Re: [OSM-legal-talk] wikidata cc0 <> odbl
For the sake of the argument, let's add that I may intend to make the workflow easier by creating a JOSM plugin (or extending the wikipedia plugin with the wikidata Toolki WDTK). So it may become substantial or probably would be after enough time passes. So it's important to know what is and what isn't acceptable. Direct transfer of names and translations in either direction definitely isn't. That is clear. When comparing them and noticing a difference another source is needed to fix one or the other. I guess using JOSM to calculate the center of a point cloud (of way/relation nodes' coordinates) is derived? It's probably best to limit it to version 1 objects one adds oneself. The other question is, whether backreferencing from Wikidata is a good idea. Or whether it changes anything to the licensing issues? Polyglot 2017-12-03 14:10 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch>: > Well IMHO none of this is relevant, as we do not claim any rights in > individual elements in our database. > > As a result every single operation for itself is completely OK. The issues > start when you (and I include any method of work splitting in that) do any > of them systematically in a way that is no longer insubstantial. > > Any data you directly created yourself remains yours naturally and while > there is a bit of fuzziness around the question of what applies to the copy > in the OSM database itself, you can do with that what you want (assuming > you weren't creating something that depended on already existing OSM data). > > IANAL > > Simon > > Am 03.12.2017 um 13:48 schrieb Jo: > > Time to open up a whole new fresh can of worms > > Call me werid, but I like the idea of cooperation between opendata > projects, but differences in licensing don't make this exactly easy. > > So here goes. > > Let's start with a node. > > a) > I add a node (say for a school) to OSM. Since it's coming from an import > (or I surveyed it myself) I have more details and I'd like to add those > details to wikidata as well. > > I look at the imagery and find the school grounds and place a node > somewhere in the middle. So I'm the one who determined the coordinates. If > I want to share them to wikidata that should be fine. In the reference > field of wikidata I create a source reference "reference url" and set it to > the url Ctrl-Shift-I sends me to www.openstreetmap.org/node/12345678 > > b) > Next case I draw a polygon around the school grounds and have JOSM > determine the center point for the coordinates. This time I use > www.openstreetmap.org/wat/12345678 as the reference url. > Again, I'm the one who determined the coordinates at the time of creation > of the object on OSM. > > c) > I find a street on OSM and want to add/update its position to/on wikidata. > I take the 2 end points and determine the center. This time I reference > back to the way on OSM, or if the way was splt, to the way segment nearest > to the center point. There is nothing there at this point in OSM, usually > the coordinates also don't correspond to any OSM object. I was not the > creator of this street or its end nodes. odbl states I need to state the > source, that was done using the refernce url pointing back to > openstreetmap.org. Is this enough? > > d) > 2 streets join on a node. wikidata has a property "connects with". I'd > like to use the url fo the node as the source for the connection between > these 2 roads. This time it's not about the coordinates, but about the fact > one can get from one of those roads to another using that node. Is that OK > to do, or should I find anoher source for this 'knowledge'. > > e) > wikidata also has properties "coordinate of northernmost point" > (easternmost, southernmost, westernmost). Can those be sourced to OSM > (nodes)? > > Polyglot > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing > listlegal-talk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > > > ___ > 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] wikidata cc0 <> odbl
Time to open up a whole new fresh can of worms Call me werid, but I like the idea of cooperation between opendata projects, but differences in licensing don't make this exactly easy. So here goes. Let's start with a node. a) I add a node (say for a school) to OSM. Since it's coming from an import (or I surveyed it myself) I have more details and I'd like to add those details to wikidata as well. I look at the imagery and find the school grounds and place a node somewhere in the middle. So I'm the one who determined the coordinates. If I want to share them to wikidata that should be fine. In the reference field of wikidata I create a source reference "reference url" and set it to the url Ctrl-Shift-I sends me to www.openstreetmap.org/node/12345678 b) Next case I draw a polygon around the school grounds and have JOSM determine the center point for the coordinates. This time I use www.openstreetmap.org/wat/12345678 as the reference url. Again, I'm the one who determined the coordinates at the time of creation of the object on OSM. c) I find a street on OSM and want to add/update its position to/on wikidata. I take the 2 end points and determine the center. This time I reference back to the way on OSM, or if the way was splt, to the way segment nearest to the center point. There is nothing there at this point