Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Elevation / SRTM data
I'm not an expert, but I think it largely depends on your definition of the routing database. If you store the elevation data in the original grid-based form and you request elevation data on-demand for lat/lon coords without long-term storing of lat/lon + elevation pairs, then I don't really see the two data sources infecting one another in legal terms. Except, of course, if you intend to offer the routing as some kind of high-availability web service which would allow somebody to reconstruct the original elevation data using web scraping. Of course, all of this also depends on you getting the approval/agreement from the CGIAR data owner to use the elevation data for commercial purposes. Best regards, Igor Brejc On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Peter K peat...@yahoo.de wrote: It is enhanced SRTM from cgiar: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/ E.g. see: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/SRTM_FAQ.asp - *Can I use this data for commercial use? **If interested in using this data for commercial purposes please email **Andy Jarvis a.jar...@cgiar.org**.* Regards, Peter. If it's SRTM it's just public domain isn't it? So if the resulting database is under ODBL I can't see that being a problem. Very much IANAL. Nick -Peter K peat...@yahoo.de peat...@yahoo.de wrote: - To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org From: Peter K peat...@yahoo.de peat...@yahoo.de Date: 04/07/2013 09:05AM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Elevation / SRTM data Hi there, how would like to know how I could integrate SRTM data with OSM data. It is not for a mapping service where I could overlay the elevation curves/data and keep it separate. It is for my routing engine GraphHopper where I would need to do the following: * to calculate the distance I take the latitudes and longitudes from OSM, to guess the speed I take the highway and other tags. Then, with the help of the SRTM data I modify this distance and speed to be more real world. * to create an elevation profile of the resulting path. This should be simple (?) as the elevation data could be in a separate database and just fetched on demand. Will the resulting routing database fall under ODbL which the providers probably do not want as their elevation data could be guessed or even recalculated (with a bit effort)? Sorry, if this is a stupid question. I'm really new to OSM licensing world :) and there was a similar question but this was regarding hill shading and the old license: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-ASTER-or-no-ASTER-td5715399.html Regards, Peter. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Elevation / SRTM data
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Peter K peat...@yahoo.de wrote: Hi Igor, exactly in those areas I have a problem of understanding the OSM license :) If you store the elevation data in the original grid-based form No, as explained, I do intent to calculate edge weights based on OSM and elevation data. Is this a trivial change? And then I store this mixed weights in-memory but this is only a configuration to make it storing on disc. And would it make a difference? I read somewhere that storing could be also in-memory with the rise of NoSQL databases this makes indeed sense ... The license text is pretty general and there are different opinion on these issues. I think the key thing is that once you store combination of a lon/lat position (taken from OSM) and an elevation, you end up with a Derivative Database, as defined: “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new Database. As opposed to: “Collective Database” – Means this Database in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent databases in themselves that together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Database will not be considered a Derivative Database. From my understanding, once you tie the two related pieces of data from two separate databases, you can no longer look at it as two independent databases. Except, of course, if you intend to offer the routing as some kind of high-availability web service which would allow somebody to reconstruct the original elevation data using web scraping. What did you mean here? This would make a difference for the elevation provider license not for the OSM license (?) Both, I think - this means you publicly distribute the Derivative Database, which has its implications. It also means that CGIAR-based data is then available to public through a license different (and more permissive) than the original CGIAR license, which the owner is probably not going to be happy about - since he then cannot enforce the *If interested in using this data for commercial purposes please email* rule. The relevant text: 4.4 Share alike. a. Any Derivative Database that You Publicly Use must be only under the terms of: i. This License; ii. A later version of this License similar in spirit to this License; or iii. A compatible license. But again, I'm not a lawyer :). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Elevation / SRTM data
To answer all your questions in one go: there has been a lot of discussion (especially on this mailing list) about the problems/issues you raised. And there have been some efforts to better clarify these things. I suggest reading the mailing list archive. My own opinion is that the legal issues here are murky and I agree they could be interpreted differently by different lawyers/people. And I guess it is very difficult to write a good license text for such type of license, since there are a lot of different ways the data could be used, lot of corner cases and a lot of ways the licence could be circumvented by interested parties if written too specifically. I guess the protecting power of ODbL is in its murkiness :) I would not give myself too much hope with interpretations of trivial and substantial, in my opinion your use case falls well outside of a trivial and unsubstantial use. On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Peter K peat...@yahoo.de wrote: Thanks Igor! I still have a problem when the substantial part of the license apply. Also in the wiki there is an explanation about trivial transformation. Are there some examples when both of them applies? The wiki raises more questions then it solves as it e.g. does not say if the example is a trivial transformation or not: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline Both, I think - this means you publicly distribute the Derivative Database, which has its implications. It also means that CGIAR-based data is then available to public through a license different (and more permissive) than the original CGIAR license, which the owner is probably not going to be happy about - since he then cannot enforce the *If interested in using this data for commercial purposes please email* rule. Ok, makes sense! BTW: why is such a modification not allowed for OpenStreetMap? IMO this limits the applications a lot as also enterprise guys cannot just buy a commercial license of OSM so they would need to * completely* stay away from OSM! But again, I'm not a lawyer :) The thing with ODbl is that even lawyers are not sure because there are no (or too few) court cases. So the community has to make this very vague ODbl definition more specific. This clarification would be important to increase the adoption in the enterprise. Regards, Peter. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Data consumer use cases
