Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?
On Friday 22 July 2016, Ilya Zverev wrote: > > Wait that doesn't seem right. You cannot violate guidelines because > they are examples and explanations, not restrictions or a law. And > then, when the guidelines say a dataset "may be" considered > derivative, it doesn't say it is derivative (or otherwise). You > cannot violate a text that says "may be", except by mathematically > proving it is wrong either way. The guidelines are interpretations of the practical meaning of the license and therefore you can do things with the OSM data that 'violate the guidelines' in the sense that they are something the guidelines say is not covered by the license. If this interpretation is correct or not can be a matter of opinion of course. > If I didn't care about the views of the community, I wouldn't > continue this discussion. I want to either convince you or other > people that it's okay to put proprietary data on top of the OSM data, > or learn the reasons why this leads to a derivative database, > requiring to open the proprietary part. In the latter case we at > maps.me, of course, would need to simplify our data processing. I did not say or imply you don't care about the views of the community, i just said that if you do something that according to your interpretation is covered by the license but contradicts the interpretation in the community guidlines that would communicate a lack of care for the views of the community. > I guess that falls down to the definition of "intermingling". That's > the word I don't understand in technical sense. Is any intermingling > bad, or there is a good kind of intermingling? Neither in my example > not anywhere else do I make a derivative database, as I believe. Does > the process of intermingling lead to derivative database in any case? OK - i try to be clearer: If you use ODbL data in combination with proprietary data - no matter in what form this data comes in - these two data sets form either a collective database or a derivative database in terms of the ODbL. If it can be regarded as a collective database depends on the question if the ODbL part of that combination and the proprietary part are independent databases. As i have already explained your modified ODbL part (the hotels with some of them removed) is only intended and only useful in combination with the other, non-ODbL part and the combination does not work with the non-modified data which clearly disqualifies it from being independent and as a result the combination would be a derivative database. And since you objected to use of these terms - yes, intent and usefulness are significant regarding the question of independence of the databases. -- 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] attributive data enrichment using OSM
Hi Stefan, and thanks for writing to this mailing list. Your case is not much different from geocoding, when you borrow some attributes (addresses, or in your case, POI or landuse tags) from OSM and put it into a proprietary database. That would clearly make a derived database out of your proprietary one, so you would have to provide it under an open license. Now, if you are not giving any access to the resulting database outside a private network, that may be considered not using it publicly, in which case the whole license does not apply. Section 4.2 starts with "If You Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, then You must", so this depends on how non-public your system is. I hope somebody else here can elaborate on this. IZ > 22 июля 2016 г., в 5:46, Stefan Jäger написал(а): > > Dear all from legal-talk, > > We have the idea of using OSM data for an enrichment process in order to > improve the attributive information of proprietary building footprints. > > Let me briefly explain, what the purpose of using OSM for our enrichment > process is. > > We are developing a data product for building footprints that is based on > 3D-building data from the official German surveying authorities (there 16 of > them) . > The license of these data is not open, neither for the original data nor the > data product we plan to produce. > > These original data are rather heterogeneous with respect to quality , > quality not in the sense of geometrical correctness or completeness but in > the sense of building function attributes (residential, official, hospital, > etc.). > Our Idea is to use OSM data in a quality improvement process for the building > types, in combination with other processes like analyzing the shape and/or > size of buildings. > > An example: > Suppose we have a building footprint from our data which has no information > on the building type. > We now take the centroid of that building and analyze the underlying osm area > information , which is, let’s say an industrial complex. > We would then assign the official code, let’s say ‘4711 (industrial)’ to that > building. > > Another example: > Again, suppose we have a building footprint of our data which has no > information on the building type. > We would than take OSM amenity (point) information and check whether there > are many shops (points) inside that building polygon. > We would then designate the building a shopping mall (provided a certain size > criterion derived from the original data source is met) and assign it the > code 1234 for shopping mall. > > My question now is: if we enrich our data (with only underlying attributes, > no geometry from OSM at all) with such a process using OSM data, is this then > a produced work (or a collective database) or would I have to license my > enriched data product under the odbl, which I would not be allowed to do, > because it would conflict with the license of the main data source? > > The final data product itself is not intended for public use (e.g. on > publicly accessible websites) or display, which is forbidden by the original > license in the first place. > It will not have any osm information or reference to osm entries in the > final data product. > > I have read the text here: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Horizontal_Layers_-_Guideline > in particular the last paragraph “Combining OSM data with proprietary data?” > … > But what happens in case a legal entity wants to combine OSM data with > third-party data? Let's assume the third-party data is proprietary, e.g. a > list of restaurants that was bought by the legal person with the right to > publicly use it, but of course not publicly release it. > …. > > Unfortunately this question has not been answered yet. > > Of course I am more than happy with acknowledging OSM as an additional data > enrichment source. > > I would also be happy to support the OSM project. > > Most importantly, I need to be on the safe side. > > Thanks for feedback! > > Stefan Jäger > > > ___ > 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] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?