in OSM, usually the coordinates also don't correspond to any OSM object. I was not the creator of this street or its end nodes. odbl states I need to state the source, that was done using the refernce url pointing back to openstreetmap.org. Is this enough? d) 2 streets join on a node. wikidata has a property "connects with". I'd like to use the url fo the node as the source for the connection between these 2 roads. This time it's not about the coordinates, but about the fact one can get from one of those roads to another using that node. Is that OK to do, or should I find anoher source for this 'knowledge'. e) wikidata also has properties "coordinate of northernmost point" (easternmost, southernmost, westernmost). Can those be sourced to OSM (nodes)? Polyglot ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps
It's almost impossible to quit this list, we're very inclusive. Or maybe not, just like any other mailing list, there are some links at the bottom of each email. One of them has listinfo in the url. Click on it and you'll get magically redirected to a web page where you can unsubscribe. Cheers, Jo 2016-03-14 18:23 GMT+01:00 James Tabor <ja...@dataforwards.com>: > If someone could remove me from the email list that would be great. Could > not find an unsub button. > > Many thanks > > James > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 14 Mar 2016, at 15:20, Tom Lee <t...@mapbox.com> wrote: > > I think this conversation is suffering from a few confusions. > > First, the EU Database Right and copyright are related but distinct. One > or both can apply to a work. From the ODbL: "Database Rights can apply even > when there is no copyright over the Database." German copyright's notion of > "fading" is interesting but as far as I know the primary documents of OSM > are built exclusively on EU and UK law (I could easily be mistaken about > this!). > > Second, the project license is a grant of rights *beyond* the rights > automatically conveyed by the Database Right and copyright. Judgments > about the status of different classes of work may affect the limits of > which rights OSM can reserve, but they will generally not affect what > rights it is able to grant to users (or the terminology it selects for > various concepts). > > With all of that said, I think there's plenty of room for creating useful > guidelines on how to interpret the ODbL, so I would welcome the > clarifications that others have called for. But I tend to agree with others > on this thread that this ruling doesn't substantially change the legal > environment surrounding OSM licensing. > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Tobias Wendorff < > tobias.wendo...@tu-dortmund.de> wrote: > >> Am So, 13.03.2016, 14:07 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: >> > >> > shouldn't this go further and include cases where the published result >> > wasn't intended for the extraction of the original (or derived) data, >> but >> > it was used to do it? >> >> I don't think you can permit extraction of the data, since that's the >> principe of share-alike? >> >> >> ___ >> 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 > > > ___ > 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] Using data from Ville de Montréal
The way I read that 4th clause, it should be enough to add *Contient des données reproduites, modifiées, traduites ou distribuées « telles quelles » avec la permission de la Ville de Montréal. **Ce produit contient des données accordées sous licence « telles quelles » aux termes de l’accord de licence d’utilisation des données de la Ville de Montréal. L’octroi de la licence ne constitue pas une approbation du produit par la Ville de Montréal. * *Openstreetmap contains data integrated with other data with permission from the city of Montreal. This agreement does not mean Openstreetmap is endorsed by the city of Montreal. Maybe you can come up with a better translation. I redacted it to the essence. (Fortunately I didn't end up with 'mostly harmless') to this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors Once you add that, send them a message asking whether this is enough for them in terms of attribution and if not, what would need to be changed. If it's not enough and they need to change the license before reuse in Openstreetmap becomes acceptable, you can remove it once again. Or you can send them a message asking how to phrase it before adding it to the wiki. What we do with data from Brussels is to add ref:UrbIS to each object, which will make it easier to compare future versions, keep them up to date and detect vandalism or editor's mistakes. We also add source=UrbIS as a tag on the changeset, but all that is for internal use. The text on * *http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors is the source reference for the public. Jo * 2013/6/6 Guillaume Pratte guilla...@guillaumepratte.net Hello, The Ville de Montréal has some interesting data available under their own licence: http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/licence/licence-texte-complet/ However clause 4 of the licence (attribution) is more restrictive than the terms of the ODbL, and thus the data cannot be used in OSM. Since this licence can and will change in the future (the city want to make it evolve to be on pair with other big North American cities), we would need a more permanent and explicit authorization from the city to use its data within OSM. Surely this situation is not the first of its kind to happen regarding OSM. Are there examples of how this was handled with other data sources? What would be the general guidelines to suggest to the city for such a legal document to authorize contributions of its data to OSM? Should the city somehow allow explicitly the relicensing of its data under the ODbL for the OpenSteetMap project? Thanks, Guillaume Pratte ___ 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] [GIS-Kosova] OSM road network for Kosova