Thank you, Jonathan On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net wrote: Hi all, just a note to say that I've updated the Use Cases wiki page based on the comments below from Igor and others who replied to me earlier in the month. Michael - everyone who's commented about your redrafted guideline has agreed with it - maybe it's time to go ahead and replace what's there now. Jonathan. On 05/11/12 19:46, Igor Brejc wrote: On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.netmailto: j...@spiffymap.net wrote: Michael's reply to you about the trivial transformation guideline of 30 October agrees with this - in his terms it provides no new physical observations and the intent of the license is to capture those for share-alike, not to extend share-alike to any technique used for storing or transmitting the data. Anyone disagree? +1 What are the other examples you had in mind? Real-world examples are exactly what we need for this. Some more: * Various forms of algorithm-driven generalizations: simplifications of roads and polygons, merging of polygons with same or similar landuse, elimination of polygons that are too small for given map scale (like buildings), amalgamation... * Transformation of multipolygons (polygons with holes) into weakly simple polygons (certain platforms don't know how to render polygons with holes). * Algorithm-driven automated label and icon placement. * Other applications of geometric and graph algorithms on OSM data (Voronoi diagrams, traveling distances etc.) if they are driven by OSM data only. Best regards, Igor __**_ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/legal-talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- 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-talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Data consumer use cases
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2012/11/5 David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net: btw.: also removing might be of interest, e.g. someone checking all businesses in OSM and removing them in the case they are closed now would be a major improvement we would like to have fed back into OSM also if nothing was actually _added_. Such elimination would be impossible without using an external data source of businesses now open/closed, so in my view this would constitute a Derivative Database (with physical observations). Adding is an abstract term: removing closed businesses could be viewed as adding information about whether a business is now open or closed. Even if you then physically remove all closed businesses from the database, this information would still remain (implicitly) in the database. Igor ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
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 *. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline On 29/10/2012 18:07, Igor Brejc wrote: Hi Michael, First of all, thanks for the link. I've read it carefully and it doesn't really answer my questions, it just raises some new ones. Those guidelines, as they are written, treat the issue of proprietary/closed source code very superficially and without considering too much the practical consequences. They also don't really answer the question what is a Database. Let's take, for example, the statement Rendering databases, for example those produced by Osm2pgsql, are clearly databases. First of all, what are rendering databases? I don't share the same clearliness of that statement, frankly. Another issue is machine-readable form of an algorithm. Who says I should interpret that as a source code? And if I do, under what license can/should/must I release the source code? I'm certainly not going to release my work under the Public Domain. I think the core issue that needs to be addressed and answered is: *is there a place for proprietary/closed source software in OSM ecosystem*? If we follow the strict reading logic of the mentioned guideliness and the one expressed in Frederik's answer, I would certainly have to say the answer is NO. I see some serious issues with the way how we approach the whole ODbL thing. As someone who has invested a lot of time and energy into OSM and who is trying to find a business model that would enable me to stay in the OSM domain, I think the core questions about ODbL have not been answered and this scares people/companies off. If the OSM community wants all the OSM-based software to be open source, then please say so. But please treat all the players the same: Apple, esri, Google and one-man-band companies. Best regards, Igor On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.bizwrote: Hi Igor, I wonder if this resource helps with your question? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline(a work in progress) Mike On 22/10/2012 18:45, Igor Brejc wrote: Hi, Thanks for your clarifications, everybody. I was under the (looks like wrong) impression the produced work must also be available under the ODbL license. One issue still bugs me though: If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. What does pre-processed or augmented data really mean? OSM data has to be preprocessed to get to the form suitable for rendering. Some examples of preprocessing: 1. Importing it into PostGIS and flattening the geometries (like Mapnik does it). 2. Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a certain map scale. 3. Finding suitable label placements. 4. Extracting topology from the data (like multipolygon processing, merging of polygons, road segments etc.). 