Sorry I'm not commenting everything, but just the parts I find important. (See below) > 22 июля 2016 г., в 1:35, Christoph Hormann написал(а): > > But neither does it become collective. And if you re-read my last > mail - i clearly made the argument based on the license itself that it > would be difficult to argue that your modified OSM hotel database with > select hotels removed is an independent database because it is > specifically intended to be used in combination with another > proprietary database and the derivation from the original data (removal > of features) only makes sense for use in this combination. And > classification as a collective database requires the individual > databases to be independent. I see you using the words "intended to be used" and "makes sense for use". They caught my eye because there was a discussion recently in a russian open data initiative group about requirements to state purposes for which open data is downloaded, which came to me as absurd. Because if a publisher chooses which intentions are right and which are wrong, that means the data is not open. I was not bringing FUD earlier, I was trying to illustrate the consequences of bringing additional non-specific clauses to an open license. For me, your mentions of intended use seem like extra restrictions that weren't mentioned anywhere before. > If you do something that violates the guidelines > (which i have not said you do) but trust it is OK by the letter of the > license (which i have not said it is) then you have to keep in mind > that by doing that you communicate that you don't care about the views > and the wishes of the community. Wait that doesn't seem right. You cannot violate guidelines because they are examples and explanations, not restrictions or a law. And then, when the guidelines say a dataset "may be" considered derivative, it doesn't say it is derivative (or otherwise). You cannot violate a text that says "may be", except by mathematically proving it is wrong either way. If I didn't care about the views of the community, I wouldn't continue this discussion. I want to either convince you or other people that it's okay to put proprietary data on top of the OSM data, or learn the reasons why this leads to a derivative database, requiring to open the proprietary part. In the latter case we at maps.me, of course, would need to simplify our data processing. > >> Consider a simpler experiment. I remove nodes based on an obscure >> algorithm. I then publish the rest of the database and a list of >> removed nodes under an open license. Do I have to open the algorithm? > > You never have to open any algorithms, publishing the methods used is > just a possible alternative to publishing the derivative database and > it can only be used if this method can be used by anyone to reconstruct > the derivative database from the original data (like when you use a > random number generator to remove random features). But if you > intermingle ODbL and proprietary data into a derivative database > publishing only the algorithm used for that is meaningless since to > reproduce the results you need the proprietary data as well. In the example I don't mention any proprietary data. I may be using a proprietary algorithm, using some proprietary number generator, but in the end I get these two datasets: the database and a list of what I removed. First you are saying I don't need to publish the algorithm, since it's just an alternative, but then you start mentioning a need to publish both the algorithm and all the third-party data it uses (which it may or may not have used, you don't know). I guess that falls down to the definition of "intermingling". That's the word I don't understand in technical sense. Is any intermingling bad, or there is a good kind of intermingling? Neither in my example not anywhere else do I make a derivative database, as I believe. Does the process of intermingling lead to derivative database in any case? IZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] attributive data enrichment using OSM
sent from a phone > Il giorno 22 lug 2016, alle ore 14:46, Stefan Jäger ha > scritto: > > My question now is: if we enrich our data (with only underlying attributes, > no geometry from OSM at all) with such a process using OSM data, is this then > a produced work (or a collective database) or would I have to license my > enriched data product under the odbl, I think it's the latter (derivative database). You are mixing up databases and they are not independent, so the viral aspect of ODbL comes into play cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?
