideline we > end up with eventually. > > Simon > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
Am 22.09.2015 um 22:14 schrieb alyssa wright: > What does this mean? "uses ratings from OSM " > Again: it is just a hypothetical example. Obviously using a real life use case and declaring that as non-conformant or whatever in a not yet agreed to guideline would not be sensible (just imagine the outrage). Not to mention the ability of the OSM community to dig out many years stale and obviously out of date wiki pages and to pretend that they are meaningful implies that anything that we put in writing is going to be quoted for the next couple of decades regardless of what guideline we end up with eventually. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
What does this mean? "uses ratings from OSM " Thanks, Alyssa. On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Simon Poole wrote: > > > > Am 22.09.2015 um 11:05 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a > > legal point of view, how it should be interpreted? > > Please read the introduction to the proposed guideline. > > > > > I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise of > > introducing more and more examples and guidelines how to interpret the > > legal text, because every additional word is augmenting the risk of > > introducing loopholes and weakening our position in a potential > > prosecution of infringers. Also, according to the mandate the OSMF is > > given from the original IP holders by means of the CTs, any > > modification of the current license has to be approved by a majority > > of active contributors. > > > > Is the OSMF consulting with their legal advisors before publishing > > these amendments/interpretations? > > > > Finally, the OSMF in the past didn't seem to care about prosecution of > > actual infringers. Is there any example where some action was taken? > > Is someone from the OSMF checking this list from time for instance: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution ? > > > > FWIW, apple maps continues big scale infringement, e.g. their map app > > in the most recent OS (OX-X 10.10.5) has the attribution very hidden, > > it is neither on the screen nor when you print a map (but you can get > > to it by clicking in the menu on "Maps"->"About Maps" and then on > > "Data from TomTom and others ->" (on my system nothing happens after > > the click, but that's likely just a bug)). Also Apple's "Friends" app > > on iOS has no attribution whatsoever. > > Please stick to the topic at hand. > > Simon > > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
Am 22.09.2015 um 11:05 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a > legal point of view, how it should be interpreted? Please read the introduction to the proposed guideline. > > I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise of > introducing more and more examples and guidelines how to interpret the > legal text, because every additional word is augmenting the risk of > introducing loopholes and weakening our position in a potential > prosecution of infringers. Also, according to the mandate the OSMF is > given from the original IP holders by means of the CTs, any > modification of the current license has to be approved by a majority > of active contributors. > > Is the OSMF consulting with their legal advisors before publishing > these amendments/interpretations? > > Finally, the OSMF in the past didn't seem to care about prosecution of > actual infringers. Is there any example where some action was taken? > Is someone from the OSMF checking this list from time for instance: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution ? > > FWIW, apple maps continues big scale infringement, e.g. their map app > in the most recent OS (OX-X 10.10.5) has the attribution very hidden, > it is neither on the screen nor when you print a map (but you can get > to it by clicking in the menu on "Maps"->"About Maps" and then on > "Data from TomTom and others ->" (on my system nothing happens after > the click, but that's likely just a bug)). Also Apple's "Friends" app > on iOS has no attribution whatsoever. Please stick to the topic at hand. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
Is there a problem with the current license? Is it not clear from a legal point of view, how it should be interpreted? I must admit I feel some reluctance towards the practise of introducing more and more examples and guidelines how to interpret the legal text, because every additional word is augmenting the risk of introducing loopholes and weakening our position in a potential prosecution of infringers. Also, according to the mandate the OSMF is given from the original IP holders by means of the CTs, any modification of the current license has to be approved by a majority of active contributors. Is the OSMF consulting with their legal advisors before publishing these amendments/interpretations? Finally, the OSMF in the past didn't seem to care about prosecution of actual infringers. Is there any example where some action was taken? Is someone from the OSMF checking this list from time for instance: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution ? FWIW, apple maps continues big scale infringement, e.g. their map app in the most recent OS (OX-X 10.10.5) has the attribution very hidden, it is neither on the screen nor when you print a map (but you can get to it by clicking in the menu on "Maps"->"About Maps" and then on "Data from TomTom and others ->" (on my system nothing happens after the click, but that's likely just a bug)). Also Apple's "Friends" app on iOS has no attribution whatsoever. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk