Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Simon Ward wrote: > On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:39:11PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: >> On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote: > >> >1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus? >> >OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else? >> >> Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or >> minority veto power. It means an honest attempt to converge on a >> compromise. Given this, the ODbL does represent community consensus. >> It represents a compromise between many different ideological >> positions present in the community around the norms that have >> emerged in discussion over the years. > > I don’t see much compromise happening from OSMF on the contributor > terms. There is a very small amount, but OSMF seems to want to stick as > close to what they have, with no chance of what they consider a > significant change. I think this is slightly ignoring the fact that the CT are the result of compromises, and were developed over quite some time before being rolled out. I would say there's reasonable resistance to changing them at the last moment, especially if they don't actually need to be changed. They didn't appear out of nowhere and were discussed extensively as I remember it. Just because there are some problems doesn't mean there wasn't a consensus or that significant changes are required (again). I think mostly what's being looked at now are tweaks and clarifications, which in the end will probably cover most people's issues, as most people's issues don't actually seem that fundamental. Dave ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA derived ODbL data
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: > Richard gave me an idea for mixing the stew. > > Let's say that a user who stays with CC-BY-SA has drawn crossing streets and > buildings around the corner. Then another user who is willing to go with ODbL > locates some POIs by looking at the ready OSM map. Sooner or later the streets > and buildings will disappear from the OSM-ODbL but what will happen to the > POIs? > I suppose there are folks who say that also these POIs should be deleted from > (or not transferred to) the OSM-ODbL database because they are derived from > the > CC-BY-SA only data. > > How strict are we going to be with these cases? If we are going to be strict, > how can we sort them out? Not that strict. If we were that strict you'd have to figure out how close something had to be before it became derived... 2m, 10m, 50m, 500m? I don't know. Anyway from [1]: "OSMF counsel does not believe that CC-BY-SA data within the database is "viral" in this regard. The original data will have to be removed, plus any later versions of the same element, but it is not necessary to remove nearby or adjoining elements." Any follow ups to legal-talk please as that is the place for this kind of discussion. Thanks, Dave [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#Features_touched_by_multiple_contributors.2C_not_all_of_whom_sign_up_to_new_terms ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:52 AM, John Smith wrote: > On 16 July 2010 20:39, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> I wouldn't exactly say I am unhappy with the status quo. It's like living in >> a house where experts say it is going to fall apart any minute - you might >> like to be able to retain the status quo but it's not on the menu. The >> status quo is volatile, and is soon going to be a status quo ante - one way >> or another. > > Considering how many people seem to be pro-PD, wouldn't the status quo > be in their interests if copyright doesn't cover data? > Yes, except that it's then not a level playing field. People respecting the spirit end up with less rights than those with enough lawyers and legal advice who are willing to ignore the licence, and that's no good for anyone. Which is why I'll be agreeing to the ODbL which is pretty much status quo++. Dave ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: [OSM-talk] copyright problemwith datacopiedfrom a map
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Peter Miller wrote: > > On 18 Aug 2009, at 10:30, Tom Hughes wrote: > >> On 18/08/09 09:27, Peter Miller wrote: >> >>> Andy mentions that copyright violation needs to go to the Data >>> Working >>> Group. Why? Sure the foundation needs a log of action of copyright >>> violations, but I don't see why the requested reverts, or 'plastering >>> over the cracks' can't be put onto a public list by a concerned >>> member >>> of the public and is then acted on by a suitably confident member of >>> the community. The foundation then steps back and only gets directly >>> involved in the bigger more problematic cases. >> >> The Data Working Group can do things, like sending email direct to the >> user from somebody "official" (ie the foundation) that ordinary users >> are not able to do. Hopefully people will be more likely to respond to >> such communication to explain what they are doing which can help >> determine whether there is in fact a problem with the data. > > But surely that is no reason not to set up community structures to > deal with local vandalism at a local level where that can be achieved > and to only escalate the most serious instances to the working group. Sure, and that's the explicit requirement before forwarding vandalism cases. Most of the people in this conversation were talking about the OP which was not vandalism -- it was copyright infringement. These are not the same things. Dave ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Where do we stand regarding collective/derivative databases