Johan C wrote: > It's quite simple: as long as MAPS.ME operates in either the white or > the grey area of the license it's perfectly fine what they are doing. Um, no, that's precisely what "grey area" _doesn't_ mean. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-MAPS-ME-combining-OSM-data-and-non-OSM-data-tp5877650p5878934.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] attributive data enrichment using OSM
Thanks fort he quick answer, Actually I did consult the mentioned guideline , however, I could not really relate it 100% to my use case. That's what I hope for some clarification here. Stefan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] attributive data enrichment using OSM
On Friday 22 July 2016, Stefan Jäger wrote: > [...] > > I have read the text here: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Horizontal_Laye >rs_-_Guideline in particular the last paragraph "Combining OSM data > with proprietary data?" ... The Horizontal Layers guideline is about producing rendered maps, not about producing data sets. You might find more helpful information in the Collective Database guideline: http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines/Collective_Database_Guideline_Guideline -- 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] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?
It's quite simple: as long as MAPS.ME operates in either the white or the grey area of the license it's perfectly fine what they are doing. Op 22 jul. 2016 12:04 p.m. schreef "Richard Fairhurst" : > Ilya Zverev wrote: > > Let's consider another use case. An application that shows OSM map, > > and on top of it shows 1 mln of user points. A users has an option to > > hide the OSM map underneath proprietary points, with a radius of 1 > > km. Does in that moment when a user clickes the options, the > > combined map become derivative? > > The question then would be how ODbL treats a machine-generated result like > that, where both independent datasets are transmitted to the device but the > selection/arrangement of the "combined" result is done algorithmically > on-device. > > That probably depends on your reading of the terms "Convey", "Use" and > "Publicly" in ODbL; I confess to not being 100% sure how they would apply > in > such a case, and would be interested to hear others' opinions. > > Richard > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-MAPS-ME-combining-OSM-data-and-non-OSM-data-tp5877650p5878889.html > Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ___ > 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
[OSM-legal-talk] attributive data enrichment using OSM
Dear all from legal-talk, We have the idea of using OSM data for an enrichment process in order to improve the attributive information of proprietary building footprints. Let me briefly explain, what the purpose of using OSM for our enrichment process is. We are developing a data product for building footprints that is based on 3D-building data from the official German surveying authorities (there 16 of them) . The license of these data is not open, neither for the original data nor the data product we plan to produce. These original data are rather heterogeneous with respect to quality , quality not in the sense of geometrical correctness or completeness but in the sense of building function attributes (residential, official, hospital, etc.). Our Idea is to use OSM data in a quality improvement process for the building types, in combination with other processes like analyzing the shape and/or size of buildings. An example: Suppose we have a building footprint from our data which has no information on the building type. We now take the centroid of that building and analyze the underlying osm area information , which is, let's say an industrial complex. We would then assign the official code, let's say '4711 (industrial)' to that building. Another example: Again, suppose we have a building footprint of our data which has no information on the building type. We would than take OSM amenity (point) information and check whether there are many shops (points) inside that building polygon. We would then designate the building a shopping mall (provided a certain size criterion derived from the original data source is met) and assign it the code 1234 for shopping mall. My question now is: if we enrich our data (with only underlying attributes, no geometry from OSM at all) with such a process using OSM data, is this then a produced work (or a collective database) or would I have to license my enriched data product under the odbl, which I would not be allowed to do, because it would conflict with the license of the main data source? The final data product itself is not intended for public use (e.g. on publicly accessible websites) or display, which is forbidden by the original license in the first place. It will not have any osm information or reference to osm entries in the final data product. I have read the text here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Horizontal_Layers_-_Guideline in particular the last paragraph "Combining OSM data with proprietary data?" ... But what happens in case a legal entity wants to combine OSM data with third-party data? Let's assume the third-party data is proprietary, e.g. a list of restaurants that was bought by the legal person with the right to publicly use it, but of course not publicly release it. Unfortunately this question has not been answered yet. Of course I am more than happy with acknowledging OSM as an additional data enrichment source. I would also be happy to support the OSM project. Most importantly, I need to be on the safe side. Thanks for feedback! Stefan Jäger ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?
