Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licenses suitable for import

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 20 March 2016, Tobias Wendorff wrote:
> [...] In Germany, manual generalized data by human
> cartographers are protected by copyrigh - courts have already proofed
> this.

This is not really related to the topic here but to prevent possible 
misconceptions about the German legal system:

Data is never protected by copyright in Germany.  Graphical 
representations of data can be copyright protected of course but this 
depends on the level of individuality present (the term used in the law 
is 'persönliche geistige Schöpfungen').  To my knowledge there has been 
no court decision or other serious legal assessment claiming copyright 
(in contrast to database rights) on pre-graphical geodata 
representations under German copyright law.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licenses suitable for import

[Tobias Wendorff]

Am Do, 17.03.2016, 23:47 schrieb Tom Lee:
> Tobias, the best option for ensuring the data is usable by OSM is an
> explicit statement of permission for the OpenStreetMap project to
> incorporate and use the data under the project's terms. This is generally
> considered preferable to a dataset that is ODbL-licensed without such a
> statement.

I agree. This corresponds exactly to what I have sought so far.

> However, I would encourage you to consider non-OSM users as well when
> choosing the license. ODbL is not widely used outside of OSM. A license
> like CC-BY 4.0 is more widely used and actively maintained. Choosing it
> would ensure compatibility with a large number of non-OSM datasets. And if
> paired with a permission statement like what's described above, OSM could
> still use the data without any license compatibility worries.

There is one point, which creates a pain in my stomach: In 4.4a of ODbL v1
only one of the three options is allowed, let's choose ODbL. Since we state
"facts are free", the data in there is CC0 (or whatever is equal to this).

ODbL is a database license it only regulate the access to the data. What
if I put properity or CC-BY data in there, which actually DOES have a
copyright? In Germany, manual generalized data by human cartographers
are protected by copyrigh - courts have already proofed this.

Can ODbL's "BY" overwrite the "BY" of data in another copyright?
The share-alike might be an agreement of the database holder to protect
his collection of unprotected CC0 (etc.) data only.

Best regards,
Tobias


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licenses suitable for import

[Tobias Wendorff]

Am Do, 17.03.2016, 23:47 schrieb Tom Lee:
> Tobias, the best option for ensuring the data is usable by OSM is an
> explicit statement of permission for the OpenStreetMap project to
> incorporate and use the data under the project's terms. This is generally
> considered preferable to a dataset that is ODbL-licensed without such a
> statement.

I agree. This corresponds exactly to what I have sought so far.

> However, I would encourage you to consider non-OSM users as well when
> choosing the license. ODbL is not widely used outside of OSM. A license
> like CC-BY 4.0 is more widely used and actively maintained. Choosing it
> would ensure compatibility with a large number of non-OSM datasets. And if
> paired with a permission statement like what's described above, OSM could
> still use the data without any license compatibility worries.

There is one point, which creates a pain in my stomach: In 4.4a of ODbL v1
only one of the three options is allowed, let's choose ODbL. Since we state
"facts are free", the data in there is CC0 (or whatever is equal to this).

ODbL is a database license it only regulate the access to the data. What
if I put properity or CC-BY data in there, which actually DOES have a
copyright? In Germany, manual generalized data by human cartographers
are protected by copyrigh - courts have already proofed this.

Can ODbL's "BY" overwrite the "BY" of data in another copyright?
The share-alike might be an agreement of the database holder to protect
his collection of unprotected CC0 (etc.) data only.

Best regards,
Tobias


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licenses suitable for import

[Dale Kunce]

Thanks Simon very helpful.

Sorry HDX is Humanitarian Data Exchange, is basically a clearinghouse of
datasets that organizations push up and maintain. There is lots of open geo
data available through the site, some of which would be appropriate for OSM
if they put an appropriate license on it. Many of the datasets are for
developing or highly at risk countries.
On Mar 20, 2016 10:35 AM, "Simon Poole"  wrote:

