Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Substantial meaning
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, SteveC wrote: > Has there been any discussion on what people here feel 'substantial' > means in the context of the definitions of the ODbL? I've banged > around the wiki looking but might might have missed it. Here's the > first important bit relevant to this in the ODbL: > > ""Extraction" – Means the permanent or temporary transfer of all or a > Substantial part of the Data > to another medium by any means or in any form. " > > Which I believe follows the language of the EU database directive. > > Basically, what do we feel substantial means when someone takes some > part of the data? How much is 'substantial'? I won't frame the > question further as I can see a number of ways and we, the license > working group, would like to get a feel for the communities views. > We're not looking for a legal opinion on that here, clearly case law > one day has to play a role. Rather, what do we think it means? > > Best > > Steve > I'd like to draw your attention to the recently published judgement from the High Court of Australia, in a case which most certainly involved how much copying is "substantial". Many of the cases referenced are from the UK. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2009/14.html Substantial part So as to indicate that the time and title information alleged to have been reproduced did not form a large part of a Weekly Schedule, the primary judge referred to the copying of "slivers of information"[29]. However, in order to assess whether material copied is a substantial part of an original literary work, it is necessary to consider not only the extent of what is copied: the quality of what is copied is critical[30]. This principle has a long provenance[31] and it is particularly apposite when considering a compilation. Some compilations are no more than a selection or arrangement of facts or information already in the public domain. When the particular form of expression contains facts and information, it is not helpful to refer to "the rough practical test that what is worth copying is prima facie worth protecting"[32]. To take an example, facts are obviously worth copying for purposes such as a narrative work of history which depends on secondary sources[33]. It is equally unhelpful to refer to the "commercial value" of the information, because that directs attention to the information itself rather than to the particular form of expression. It is often said that questions of whether a substantial part has been copied are questions of fact and degree[34]. However, a factor critical to the assessment of the quality of what is copied is the "originality" of the part which is copied[35]. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Substantial meaning
Mike, > I've tried to capture all the comments made with some strawman wording below. > Please feel free to cast arrows at it. I think it is rather good. The reason I, in my suggestion, went for area instead of inhabitants is that it is plain obvious to see for everyone how large an area is, while it may be difficult to determine whether an area has more or less than 1,000 inhabitants. 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-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Substantial meaning
I've tried to capture all the comments made with some strawman wording below. Please feel free to cast arrows at it. I've also copied it to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases#What_constitutes_a_Substantial_extract I am not happy that I have captured 2 properly. I am trying to build on Russ' comments and build a case that a systematic extraction of a single criteria is Substantial in a qualitative sense (even if a minute quantity of the entire database). The overall rationale for the wording is a) it is safer to define non-Substantial than Substantial; b) to encourage as much as possible the worry-free use of our data for personal projects, local community and local educational projects, for commercial projects where our data is either a very small adjunct to the main thrust of the product/service or where the commerciality is clearly cottage-industry, for example village map OK, town map not OK; c) build a case for the "qualitative" interpretation of Substantial (http://edina.ac.uk/projects/grade/gradeDigitalRightsIssues.pdf, p28) Mike "We regard the following as being not Substantial within the meaning of our license provided that the extraction is one-off and not repeated over time for the same or a similar project: 1. 100 features. In OpenStreetMap parlance, a feature can be a way, such as part a road with the same characteristics, or an independent node, (Point Of Interest), such as an eating place. 2. You can go over the 100 feature limit, provided that the extraction is non-systematic and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria. For example, we would regard the extraction and use of all eating places or all castles in an area as Substantial. But if you extract the locations of restaurants you have visited for a personal map to share with friends or use the locations of historic buildings as an adjunct in a book you are writing, we would regard that as non Substantial. 3. A single systematic extraction and re-use of an entire area of up to 1,000 inhabitants . The area can be a small densely populated area,(for example, a European village but not a town), or a large sparsely-populated area, (for example, Australian bush). If your extraction of data does not fall within the above guidelines, then we would expect it to be Substantial and therefore you should comply with the provisions of our license." ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Substantial meaning