The whole license change has been drawn out over several years. We have been trying very hard to reach out and contact as many decliners as possible. At some point it had to go forward though. The problem was that the longer they were waiting to go ahead with it, is that people were contributing on a foundation of quicksand. Every change that has been added after a deliner touched it, has been thrown away. So, I'm glad we finally have that behind us, so now we can concentrate on 'recruiting' more contributors. If I understand correctly, it should be possible to undo the work of the license bot retroactively, but I guess that's only interesting for larger regions. It's probably going to cost an administrator a good deal of time to do it. Jo 2013/3/7 Bekim Kajtazi bekim.kajt...@gmail.com Whatever case it is...the data is gone!!! On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/3/7 Bekim Kajtazi bekim.kajt...@gmail.com: Well, I was never contacted by anyone about the license. there are some conditions when this could happen: 1. You registered after a certain date, so you already had signed a CT at registration that allowed publishing your work under cc-by-sa and or ODbL 2. You missed the mail because the email account you communicated on registration was not active because a) mailbox full b) you changed your email provider c) your provider didn't exist any more d) the mail went to the spam folder and you didn't notice ... cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- about.me/bekim ___ 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] There is no copyright on way tags like street names
Simply add odbl=clean to the way, after verifying it and you'll be fine. A few days later, or maybe even the next day it won't show up as problematic anymore. OSM wants to be extra careful, regarding copyright laws, and we always have been. So we'll also have to be when we want to change the license. I consider it a good exercise in fact checking and even if we have to drop a tag here and there, somebody will come along eventually to add it from their own surveys. Polyglot 2011/12/28 fk270...@fantasymail.de Tomorrow, I am planning to walk along streets which have been marked in red on the OSM Inspector. Mainly for exercise, not only for legal reasons. These streets exist for about 100 years and everybody who walks there needs to add the same tags: highway=residential name=Parkallee maxspeed=30 oneway=yes surface=cobblestone lit=yes There is no creativity in that, just the luck of being the first editor. In 2007, an anonymous editor was the lucky first one who noticed a street sign that has existed for almost 100 years now. In 2011, I have added some tags to v3. If I created (produced) a new way with a new number, but the same tags, it would be considered CLEAN. If I kept the old way for honouring history without legal obligation (as its tags are not covered by copyright), the same way with the same tags and the same last editor would be considered DIRTY. There is no legal obligation to give credit to first-time fact collectors, but there is also no legal requirement not to do it. Copyright only exists on fictional or very creative tags, not on facts like street names. The only logical argumentation how a way can be affected by copyright is to declare it fictional or supposed to be fictional or unsure to be factual. However, I would be surprised if anybody was really able to find a fictional way among 2.8 million ways uploaded by decliners. I would like to tag these ways with odbl=fact in order to indicate that there is no other possibility to tag them than with their actual name and their actual road condition. The LWG may decide whether to abridge history or not, but there is absolutely no reason to remove tags describing the factual road condition. Before a license change happens, IMHO the LWG and all participants should try to avoid unfitting terms like tag creator for those who have just added a well-known street name. Tag attestor would be more appropriate to describe that mappers are just copying facts from reality. First-time attestors do not have priority over late attestors and they cannot claim any copyright on facts copied from reality. Quality would increase if each mapper was able to confirm that a way uploaded by other mappers exactly fits reality. Famous places like Broadway in New York or Leicester Square in London could have thousands of attestors while local paths may have just one or two attestors. Of course, ways with many attestors should not be deleted even if they were attested first by a anonymous or deceased mapper. It takes some time to implement these ATTEST or CONFIRM buttons, but I would be happy if they were implemented long before a detrimental data loss happens. Cheers, FK270673 -- NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone ___ 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] [OSM-talk] Transition to CC-4 instead of destroying data
