Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
Hi there, I would like to have clarification on this subject as well (but be aware that I'm just in the process of understanding the OSM license -> see the other thread). What I do not understand with the OSM license is the following (constructed) example: * I have a separate geo coder application based on OSM data * I have my own user database which is public to every individual Now what happens when I use the geocoder to let users do autocompleting its addresses in my "somehow public" database? I have lots of users so this "manual" copying from OSM would be *substantial* but at the same time it is clear that I cannot make the database itself public. Or is the resulting database still separate as there are clean "OSM columns"? Regards, Peter. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
On 14/06/13 07:09, Michal Palenik wrote: On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 03:58:22PM +0200, Olov McKie wrote: Geocoding and license implications Manual geocoding of an entity that a person has prior local knowledge of, is the same process as adding a new entity to the OSM, and as such the person geocoding the entity retains their full copyright over the geocoded entity. All other geocoding results in a Produced Work, as that term is defined in the ODbL. Section 4.5 provides that a Produced Work is not subject to the share-alike provisions of Section 4.4 of the ODbL. as was pointed out before, these implications are wrong: after adding a poi based on underlaying map data, i do not have full copyright because it is partially based on underlaying map (if i added it solely based on GPS coordinates, without any use of map, it would be a different story) Produced Works is still a (derivative) database. it is both. Late to this discussion, sorry, but this is wrong. The Definitions section of ODbL explicitly says that "Conveying does not include... creating and Using a Produced Work", and "Using this database... to create a Produced Work does not create a Derivative Database". very similar to LGPL. share-alike definetly applies to the data (or we should have the discussion if the result is collective or derivative DB) michal -- 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
>Martin Koppenhoefer Fri Jun 14 10:44:58 UTC 2013 >You are comparing apples to pears, as the mappers in the license change had >their contributions licensed cc-by-sa, while now we are in ODbL with >different terms and obligations, so you can't really deduct anything from >the former situation to where we are now in terms of licensing or rights >affected. I said: >The set of rules that the redaction bot followed, to enable the license >change, is by >the bots work now coded into the history of our database in such a way that >changing >these rules would force us to revert the entire license change. I would >suspect that >if a license dispute about OSM ever end up in court, we will not be able to >argue for >more copyright protection than what we gave to those contributors who did not >want the >license to change. I would also like to argue that, when a question comes in >if a user >can or can not do something without breaching our copyright, we should always >start >the discussion by looking for similar examples in our own change to the ODbL. I will try to clarify what I said earlier, as I think you might have misunderstood what I tried to say: Whether the decliners had their contributions licensed under cc-by-sa or a fully proprietary license is irrelevant. This is not a question about different licensing terms, but rather if the license even applies at all. I believe that our license change, through the bots work, has set some very strict boundaries for how far we now can argue that our copyright reaches. Therefore I think that we should always start any licensing discussion with looking at our license change, to see if we can argue that we have any copyright in the given situation. Only after this step has been completed should we look to the ODbL and what it says about the question at hand. /Olov ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
Robert Whittaker (OSM lists writes: > > I'd still very much like to hear of potential use cases, where > regarding the "inputted search data plus returned coordinates" as a > derivative database (which may be part of a collective database with > other proprietary data in it) would actually cause problems. I feel that this requirement prevents state and municipality agencies in Finland from using OSM maps as base maps in their web applications. There are often some feedback mechanism in the applications so that users can send a message about data error or then they announce that something in broken or something has happened in some location. Usually user does not know the coordinates but only the address or that something happened in the corner of A- Street and B-Street. Uncertainty about if all the administrative data which have some connection with the user feedback would become share-alike if user locates the place by clicking on top of the OSM base map makes administration to use Google and other other base map providers instead. -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
2013/6/14 Olov McKie > I would suspect that if a license dispute about OSM ever end up in court, > we will not be able to argue for more copyright protection than what we > gave to those contributors who did not want the license to change. I would > also like to argue that, when a question comes in if a user can or can not > do something without breaching our copyright, we should always start the > discussion by looking for similar examples in our own change to the ODbL. -1 You are comparing apples to pears, as the mappers in the license change had their contributions licensed cc-by-sa, while now we are in ODbL with different terms and obligations, so you can't really deduct anything from the former situation to where we are now in terms of licensing or rights affected. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