SteveC writes: > Which I believe follows the language of the EU database directive. > > Basically, what do we feel substantial means when someone takes some > part of the data? How much is 'substantial'? I won't frame the > question further as I can see a number of ways and we, the license > working group, would like to get a feel for the communities views. > We're not looking for a legal opinion on that here, clearly case law > one day has to play a role. Rather, what do we think it means? How about turning it around? There exist also other geospatial data than OSM. For example Inspire datasets, see annex 1 and 2 in the directive http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:108:0001:0014:EN:PDF Probably it will be allowed to take a non-substantial amount of data out of some of those datasets. How are we going to interpret it then? -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Substantial meaning
At 00:34 24/04/2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: > SteveC wrote: >> Has there been any discussion on what people here feel 'substantial' >> means in the context of the definitions of the ODbL? I've banged >> around the wiki looking but might might have missed it. >It hasn't been discussed a lot. I guess you have read the >often-referred-to pp28-32 of >http://edina.ac.uk/projects/grade/gradeDigitalRightsIssues.pdf which of >course are not specific to OSM. Thank you, I was looking for that. As Frederick says, it is very well worth reading. An interesting point for us is that "Substantial" can be both "quantitative" or "qualititative" in nature. Can we do with anything with a "qualititative" description where we avoid numbers altogether?. I assume that for most of us, the common sense cut-off is really about commercial value? Something like this? (this is a real question not a statement) :- Not Substantial: 1. An area too limited to be of commercial value. Something usually applicable to a personal or local community project: My house, my street, our part of town or a complete but small village. 2. A non-systematic, ad hoc extraction of data tagged with a specific tag or tags, even if over a wide or even global area. For example, some historic= Points of Interest in an area used as reference or adjunct of a commercial, educational or scientific project: Yes. All historic POIs in a defined area: No. Substantial 1. An extraction large enough or systematic enough to be of potential commercial value, even if mixed with other data. ... Looking back at the above, I wonder if the best thing to do would be define what we think of as "Not Substantial" and steer clear of "Substantial" except to say that if an extraction is not *clearly* part of our "Not Substantial" list then we as Licensor expect our License conditions to be applicable? Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Substantial meaning
On 23 Apr 2009, at 19:42, SteveC wrote: > Has there been any discussion on what people here feel 'substantial' > means in the context of the definitions of the ODbL? I've banged > around the wiki looking but might might have missed it. Here's the > first important bit relevant to this in the ODbL: > > ""Extraction" – Means the permanent or temporary transfer of all or a > Substantial part of the Data > to another medium by any means or in any form. " > > Which I believe follows the language of the EU database directive. > > Basically, what do we feel substantial means when someone takes some > part of the data? How much is 'substantial'? I won't frame the > question further as I can see a number of ways and we, the license > working group, would like to get a feel for the communities views. > We're not looking for a legal opinion on that here, clearly case law > one day has to play a role. Rather, what do we think it means? I added some specific examples to the Use Cases pages some time ago to explored where the boundary of 'substantiality' were or should be:- "The license allows the free extraction of non-substantial amounts of data. People will be allowed to extract anything below this threshold and use it completely free of any restrictions. What constitutes a "substantial" extract. Which of the follow extracts from OSM would be treated as substantial? " * UK[2] " * An English county [3] " * The Isle of white (an island off the south of the UK) [4] " * Newport (a small town on the isle of white) [5] " * A list of places to eat in Newport [6] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases#What_constitutes_a_Substantial_extract I would suggest that all except possibly the last to be seen as substantial. Do others agree? If we were to codify this in numbers would it come down to something like more that 50-100 features is substantial (ie more that 50-100 ways or independent nodes). Seeing the limit higher may allow more 'unexpected applications' to emerge that would find it hard to meet the rules of the license - not sure what they would be (that's why they are unexpected!). The real question I suppose is 'what are we wanting to stop'? Are we wanting to protect every last node or just stop clones of OSM setting up and diluting effort? If it is the latter then we can set the count quite high. Regards, Peter > > > Best > > Steve > > ___ > 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] Substantial meaning