2011/12/19 Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Simon Poole simon at poole.ch writes: The upgrade clause in 4.b of CC-by-SA 2.0 a) only applies to a Derivative Work. While this is only a small hurdle to surmount, it does mean that it doesn't apply to a one-to-one copy of the work b) is a right granted to the the licensee. If we assume the popular every mapper has IPR in his contribution and licenses that to the OSMF pre-CT construction is correct, this implies that while the OSMF could distribute the database under a later licence, the relationship between mapper and OSMF would still be stuck with CC-by-SA 2.0 with all the related issues. Are there any problems with CC-BY-SA 2.0 relating specifically to the contribution of content by individual mappers to the OSMF servers? Are you worried that individual mappers have not transferred their sui generis database rights, or something else? Other collaborative projects such as Wikipedia must face the same issues. It's hard to believe they need to get every contributor's permission in order to do a licence upgrade. (Indeed the Wikipedia transition from GFDL to GFDL-or-CC was done using an upgrade clause in the former licence.) Well, this is really a topic for legal talk, So I will post there. I dont believe the boogyman statements that are being used to motivate the license change. I dont see the need for speed in this process. Speed? A turtle moves more quickly. This process has started many years ago and I'm glad there is finally light visible at the end of the tunnel. Yes, we still have a lot of work to do, but it's good to have a deadline to work towards. from my point of view, There is no real reason for the re-licensing that convinces me, no burning need. But there has been a decision by a minority and they are pushing this through. my personal opinion is that people are trying to cash in on OSM and need to change the license to be more liberal to do so. We need a license which is more suitable for the work we are creating. This work happens to be a database, so a license which applies to a DB can't be that much besides the mark. Polyglot ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I am not going to remove any old node in my hometown
One of three things can happen with the contributions you added on an element which was created initially by somebody else: - Somebody will 'remap' it instead of you before 1st of April - You will 'remap' it yourself before 1st of April - It will simply be removed wholesale on the 1st of April and somebody will have fun readding it from scratch in (probably) a slightly different way, maybe less complete, but it'll all be all right in the (very) long run. Let's call it growing pains on the way to adulthood of the project. Annoying and time consuming/wasting, but supposedly necessary, or we can call it an exercise in futility or some sort of therapy to keep us all happy and content. What I do: when I edit something, I check whether it may disappear in the future. If so, I replace it and at least my effort won't be wasted. Of course, I check to make sure I'm not dragging bits and pieces of information that were contributed by a naysayer/unreachable along to the new objects I'm creating. Unfortunately this checking requieres a lot of effort in itself though, but the tools are getting better. Jo 2011/12/12 fk270...@fantasymail.de After watching the License Change View on OSM Inspector, I have decided not to change any of the few red dots and ways marked in the OSM inspector. Some ways have one old version by an anonymous or undecided author and up to seven versions by me. That's enough to keep them and if you want to delete MY edits even though I have agreed to the CT, you may do that, but remapping them would ignore my editing history. As I have contributed about 81% of all nodes in my hometown area, it's rather me who has the moral and legal right to decide what may be kept or not, not the right of a single-node mapper who draw two ways in 2007. There is only one correct location for an intersection and if another maspper has already occupied this location with his node, there is no sensible reason to recreate it on the same location. There is no copyright on single nodes, there is no copyright on moved nodes and there is no copyright on street names that have already passed the comparison with municipal government's street list. As I have contributed about 81% of all nodes in my hometown area, it's rather me who has the predominant copyright on this map and not the less-than-1% one-node contributors. Some of the marked edits are mechanical work requiring neither local knowledge nor genius: correcting spelling mistakes (e.g. Grade2grade2), debugging keepright fixmes, deleting created_by, etc. There should be a functionality to mark their nodes and ways as checked, verified and absolutely insignificant concerning copyright. There is absolutely no case in history where a one-node mapper, even an anonymous one-node mapper, was able to claim a copyright based on his less-than-1% contribution. If you want to delete or vandalize the whole map just for pleasing a non-responding anonymous single-node contributor while destroying the work of a 150,000-node contributor, you may do that. I am not going to replace any of the vandalized nodes. As they are often located on important trunk roads, sometimes even on intersections, their removal might prevent efficient routing for many years. Maybe the license change is just a sociological experiment (like the Milgram experiment) to check how stupid people are if they are told to remap existing nodes. Cheers! -- NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone ___ 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] The detrimental effects of database
