Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM data on copy-protected storage
Even if keeping their data proprietary goes against the nature of OSM, yes OSM data can be used as described - that is if the data is not mixed with mentioned proprietary data. Copyright attribution is still required. LM_1 2013/4/9 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com Hi, I'm relaying a license question from a company that collects lake bathymetry data and sells specialised GPS devices to fishers and sailors. They don't make the software on those devices and have to pay to get their data converted to the format understood by that software. They'd like to add layers of OpenStreetMap data to the storage cards shipped with a new device, but they'd like to keep their bathymetry and coastline data proprietary. The cards are copy-protected (encrypted, I believe). Their question is whether OpenStreetMap data can be distributed encrypted on those cards together with their own data. The company can publish, e.g. on their website, whatever files are necessary but they can't publish the conversion process or their own data unencrypted. My understanding is that if their coastline data is not merged with OSM coastline data (one or the other is shown), and if they publish raw OSM data or information on how they extracted it, then they are fine. But I will appreciate any comment from someone who deals with OSM licensing more. Cheers ___ 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] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Verfication would be a process of comparing my own data (lets's call them A) with osm, likely using some automated precess, that would output a set of locations or areas where the maps differ more than a given threshold (dataset B). Legally you now have three datasets A, OSM and a derivative work of both (B). Dataset B would be used as a to-do list to resurvey or reimport data from other sources than OSM. OSM data is not copied, but were used for verification. This should actually be completely legal now - derivatives works are allowed, if not published no specific licence character is required. Actual data for updating is taken from somewhere else. If the clause is added that data verification requires publication under free/open licence, it would actually tighten the licence, since I highly doubt that independently acquired data on places where maps differ could be treated as derivative work. LM_1 2012/3/10 Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org: On 09/03/12 22:36, LM_1 wrote: Why not make this rule general (outside Poland) any data published under free and open licence (whatever it is) can be verified by OSM data. This brings no risk, that anyony big and evil (whatever that is) will use it to overrun OSM... LM_1 What is verification? If it is altering data to recreate OSM data, we are using verification to excuse copying. If it is looking at the map, we are using verification to damn reading a map. So I'm not sure verification is a useful term. Describing the boring mechanical actions that are being performed is probably more useful, as these are easier to consider against the actions permitted by the licence. - Rob. ___ 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] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data
Why not make this rule general (outside Poland) any data published under free and open licence (whatever it is) can be verified by OSM data. This brings no risk, that anyony big and evil (whatever that is) will use it to overrun OSM... LM_1 2012/3/9 Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com: Indeed. My point is we can discuss it here on legal-talk, and get the opinions of a handful of people are hung up on the legals and the licence change already. Or we can put it to the vote, and I'm confident in the wider community that we'd get the support of the 75% required to permit Polish OSM data to be used for verification only, and as long as the resulting data is released under a free and open licence. It is hard for me to imagine an average active mapper who has mapped their local streets, and a POI here and there, would rather see Poland wiped from OSM rather than give another organisation which is also distributing under a free and open licence the use of our data just to verify their own. Especially when it is probably permitted under our licence anyway, we'd just be confirming that it is okay to avoid doubt. Ian. On 10 March 2012 07:36, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 09/03/12 10:59, Ian Sergeant wrote: I can't see who would have a problem with this. Hi. ;-) - Rob. ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL implementation plan - extra phase proposal
Generally there should be less incompatible data every day, however there still some imports of non-copyrightable (PD, government licensed) that were uploaded by users who did not agree to CT. Because of this the incompatibility test would have to be re-run periodically. (and maybe if some problems with the script get reported). Editors being free to edit is the main purpose of this. Small scale deleting of incompatible data before edit makes re-mapping easier and prevents problems with broken relations and other connections that could be a burden in the database for years. What is hurting the community with regard to licence change is the uncertainty what data will be lost and if really as much as statistics suggest. If every editor has an easy way to make sure his edits remain undeleted, and that he can edit without risking that it is futile no harm will be done. As pointed out, if the armageddon is postponed, people stop caring (maybe not once they started), that was the point of API rejecting non-compliant edits. If the whole process of licence change takes so long, why should the last phase (presumably most important one) - fixing what has to be deleted - take so short. Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) 2012/1/31 Jonathan Harley j...