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:42:33AM -0700, SteveC wrote: > Basically, what do we feel substantial means when someone takes some > part of the data? How much is 'substantial'? I won't frame the > question further as I can see a number of ways and we, the license > working group, would like to get a feel for the communities views. > We're not looking for a legal opinion on that here, clearly case law > one day has to play a role. Rather, what do we think it means? I think it depends, which is quite unfortunate given that we’re trying to come up with some sort of definition. I agree with Russ on anything that matches a single criteria should definitely be considered substantial. I did try (not very hard) to think of some counter‐examples (those that I would consider insubstantial but defined with a single criteria) but didn’t come up with any (other than using ids which identify objects stored in the database), but after devising my example for deciding when multiple nodes/ways start to become substantial I do have some possibilities. If we’re clear that “insubstantial” is anything that is not “substantial”, then using that to help: I think a single primitive object (node, way or relation) is insubstantial. However, a way is a list of nodes, and a relation is collection of ways and nodes: When do they these collections of objects become substantial? I think definitely not until there is more than one object tagged (not just created_by=) (though this in itself may not be considered substantial). To try and explain: * way 23644120[1] with its untagged nodes (256147816, 26431535, 21092669 and 21092665) is definitely insubstantial. * way 4341611[2] with its nodes, some of which are tagged (26431528, 359721186, 310688016) as mini‐roundabouts is getting towards being substantial (though I don’t think it is substantial, but illustrates a minimum requirement for something to be considered substantial). [1]: http://openstreetmap.org/browse/way/23644120 [2]: http://openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4341611 Using the same area that I randomly picked[3] as an example (just northeast of Shrewsbury), here are my opinions of what’s substantial and what’s not: 1. way 23644120 (part of A49) — insubstantial 2. way 4341611 (potentially the whole of Sundorne Road), including mini‐roundabouts — insubstantial 3. All ways that make up the A49 — unsure 4. All trunk and primary roads in the Sundorne Grove area — unsure 5. All highways in the Sundorne Grove area — unsure 6. All objects in the Sundorne Grove area — substantial 7. All highways in the Shrewsbury area — unsure 8. All objects in the Shrewsbury area — substantial [3]: http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.7315&lon=-2.7191&zoom=14&layers=B000FTFT Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Substantial meaning
Hi, SteveC wrote: > Has there been any discussion on what people here feel 'substantial' > means in the context of the definitions of the ODbL? I've banged > around the wiki looking but might might have missed it. It hasn't been discussed a lot. I guess you have read the often-referred-to pp28-32 of http://edina.ac.uk/projects/grade/gradeDigitalRightsIssues.pdf which of course are not specific to OSM. RichardF once summarised; > Dr Waelde also notes that under EU database right it's not just a > matter of percentage, but also of a "qualitative analysis". To me it > appears clear that a single street name isn't substantial, the whole > of Cambridge is. We could spend hours discussing this but I suspect it > comes down to "don't take the piss". I could think of a number of ways of defining substantialness. Any workable definition must 1. be compatible with the EU database directive 2. be absolute (no "more than 0.01% of data means substantial") 3. be practical For the sake of 2. and 3., I would define something like this: "A substantial extract is an extract that covers more than one square kilometre *and* more than 25 features, where a "feature" is either a way with all its nodes and tags, or a single tagged node." This would mean that an area of 1000 x 1000 metres could always be fully extracted as insubstantial and used for any purpose. That's roughly the size of Green Park in London. It is not something of a huge value; it is something that can be mapped in an hour, or make it half a day if you want all house numbers and pubs in a densely populated area. For a densely populated