Ilya Zverev wrote: > Let's consider another use case. An application that shows OSM map, > and on top of it shows 1 mln of user points. A users has an option to > hide the OSM map underneath proprietary points, with a radius of 1 > km. Does in that moment when a user clickes the options, the > combined map become derivative? The question then would be how ODbL treats a machine-generated result like that, where both independent datasets are transmitted to the device but the selection/arrangement of the "combined" result is done algorithmically on-device. That probably depends on your reading of the terms "Convey", "Use" and "Publicly" in ODbL; I confess to not being 100% sure how they would apply in such a case, and would be interested to hear others' opinions. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-MAPS-ME-combining-OSM-data-and-non-OSM-data-tp5877650p5878889.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?
On Friday 22 July 2016, Ilya Zverev wrote: > You are starting to derive the licensing terms from intentions, and > not the actual process or usage. Which basically says, if the > community accepts this way of judging: however you use our data, if > we don't like what you do with it, you would have to stop. And that > is definitely not a FOSS license, and not only maps.me would have to > stop using OSM, because there would be a chance that any data user > might suddenly find out that odbl favours the provider. It's like > "this data must be used only for good and not evil": while fun, > legally dangerous. I have not argued in any such direction, it seems however with the above you are trying here to bring the usual FUD argument that the OSM community has to follow a lenient interpretation of the license - otherwise no one can use OSM data out of fear of violating the license, which is obviously nonsense. So please once more: lets concentrate on this specific use case and the question how this fits into the rules of OSM data use. I tried to follow your view and explained why i think this is ultimately non-consistent and would lead to a situation that is not consistent with various aspects of the license and the community guidelines. I would expect you to argue those points and not the general righteousness of my approach. > It seems to me, you are considering the Collective Database Guideline > to be the law, No but it tells you something about how the OSMF and the OSM community view the license. If you do something that violates the guidelines (which i have not said you do) but trust it is OK by the letter of the license (which i have not said it is) then you have to keep in mind that by doing that you communicate that you don't care about the views and the wishes of the community. Also note from a legal standpoint the community guidelines are not meaningless, especially if we are talking about uses that take place after a guideline has been published and the licensee is aware of the content of the guideline (which probably can be said to apply here). Licenses are contracts and at least here in Germany the basis of all contracts is agreement between the contact partners on something. No agreement - no contract. So if the OSMF as one contract partner in the license contract has clearly communicated publicly and beforehand through the community guidelines that from their side some use is definitely not part of the agreement that is a strong indicator on the nature and the limits of the license contract in any legal disagreement. But note this is a layman's view of course and IANAL. > [...] It defines what is a collective database, but > does not define the contrary: if a data set is not covered by the > guideline, it doesn't automatically become derivative. But neither does it become collective. And if you re-read my last mail - i clearly made the argument based on the license itself that it would be difficult to argue that your modified OSM hotel database with select hotels removed is an independent database because it is specifically intended to be used in combination with another proprietary database and the derivation from the original data (removal of features) only makes sense for use in this combination. And classification as a collective database requires the individual databases to be independent. > Consider a simpler experiment. I remove nodes based on an obscure > algorithm. I then publish the rest of the database and a list of > removed nodes under an open license. Do I have to open the algorithm? You never have to open any algorithms, publishing the methods used is just a possible alternative to publishing the derivative database and it can only be used if this method can be used by anyone to reconstruct the derivative database from the original data (like when you use a random number generator to remove random features). But if you intermingle ODbL and proprietary data into a derivative database publishing only the algorithm used for that is meaningless since to reproduce the results you need the proprietary data as well. -- 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] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?