@spiffymap.net: On 30/01/12 23:41, LM_1 wrote: ... That said there are other ways to ensure the goal of this suggestion - seamless transition rather than deletions and angry/leaving contributors. One that comes to my mind and does not require any drastic changes would utilise filtering feature of JOSM (and required Potlatch to implement equivalent). Every night/week (depending on how demanding task it would be) each incompatible object would be tagged odbl=incompatible (server side). Editors would then make these objects non-editable/less visible... If API is not changed to serve the cleaned version of data, it would be good to have at least some editor-side tool to revert selected object to the clean state and then repair/edit it as it should be. In my original suggestion I said that this period (remapping what has to be deleted while still serving data under CC-BY-SA) should take a year or two - as long as needed till all the field in http://odbl.poole.ch/ show 99% or more. The time pressure is a false one, there has not really been any argument why it is important to change the licence fast. ... Non-CT-agreers can't make changes any more, right? So the tagging of objects odbl=incompatible would only need to be done once; the number can never go up, only down as editors replace those features. The tag would be visible in editors without any change (but would make it easy for editors to highlight those features and/or warn any user editing them) and it would make it crystal clear to all of us which features would be removed for the ODbL version when it arrives. That seems like a pretty good idea to me. We're coming up towards the 5 year mark on this so nobody can accuse us of moving too fast. Personally I'm feeling demotivated knowing that lots of my work is likely to be removed (although I've mapped other places from scratch, most of my edits around here have been corrections and improvements) and I haven't added anything for months. I know more clarity about exactly what's going to happen to the map would help me. I know we're still hoping that some CT refusers will change their minds, but I think we need a definitive decision at some point about exactly what is going to be done to which features - and that point needs to be BEFORE the license change is implemented - preferably well before. Tagging seems the obvious way to communicate that. Jonathan. -- 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-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways
This discussion seems to be based on the assumption that being original creator of certain object in database constitutes copyright. That is not entirely true. If I move each of the nodes of a way, the original creator can hardly have any copyright in its shape. Even if I move a single node, that section is not a creation of the original node's creator any more. The same is true for tags. Lukas (LM_1) 2012/1/30 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: andrzej zaborowski wrote: (I thought it is i-i+j, at least in JOSM it was up to some point) It is. But it's very difficult to extract that with certainty from a non-trivial changeset. Add enough splits, and you may find i-i+j+k+l. Then add some merges and some deletes, and you possibly have [p+i]+j and [l+p] and an odd isolated section of k. Probably the only case in which you can actually check whether the user was splitting, or creating afresh but using some of the same (agreeing) nodes, is if they were using Potlatch 1's live mode. And I don't think that's been good practice for a while. ;) In any case if a way is an arrangement of node references + some tags, then if inside some changeset an arrangement of nodes and/ or tags is reused, as in your example, then, even if the editor's split operation wasn't used to arrive at it, for practical purposes the effects is the same. Practical purposes, sure, but not IP purposes. If we're saying that there is IP in the sweat-of-the-brow required to create those tags or that arrangement of nodes, then we need to know whose brow was sweaty. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-The-Copyright-of-Split-Ways-tp5438685p5441546.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] ODbL implementation plan - extra phase proposal
Since I am mentioned in the first post, I should probably react too: It was not a deeply thought through proposal, just a general idea. And I still believe a good one. I can imagine that changing the API itself is a lot of work. Much worse, it serves as a public interface that unknown number of clients might use. Still I would not rule that out. Who knows when the next licence change comes (maybe in favour of compatibility with other licence) or some other event when substantial portion of data becomes problematic (eg. because some older import is found licence incompatible). That said there are other ways to ensure the goal of this suggestion - seamless transition rather than deletions and angry/leaving contributors. One that comes to my mind and does not require any drastic changes would utilise filtering feature of JOSM (and required Potlatch to implement equivalent). Every night/week (depending on how demanding task it would be) each incompatible object would be tagged odbl=incompatible (server side). Editors would then make these objects non-editable/less visible... If API is not changed to serve the cleaned version of data, it would be good to have at least some editor-side tool to revert selected object to the clean state and then repair/edit it as it should be. In my original suggestion I said that this period (remapping what has to be deleted while still serving data under CC-BY-SA) should take a year or two - as long as needed till all the field in http://odbl.poole.ch/ show 99% or more. The time pressure is a false one, there has not really been any argument why it is important to change the licence fast. Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) 2012/1/28 Mike N nice...@att.net: On 1/28/2012 8:30 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: There is nothing fundamentally wrong or impossible about that. But it does introduce more work for us (because we would have to implement a way for the API to reject changes to tainted objects). A notice could originate in the 2 most popular editors, and not require an API change. The user would at least be aware of the problem before continuing the edit. ___ 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] Implementing the licence change