area, the 25-feature constraint will always be met within a square kilometre and thus ineffective. For a sparsely populated area, it might be possible to fully extract a larger area as long as it contains less than 25 features. The 25-feature constraint becomes interesting when someone does queries; one could extract the 25 highest mountains or the 25 largest buildings or 25 catholic churches that are within 100 metres of a pub. Because whole ways are allowed, the 25-feature constraint might even allow the extraction of the whole motorway network of a small country. When you think about what you can do with 25 features, always bear in mind that you must not combine multiple insubstantial extracts - if you manage to extract the motorway network of a small country in 25 features then you cannot also get the coastline or the primary roads, even if someone else extracts them for you or if you do it another time. Of course the numbers can be changed but I think that a definition like this is easy to understand and apply. There is some potential for abuse because someone could quickly connect all things of interest to him into one large way and then extract that but I think such behaviour could be ruled out by proper wording. Our goal in defining "substantial" must not be to allow as little as possible. The database directive allows free use of insubstantial extracts, and says the database owner must not disallow such use. If we try to circumvent the rule by issuing a definition of "substantial" that basically makes everything that is useful also substantial then we are in breach of the database directive. 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-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Substantial meaning
El Jueves, 23 de Abril de 2009, Frederik Ramm escribió: > Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: > > If the extraction needs an automated tool, then it is substantial. > > Uh. This means that even the answer to the question "what is the name of > the street at lat=12.345 lon=45.789" would be a substantial extract > because you cannot possibly "peer through the XML"[...] Nope. To do that, you'll load up your web browser (or your favourite virtual globe), center on 12.345,45.678 and look around. Now, a web browser + openlayers (or Marble, or whatever) is neither a specific nor specialized tool to methodically looking for street names near a given pair of coordinates. It's a friggin' map. Now, if you load that data as XML into a GIS, and use some geo-processing to define a buffer and then intersect ways with a highway=tag and then extract the name= and then output a pretty table, then you're using specialized software. My point is: if a task is tedious enough so that you have to use a GIS, or code your own solution, or load the data into a DB to use some SQL magic, then the extraction is substantial. If you can use tools *not* designed for manipulating databases (e.g. a web browser with openlayers to look for a street name, a text editor for the XML for search an amenity=pub), then the extraction is not substantial. I believe there is a tipping point in the complexity of a problem in which you have to look into specialized software (GIS, CAD, DB admin, custom scripting stuff) if you want to solve the problem before dying of old age. IMHO, that tipping point is the frontier between substantial and non-substantial. > > Filtering out all amenity=pub in a > > small area is not substantial (e.g. all pubs in a 100m x 100m bbox - > > again, just peer through the XML with *any* text editor and Ctrl+F) > > your raw XML processing capabilites seem to vastly exceed mine ;-) "...there's way too much information to decode the Matrix. You get used to it, though. Your brain does the translating. I don't even see the code. All I see is blonde, brunette, redhead." :-D -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Substantial meaning
Hi, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: > If the extraction needs an automated tool, then it is substantial. Uh. This means that even the answer to the question "what is the name of the street at lat=12.345 lon=45.789" would be a substantial extract because you cannot possibly "peer through the XML" to find that out (imagine the time it needs to determine the nodes in the vicinity, then find the ways using these nodes and compute which of them comes near that location). Then again, > Filtering out all amenity=pub in a > small area is not substantial (e.g. all pubs in a 100m x 100m bbox - again, > just peer through the XML with *any* text editor and Ctrl+F) your raw XML processing capabilites seem to vastly exceed mine ;-) 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-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Substantial meaning
On Apr 23, 2009, at 2:42 PM, SteveC wrote: > Has there been any discussion on what people here feel 'substantial' > means in the context of the definitions of the ODbL? It's definitely substantial if somebody extracts something matching a single criteria, e.g. an entire state, an entire country, an entire theme (e.g. everything tagged with cycleway). -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