On 7/22/2016 12:28 AM, Ilya Zverev wrote: Consider a simpler experiment. I remove nodes based on an obscure algorithm. I then publish the rest of the database and a list of removed nodes under an open license. Do I have to open the algorithm? The database would be a derivative database and you would have to publish one of a) the entire derivative database; or b) A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database or the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm), including any additional Contents If you are publishing the database, this falls under a) and you don't need to do anything else. Someone could compare the databases, find out what you removed, and possibly run some analysis. If you don't want to publish the database (e.g. size reasons), then b) means you have to give enough information for someone to generate a). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?
You are starting to derive the licensing terms from intentions, and not the actual process or usage. Which basically says, if the community accepts this way of judging: however you use our data, if we don't like what you do with it, you would have to stop. And that is definitely not a FOSS license, and not only maps.me would have to stop using OSM, because there would be a chance that any data user might suddenly find out that odbl favours the provider. It's like "this data must be used only for good and not evil": while fun, legally dangerous. It seems to me, you are considering the Collective Database Guideline to be the law, disregarding the actual ODbL and the words "may be" that follow the de-duplication use case. "Endorsed by the Board" is not equal to "Is a part of the license". "Primary feature" definition is not a part of ODbL, it was introduced to give better understanding of the guideline topic. It defines what is a collective database, but does not define the contrary: if a data set is not covered by the guideline, it doesn't automatically become derivative. Consider a simpler experiment. I remove nodes based on an obscure algorithm. I then publish the rest of the database and a list of removed nodes under an open license. Do I have to open the algorithm? IZ > 10 июля 2016 г., в 1:23, Christoph Hormann написал(а): > > On Sunday 10 July 2016, Ilya Zverev wrote: >> >> Let's consider another use case. An application that shows OSM map, >> and on top of it shows 1 mln of user points. A users has an option to >> hide the OSM map underneath proprietary points, with a radius of 1 >> km. Does in that moment when a user clickes the options, the combined >> map become derivative? Because the application removes parts of OSM >> map based on proprietary data, which means, by your implications, >> that that creates an inseparable references. > > I would keep it on the level of combining proprietary data and OSM data > for the same feature type because this is what you do and this is also > what is best documented in the guidelines and related discussion. > > As i see it you acknowledge that there is such a combination of > different data sets but since you have a reverse case in comparison to > the examples given in the guidelines they do not apply and you somehow > read the license itself to support your use case. > > I think this is an interesting viewpoint although i see little chance of > this becoming a widely accepted interpretation. It depends on the idea > that when generating your produced work or publicly using the two data > sets in combination you have a Collective Database and no Derivative > Database. This is going to be really hard to argue since you just > modified one of the databases you combine for the obvious purpose of > using it in combination. Removing hotel POIs from OSM only makes sense > if you use it in combination with your other data set - the > de-duplicated OSM part of your alleged Collective Database is therefore > clearly not an independent database. > > If you think through this scenario somewhat further it would essentially > mean share-alike to be ineffective in de-duplication cases. Since > de-duplication is generally only possible in cases where both data sets > have a roughly comparable quality level (though not necessary the same > level of completeness) it will hardly ever matter from a practical > viewpoint which data set you remove duplicates from. So if one > direction was possible without share-alike the guidelines would > essentially be irrelevant because they'd only distinguish between those > cases where you have to de-duplicate in one direction and those where > you can combine data sets freely without share-alike. > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > ___ > 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