5. Running other complex algorithms on the OSM data. This preprocessing can be done on-the fly or (in case of Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step. Igor On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.orgwrote: Hi, On 10/22/12 12:07, Igor Brejc wrote: 2. I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished, closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM attribution text. 1. Is this possible? Yes (assuming that the PDF is not a database). 2. What are my obligations in terms of ODbL license? What (if anything) do I have to provide, publish etc.? Recipients of the PDF, i.e. anyone who views iStockPhoto, would have the right to ask you to hand over the database on which the map is based. You would then have the option of saying it's plain OSM, simply download it from X, or actually give them the data. If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. 3. Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? I don't think so. 4. Can the buyer of such a map then password-protect his own resulting work (which includes that map)? Yes. You will have sold him the work under the condition that he continues to attribute OSM, but other than that he has no obligations (unless you put some in). If you sell the work with an OSM attribution but without the condition to perpetuate that attribution, you may be in breach of ODbL or you may not; this depends on how you interpret the suitably calculated to make anyone ... aware clause. Bye Frederik ___ legal
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 10/30/12 08:19, Igor Brejc wrote: Some then say that these in-memory data structures are also Derivative Databases. In what form can you then offer such a Database to someone that requests it? I don't think there's a way how one could require the making available of such a transient structure without making OSM data processing totally impractical. I agree, but in that case the author of the Produced Work could simply say: I choose to go by the clause 4.6a and publish the entire Derivative Database, but since the only practically publishable Database is the original OSM XML file, I'm sending you just the link to the downloadable extract from Geofabrik. I would thus satisfy the 4.6 clause. Am I wrong? Always keep in mind that the machine readable clause is only there as an alternative in cases where you would prefer not to make the derived database available; you can *always* settle for making the derived database available instead and then nobody cares about your software. I realize that, but I think anyone involved in making Produced Works will want to explore all the alternatives before deciding which one suits them most. (Btw. you always write source code but the ODbL does not talk about source code; isn't a binary just as machine readable?) You have a point. I guess I was just repeating the logic mentioned in the Open Data License/Trivial Transformations - Guideline without really thinking about it. Igor ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi, My understanding (emphases are mine): “*Contents*” – The contents of this Database, which includes the information, independent works, or other material collected into the Database. For example, the contents of the Database could be factual data or works such as *images*, audiovisual material, text, or sounds. ... “*Produced Work*” – a work (such as an *image*, audiovisual material, text, or sounds) resulting from using the *whole or a Substantial part of the Contents* (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database. ... 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that *Content *was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, *and that it is available under this License*. ... 4.8 Licensing of others. You may not sublicense the Database. Each time You communicate the Database, *the whole or Substantial part of the Contents*, or any Derivative Database to anyone else in any way, *the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Database on the same terms and conditions as this License*. *You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License*, but You may enforce any rights that You have over a Derivative Database. You are solely responsible for any modifications of a Derivative Database made by You or another Person at Your direction. *You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License*. If I read these articles correctly, then the Produced Work obtained from ODbL-licensed Database must be licensed under the ODbL license (once you publicly use the Produced Work). But it's not your responsibility to enforce the license on 3rd parties that use your Produced Work. Igor On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: I have a question concerning the ability of someone creating produced works from an ODbL-licensed database to license that produced work for use by others. Strictly speaking it's a question about the ODbL, rather that OSM, but since it will have a significant effect on OSM users, I thought I would try asking here. For reference, the ODbL license text can be found at http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ I understand that if someone creates and then publicly uses a produced work from an ODbL-licensed database then they are required to add some text to the produced work saying that it came from such a database (ODbL 4.3), ensure that any derivative database created along the way are under a suitable license (ODbL 4.4) and also meet the requirements for providing the final database or algorithm used to produce it (ODbL 4.6). That's all fine. My question is: how can that produced work then be licensed to others? Are there any restrictions placed on what license someone could offer the produced work under? Do they have to ensure that other users and creators of derivative works maintain the attribution back to the original ODbL database? Or could they offer the work under something like the CC0 license? Do they have to share-alike the produced work? Or can they keep it all rights reserved? This would seem to be quite an important question for OSM data users who are producing map tiles, and I can't see anything to specifically address this in the ODbL itself. Except perhaps in clause 4.3, which could be taken as a viral attribution requirement on any re-uses of the produced work. However, 4.3 only refers to the produced work itself, and not any derivative works arising from it. My understanding is that you don't have to share-alike produced works and can keep them all rights reserved if you want (though the other requirements listed above may mean that others could replicate your work quite easily, so it may not be that effective to do so). I also don't think there's anything to stop people CC0-ing produced works, but I'm not as confident on this point. So I'd appreciate any clarification and/or reasoning that anyone can give. Many thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence. Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this implies a downstream attribution requirement too (reasonably calculated to make any Person... exposed to the Produced Work) - besides, in practice, why wouldn't you want to? - but I think Robert disagrees with me on this. OK, how about this scenario: 1. I download the OSM extract from Geofabrik, Cloudmade or some XAPI server. 2. I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished, closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM attribution text.. 3. I publish the PDF map on sites like http://www.istockphoto.com claiming full copyright and sell it as royalty-free vector graphics. Questions: 1. Is this possible? 2. What are my obligations in terms of ODbL license? What (if anything) do I have to provide, publish etc.? 3. Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? 4. Can the buyer of such a map then password-protect his own resulting work (which includes that map)? Thanks, Igor ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
Hi, Thanks for your clarifications, everybody. I was under the (looks like wrong) impression the produced work must also be available under the ODbL license. One issue still bugs me though: If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. What does pre-processed or augmented data really mean? OSM data has to be preprocessed to get to the form suitable for rendering. Some examples of preprocessing: 1. Importing it into PostGIS and flattening the geometries (like Mapnik does it). 2. Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a certain map scale. 3. Finding suitable label placements. 4. Extracting topology from the data (like multipolygon processing, merging of polygons, road segments etc.). 5. Running other complex algorithms on the OSM data. This preprocessing can be done on-the fly or (in case of Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step. Igor On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 10/22/12 12:07, Igor Brejc wrote: 2. I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished, closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM attribution text. 1. Is this possible? Yes (assuming that the PDF is not a database). 2. What are my obligations in terms of ODbL license? What (if anything) do I have to provide, publish etc.? Recipients of the PDF, i.e. anyone who views iStockPhoto, would have the right to ask you to hand over the database on which the map is based. You would then have the option of saying it's plain OSM, simply download it from X, or actually give them the data. If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly, but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would be the data you have to hand over. 3. Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF? I don't think so. 4. Can the buyer of such a map then password-protect his own resulting work (which includes that map)? Yes. You will have sold him the work under the condition that he continues to attribute OSM, but other than that he has no obligations (unless you put some in). If you sell the work with an OSM attribution but without the condition to perpetuate that attribution, you may be in breach of ODbL or you may not; this depends on how you interpret the suitably calculated to make anyone ... aware clause. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 __**_ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/legal-talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: 2. Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc. for a certain map scale. Same process - either you share the generalized data or you share the algorithm that produces it. If, for example, you were to import with ImpOSM which does generalisations when importing, that's all you'd have to say. 3. Finding suitable label placements. 4. Extracting topology from the data (like multipolygon processing, merging of polygons, road segments etc.). 5. Running other complex algorithms on the OSM data. This preprocessing can be done on-the fly or (in case of Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step. The boundary between what is done as a separate step, leading to a derived database, and what is done on the fly as part of the rendering process may sometimes be muddy but I guess in these situations they are pretty clear. Another interesting question is how easy the algorithm you specify must be. It is clear that the algorithm cannot include buy some Navteq data and then do this, or buy ArcGIS and then do that - but what if the algorithm includes run this code, it will take 1000 days, or make sure your machine has at least 1 TB of RAM, then continue as follows The first question is what is the purpose of that method description? If the purpose is to enable _anyone_ repeating the same process, then I see a big problem with this interpretation: it effectively means you cannot use closed source software to generate publicly distributed maps. In one case you might not be the owner of the source code (ArcGIS as an example), so you cannot really describe the actual algorithm behind it. In another case, if you're the owner of the code, you'll either be forced to write length documents describing your algorithms, or release the source code. And BTW under what terms/license that document/source code is released? What prevents a company XYZ then using that source code to do processing of completely different Databases (not OSM's)? I don't see how this this clause can be enforced is the scenarios I've mentioned. Here are some possible outcomes: 1. The owner of the code has to open-source the code (which could mean tossing away a large investment in time money and giving it free to the competition). Who ensures that the source code is complete enough to enable the repetition of the process? 2. The owner writes a crappy document describing the algorithm that no one can follow (I've seen a lot of such scientific articles). Who will ensure that such documents are usable? 3. The owner releases a derivative DB which (since the processing is done in-memory) is just an binary (almost) random stream of data, difficult to read and process for anyone without the original source code. Does he need to release the documentation of the data format? Maybe I'm missing something, I don't know. Igor ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