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Matt Amos wrote: > > LWG cannot entirely resolve these questions, as they need open > > discussion and community consensus (which we obviously can't provide > > on our own). even then, final interpretation is up to the courts. > > Of course. > > Thanks for your comments, I especially liked the a(b(X)@c(Y)) part which > is a nice structure to think about this. > > But about my Navteq+OSM example, you said that > > my reading would be that the deletions from the OSM data are a > > derivative database of both the OSM data and the navteq data and that > > the combination of navteq + (OSM - derivative) constitutes a public > > use of that derivative database, requiring the release of the navteq > > data. > > Now if I loaded my Navteq database into postgis and created a buffer > around every object, generating one giant buffer area multipolygon for > the whole world, then I could use that to subtract data from my OSM data > base and would then only have to publish the giant multipolygon under > ODbL (because that was mixed with OSM data) and not the original Navteq > data. > > So this means I'd have to get permission from Navteq to release the > giant buffer multipolygon under ODbL but if that is granted, I could > continue with my OSM-enhanced Navteq tiles plan, and OSM would gain > precious little from having access to the Navteq buffer multipolygon. > Right? > > Do you even have to go that far? The Navteq multipolygon isn't actually part of the resulting derivative database, it's just part of the algorithm to get there. Assuming the result is just a shrunk version of the OSM DB I'd have thought the only thing you had to release in this case was the alterations made to the OSM DB -- ie: a list of the bits you deleted. We'd be within our rights to try and reconstruct the multipolygon from those deletions, but you wouldn't have to actually release it? or put another way: if I do o...@navteq = DD (where @ is some function that combines the datasets), there's no circumstance in which I have to release Navteq. My obligation is to release DD under ODbL (I can hand out the DD-OSM diff). This happens to entitle anybody else to attempt to reconstruct as much of Navteq as possible. The ODbL says I have to release changes, it doesn't say I have to tell you why I'm making them. Is that remotely the right reading? Dave ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL RC and share-alike licensing of Produced Works
2009/6/9 Frederik Ramm : > Hi, > > Matt Amos wrote: >> my understanding is that, because we have database rights (and >> possibly other IP rights) in the original database, the re-created >> database is still (a substantial extract of) an ODbL licensed >> database. > > So you can create a substantial extract of a database without ever > having had access to the database in any form; in fact, without even > knowing that it exists? > how does 4.3 interact with that, or any of this discussion about bsd/whatever-the-hell-you-like licenses for produced works? (the you must attribute the database on produced works bit) Dave ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike Licences
2009/3/8 Andy Allan : > On 7 Mar 2009, at 23:56, OJ W wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Gervase Markham > gm...@gerv.net> wrote: >>> b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, they need a >>> massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort >> >> unless they create SVG files that just happen to contain the same data >> as OSM files and we add a loophole that says SVG files are a derived >> work instead of a database, thus allowing wtfyw license to be applied. > > My evil alter ego would be quite interested in developing a version of > the cycle map that whilst looking a bit strange just so happened to be > quite easy to run OMR over. > > Perhaps Dave's evil alter ego would find writing such an Optical Map > Recogniser interesting... Yes. The "OMR". Pass in a tile png with full path and the magic box reverse engineers it. Any network activity to openstreetmap.org is entirely coincidental. Hey, he is evil you know. I can assure you even my evil alter ego would refuse to do anything that possibly might involve a fourrier transform. Dave ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Lawyer responses to use cases, major problems
2009/3/1 Andy Allan : > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > >> I'm surprised that nobody else seems to see a problem in this. Am I >> perhaps barking up some completely imaginary tree? > > Nope, not at all, I'm exceptionally concerned about the implications > on the cyclemap db. I'm combining PD SRTM data and OSM data, and as > far as I'm concerned making both original sources available should be > sufficient. That way every piece of geographic data used in the > cyclemap is available. Being forced to offer a postgis dump would suck > massively. > > And never mind for me - I've got the time and energy to deal with it > if needs be. But it'll also suck for people doing things like my > public transport experiments - as soon as you put up a picture of one > of your experiments all of a sudden you'll have some guy demanding a > dump of your postgis db. Seems overkill, and like you say, the > intention should be to make the geographic data available, not the > specific instance of (perhaps processed) data. Yes, for instance this page would just not exist under that interpretation: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/progress/?region=northamerica There's no way I'd have bothered... and dev doesn't have a big enough hard disk anyway :-) Dave ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