It's not like it's going to be hard to recreate all this stuff. It didn't take long to create in the first place ... when we had a fraction of the community we have now, less accurate aerial imagery and no secondary data sources to compare against. Re-mapping not only removes the license baggage, it also has the potential to improve quality. I agree - let's rather invest a little more work now and have a solid foundation for the future, than build on sand just to get it done quicker. I was going to say something in the same vain. So I'll refrain from doing that. I do have a suggestion to help identify which tags/properties are the ones contributed by somebody who declined or who can't be reached. Now I have to go an dig in the history to check who added names and other properties, when recreating ways and nodes. I'd prefer for this time consuming task to be automated. Is there a way to accomplish that? I understand the full history of an object is needed to do it, so it'be supplementary to what the license change plugin does already. Maybe you could point me in the right direction in the JOSM code and I could try to do it myself. I would need to know how the history is stored after it is DL'ed and where; how I can fetch it programmatically. Jo ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 06:14:29PM +, SteveC wrote: If you have anything further to add then please raise it on this list before midnight on Friday 22nd. I've refrained from adding commentary as, not having been an active contributor for while i don't want to assume any role in a community process. This is no vote, but a consultation for the benefit of the OSMF Board. It has been an amazing discussion. But I can't resist chucking 2 cents in if there is a midnight deadline on airing opinions. The essay Non-commercial isn't the problem, ShareAlike is helped convince me that rights-based licenses for data block reuse, and as more licenses flourish, the problem worsens: http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/347 or just this image: http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/blimg/cc-tw-license-compatibility-wizard.png How can a community so focused on freedom, he asks, approve of any restrictions? And so we get into deep philosophical questions, does evil exist, does intent matter, what does the mean, etc. With respect, i don't expect to find the answers on osm-talk-legal. I did find a lot in common with what the Archbishop of Canterbury was saying recently about Sharia law, a discussion which he claimed in fact opens up a very wide range of current issues, and requires some general thinking about the character of law... we need a fair amount of 'deconstruction' of crude oppositions... It is always easy to take refuge in some form of positivism. To choose one rights-based license is like choosing one rights-based legal framework, to the deliberate disclusion of potentially incompatible others. (And those who do not agree, have the right to pick up their data and go back where they came from). Decisions get made on the basis of what appears to us to be the nature of law, a set of accreted and perhaps unexamined assumptions about property, protection, enforcement and agreement, created over many centuries by and for a few ruling wealth-holders. So following a path of law leads us to more law. We Need law to protect ourselves against people wielding bigger law. Talking the language of law constrains what we think and mutates our concerns. I have no anti-ODL beef, it probably presents a best set of solutions to what are currently identified as legal problems. CC-BY-SA has always caused community problems with ShareAlike, now thrown into sharp relief by the maturing discussion over the last few years and the number of new projects in a similar situation. Progress may be slower with a PD-BY project, but this will bypass this gripping over-concern with the letter of the law. But the legal framework will change, the context of what other projects are doing will change, and these decisions will need to be made again. When that happens, this whole discussion and the disparately motivated PD arguments will still be there, unchanged. As someone pointed out several hundred emails ago, 95% of the OSM contributing community just does not care about license terms. Of the 5% talking here fractionally few, perhaps none in the end, will insist on revoking their contributions. Whether relicensing goes in a PD+BY or ODL direction the technical issues in reverting selective edits to an approved state will remain the same. The choice probably is not going to make that much difference. So pick the option that makes access and reuse easiest. love, jo ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