>
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission#Letter_Template3
> would seem to be the most complete version of "how we really would like you
> to release data to us".
>
> It is not really a surprise that OSM requires a special case, it is simply
> due to OSM actually being a special case and essentially being the only
> project that digests open data and produces such with the downstream end
> user very often multiple tiers away. Most other data consumers (the goog
> and so on) typically have complete. or at least tight. control over the end
> product and wont have issues with complicated attribution requirements and
> other restrictive terms.
>
> Outside of specific terms for OSM, currently, IMHO, organisations wanting
> to release data on open licence terms don't really have many good options.
> They will typically gyrate to CC by licences even though 2.0 and 3.0 don't
> really work for data (which is likely why  commercial users are such a fan
> of them) and 4.0 is a total rewrite which raises some questions with
> respect to use as a data licence that remain unanswered.
>
> If it was up to me I would suggest
> http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ , however it is not clear if
> the authors are still interested at all in any of the O* licences.
>
> Simon
>
> PS: what is HDX, besides being CHJ (cool humanitarian jargon)?
>
> Am 19.03.2016 um 18:52 schrieb Dale Kunce:
>
> I'm very curious about the cc-by compatibility. The Red Cross is doing a
> very large mapping project in West Africa, ground truthing a lot of the
> data created by remote mappers during ebola. As part of the project we want
> to release the data both in OSM and in a more complete form (not all data
> gathered is appropriate for osm) on HDX. Our original thinking was to
> double license the data, Cc-by 4.0 for HDX with an explicit license for
> OSM.
>
> What is the best route for organizations to do something like this. From
> this thread I can see the need for a checklist or at the very minimum a
> wiki page with sample language. Forgive me if this already exist I haven't
> found anything online yet.
>
> Dale
> On Mar 18, 2016 9:58 PM, "Simon Poole"  wrote:
>
>> Diane
>>
>> Any comment from CC on the -other- issues that have been raised wrt CC by
>> 4.0 and ODbL compatibility and in general with the way it works for
>> databases?
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> Am 18.03.2016 um 17:19 schrieb Diane Peters:
>>
>> Just to be clear on the attribution removal requirement in CC's licenses,
>> Erik asserted:
>>
>> I wish people would stop releasing data with CC-by; "you have to
>> attribute us, but you have to remove that attribution when ever we
>> want you too" which is not present in ODbL so
>>
>> There is no such absolute obligation. In 4.0, the removal requirement
>> provides: "If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the
>> information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A)
>>  to the
>> extent reasonably practicable."  (Sec. 3a3
>> ). And in 3.0,
>> it's "to the extent practicable", which from a CC perspective is
>> functionally the equivalent (Sec. 4a
>> ).
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lee  wrote:
>>
>>> Tobias, the best option for ensuring the data is usable by OSM is an
>>> explicit statement of permission for the OpenStreetMap project to
>>> incorporate and use the data under the project's terms. This is generally
>>> considered preferable to a dataset that is ODbL-licensed without such a
>>> statement.
>>>
>>> However, I would encourage you to consider non-OSM users as well when
>>> choosing the license. ODbL is not widely used outside of OSM. A license
>>> like CC-BY 4.0 is more widely used and actively maintained. Choosing it
>>> would ensure compatibility with a large number of non-OSM datasets. And if
>>> paired with a permission statement like what's described above, OSM could
>>> still use the data without any license compatibility worries.
>>>
>>> Of course, if you can do without attribution, you might consider
>>> something even more simple that disclaims liability but imposes no other
>>> terms. If that's an option let me know and I can turn up some examples.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Erik Johansson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Tobias Wendorff
  wrote:
 > 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licenses suitable for import

[Simon Poole]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission#Letter_Template3
would seem to be the most complete version of "how we really would like
you to release data to us".

It is not really a surprise that OSM requires a special case, it is
simply due to OSM actually being a special case and essentially being
the only project that digests open data and produces such with the
downstream end user very often multiple tiers away. Most other data
consumers (the goog and so on) typically have complete. or at least
tight. control over the end product and wont have issues with
complicated attribution requirements and other restrictive terms.

Outside of specific terms for OSM, currently, IMHO, organisations
wanting to release data on open licence terms don't really have many
good options. They will typically gyrate to CC by licences even though
2.0 and 3.0 don't really work for data (which is likely why  commercial
users are such a fan of them) and 4.0 is a total rewrite which raises
some questions with respect to use as a data licence that remain unanswered.

If it was up to me I would suggest
http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ , however it is not clear if
the authors are still interested at all in any of the O* licences.

Simon

PS: what is HDX, besides being CHJ (cool humanitarian jargon)?

Am 19.03.2016 um 18:52 schrieb Dale Kunce:
>
> I'm very curious about the cc-by compatibility. The Red Cross is doing
> a very large mapping project in West Africa, ground truthing a lot of
> the data created by remote mappers during ebola. As part of the
> project we want to release the data both in OSM and in a more complete
> form (not all data gathered is appropriate for osm) on HDX. Our
> original thinking was to double license the data, Cc-by 4.0 for HDX
> with an explicit license for OSM.
>
> What is the best route for organizations to do something like this.
> From this thread I can see the need for a checklist or at the very
> minimum a wiki page with sample language. Forgive me if this already
> exist I haven't found anything online yet.
>
> Dale
>
> On Mar 18, 2016 9:58 PM, "Simon Poole"  > wrote:
>
> Diane
>
> Any comment from CC on the -other- issues that have been raised
> wrt CC by 4.0 and ODbL compatibility and in general with the way
> it works for databases?
>
> Simon
>
> Am 18.03.2016 um 17:19 schrieb Diane Peters:
>> Just to be clear on the attribution removal requirement in CC's
>> licenses, Erik asserted:
>>
>> I wish people would stop releasing data with CC-by; "you have to
>> attribute us, but you have to remove that attribution when ever we
>> want you too" which is not present in ODbL so
>>
>> There is no such absolute obligation. In 4.0, the removal
>> requirement provides: "If requested by the Licensor, You must
>> remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A)
>>  to the
>> extent reasonably practicable."  (Sec. 3a3
>> ). And in
>> 3.0, it's "to the extent practicable", which from a CC
>> perspective is functionally the equivalent (Sec. 4a
>> ). 
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lee > > wrote:
>>
>> Tobias, the best option for ensuring the data is usable by
>> OSM is an explicit statement of permission for the
>> OpenStreetMap project to incorporate and use the data under
>> the project's terms. This is generally considered preferable
>> to a dataset that is ODbL-licensed without such a statement.
>>
>> However, I would encourage you to consider non-OSM users as
>> well when choosing the license. ODbL is not widely used
>> outside of OSM. A license like CC-BY 4.0 is more widely used
>> and actively maintained. Choosing it would ensure
>> compatibility with a large number of non-OSM datasets. And if
>> paired with a permission statement like what's described
>> above, OSM could still use the data without any license
>> compatibility worries.
>>
>> Of course, if you can do without attribution, you might
>> consider something even more simple that disclaims liability
>> but imposes no other terms. If that's an option let me know
>> and I can turn up some examples.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Erik Johansson
>> > wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Tobias Wendorff
>> > > wrote:
>> > Dear list,
>> >
>> > could you please recommend me licenses for