Knowing it does not really start the discussion: I totally agree. Lukas (LM_1) 2012/1/18 ant antof...@gmail.com: First of all I must say that I highly respect the work of everyone who has been actively involved in the licence change, including the LWG members, the writers of licence change inspection programs and everyone involved in discussions. I have been watching the process for more than two years and have ever since been a supporter of the change. However, especially since the switchover date has been announced and the phase of remapping has started, I have become more and more skeptical about the way things are going on. I want to discuss a couple of concerns I have. 1. The black box As far as I can see the details of the implementation of the licence change, i.e. of what is actually going to happen on April 1st, are not known - or at least not revealed. Correct me if I am wrong. Particularly, the wiki page „What is clean?“[1], which has been said to be the binding document, is in its current state not sufficient to serve as a reference for any measures regarding the cleaning of data: * The considerations in the section „Edge cases“ are only a random selection of cases that have been discussed. Neither conditional stetements like „if it can be seen not to influence the current version“ nor questions like „Can you copyright the state of something not being there?“ (rhetorical?) are helpful. The list somewhat lacks a systematic approach. * The „deletion paradox“ is, as it has been pointed out on the discussion page, no paradox at all (rather it depends on the strategy of cleaning). * The section „What taints data?“ repeats the above-mentioned list, but is differently (better) structured and different in content. Statements in this list, however, contradict, or supersede, previous statements („A tag modified by a non-agreeing mapper is tainted“, whereas: correcting a tagging typo is not tainted). Furthermore the list contains instructions, which should not be the case in a mere specification of what is clean. The clause saying that intermediate versions should be created during remapping (a) does not belong here and (b) is questionable, as it is based on assumptions regarding the implementation of switchover, which has not yet been decided upon. * There should be rationales explaining for each statement why it is so and not different. Basically I think that this document needs a rewrite that shall contain unambiguous statements preceded by precise definitions. In order to get there, however, we must of course have a discussion. 2. Getting clear about taintedness IANAL. But I like to approach problems in a systematical manner. For example, I recently asked myself the question, „What is a copyrightable object in OSM?“. I think this is a fundamental question to answer if you discuss licence topics. Is a node copyrightable? If yes, what's copyrightable about it? What's copyrightable about a way? Is the list of references to nodes copyrightable separately from the way's tags? Are references to nodes atomic? (I.e. Is a single reference copyrightable? Or is only the list as a whole?) Sorry for the rhetoric, but these questions do bother me. I believe they have to be answered prior to discussing which kinds of modifications to what object have what effect (- taintedness). And when that has been settled, we can talk about measures. All in all I think that the approach to the whole thing so far has been too pragmatic, just like identifying edge cases and modeling something around it. Of course, this might somehow work and the result might even be satisfying, but to me it doesn't seem appropriate in a legally significant matter like this. 3. Remapping Considering that neither the definitions of what is clean and what is tainted nor the technical details of the implementation have yet been finalized, it seems unreasonable for me to remap. I don't want to discover later that I have done unnecessary work. Besides, current remapping practice is completely based on the available inspection tools that implement - more or less precisely - a taintedness policy that is still in draft status. For this reason I also refuse to use the odbl=clean tag. Now I could elaborate a lot more. But the purpose of my post actually is to start a discussion, and I am asking you. Me too wants the licence change to be a success. So let's go. Cheers ant [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F ___ 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] Way with almost nothing left but created by decliner
Even if one way has been spotted and remapped, there might be many similar cases that were not spotted and could not be remapped. If there is a row of new CT compatible nodes, anything between them should be considered clean - there is no authorship of the creator of the original way... LM_1 2012/1/13 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch: Am 13.01.2012 23:42, schrieb Frederik Ramm: Hi, here's an interesting example from the German forum. A way that was created by a decliner but later edited by 10 others; of everything the decliner originally created, only the very first node remains, everything else has been lost in the editing process. OSMI duly paints this way in red - created by decliner, no chance of survival. Instead of starting yet another thread on the subject on the German forum, the OP could have naturally simply remapped the way, which would have assured it 100% chance of survival . Simon ___ 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