First a small disclaimer: We have changed our license to ODbL, In order to make the license change possible a reduction bot removed all contributions from someone not willing to change the license (a decliner). In order to be absolutely sure what the bot did we need the following: 1. The source code of the reduction bot. 2. A human readable list of the final rules the reduction bot is based upon, preferably with references to relevant sections of the bots source code. 3. A complete set of the OSM data directly before the reduction was run. 4. A complete set of the OSM data directly after the reduction was run. I have not been able to find 1 and 2, and I have not acquired 3 and 4, so all I say about the reduction bot below is based upon the information I have been able to find and might there for contain errors, but to the best of my knowledge it is correct. Also I am not a lawyer. The set of rules that the redaction bot followed, to enable the license change, is by the bots work now coded into the history of our database in such a way that changing these rules would force us to revert the entire license change. I would suspect that if a license dispute about OSM ever end up in court, we will not be able to argue for more copyright protection than what we gave to those contributors who did not want the license to change. I would also like to argue that, when a question comes in if a user can or can not do something without breaching our copyright, we should always start the discussion by looking for similar examples in our own change to the ODbL. As far as I understand our license change, it can be described[1] as this: All objects that had an edit history where someone not willing to change the license (a decliner) had edited anything was reverted back in history until no edits by any decliner where left, thereby creating a clean database. All cleaning operations where based on the specific objects history in the database. This could also be described as: A user has full copyright to any point they add to the map regardless of surrounding data. >Robert Whittaker Thu Jun 13 15:45:25 UTC 2013: >I don't see any reason for the share-alike provisions not to apply. You are >making use of >contributors' works to derive some additional data. The whole point of >having a share-alike license is to ensure that such derivatives are >shared back with the community. and >Michal Palenik Fri Jun 14 06:09:38 UTC 2013: >as was pointed out before, these implications are wrong: >after adding a poi based on underlaying map data, i do not have full >copyright because it is partially based on underlaying map (if i added >it solely based on GPS coordinates, without any use of map, it would be >a different story) I said: >Geocoding and license implications >Manual geocoding of an entity that a person has prior local knowledge of, is >the same process >as adding a new entity to the OSM, and as such the person geocoding the entity >retains their >full copyright over the geocoded entity. I separated the manual from the automatic geocoding, because I think they are different and so that we might treat them differently. I kept Alex Barths suggestion about the automatic geocoding as I think it might work, but I am sure he can explain his reasoning a lot better than I ever could. I hope the explanation above about the reduction bot, explains how I arrived at my statement about manual geocoding, and why it MUST be this way. If you start claiming that adding a poi is "making use of contributors' works" and "partially based on the underlaying map", you are actually saying that our map is not clean and the change to ODbL must be reverted. I believe our map is in a clean state[1] and that it is mapped from good sources, such as "Local knowledge" that the "Beginners Guide"[2] describes. /Olov [1] The best most comprehensive source I have found, is "What is clean? in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F [2] The Beginners Guide http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners_Guide_1.1 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
On 07.06.13 11:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > At least for the "substantial" part of your question I believe if a > professional geo service provider like map box would decide to use OSM to > satisfy its geocoding needs, it is obvious that this use would be > "substantial", or you could use it only very few and for very short time ;-) +1. If you geocode just a few points, the result is not a work. If it's enough to be a database, it's probably derivative. Say, you geocode all housenumbers in an area, or all pubs in London, this list of coordinates probably is a database. But only local jurisdiction will tell you what is a database (a work) and what is not. ODbL can't (and shouldn't) give you an answer here. /al ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 03:58:22PM +0200, Olov McKie wrote: > Geocoding and license implications > Manual geocoding of an entity that a person has prior local knowledge of, is > the same process as adding a new entity to the OSM, and as such the person > geocoding the entity retains their full copyright over the geocoded entity. > All other geocoding results in a Produced Work, as that term is defined in > the ODbL. Section 4.5 provides that a Produced Work is not subject to the > share-alike provisions of Section 4.4 of the ODbL. as was pointed out before, these implications are wrong: after adding a poi based on underlaying map data, i do not have full copyright because it is partially based on underlaying map (if i added it solely based on GPS coordinates, without any use of map, it would be a different story) Produced Works is still a (derivative) database. it is both. very similar to LGPL. share-alike definetly applies to the data (or we should have the discussion if the result is collective or derivative DB) michal -- michal palenik www.freemap.sk www.oma.sk http://wiki.freemap.sk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
On 13/giu/2013, at 15:58, Olov McKie wrote: > All other geocoding results in a Produced Work, IMHO it results in a Derivative Database, as long as the amount of data geocoded is not too small. Cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
On 13 June 2013 14:58, Olov McKie wrote: > Manual geocoding > A person using an OSM map to find the latitude and longitude coordinates > associated with a point or an area, normally by clicking, drawing or > similarly marking where that point or area is on a map. As an example, the > process of marking the point or area could be very similar to adding a new > POI or area to OSM using the iD in-browser editor, but instead of uploading > the additions to OSM, the coordinates and metadata are stored somewhere else. > Manual geocoding can also be done completely whitout computer support for > instance by reading coordinates of a printed paper map based on OSM data. I think you may be mixing up two different things here: * The method of doing the geocoding, which can be either automated or by hand. * The type of input data used, which could be details of the object itself (if the object exists in OSM, or can be interpolated from data that does), or local knowledge of where an object is in relation to other mapped data (e.g. knowing that a certain house is on the corner of two streets). (The second type here would be rather hard to automate, but the first type could be done automatically or by hand.) With either interpretation of manual, the "insubstantial" exclusions in ODbL will allow you do do a few such geocodings and retain all rights anyway. However, if you were to do a lot -- to the point at which is becomes "substantial" I don't see any reason for the share-alike provisions not to apply. You are making use of contributors' works to derive some additional data. The whole point of having a share-alike license is to ensure that such derivatives are shared back with the community. > Geocoding and license implications > Manual geocoding of an entity that a person has prior local knowledge of, is > the same process as adding a new entity to the OSM, and as such the person > geocoding the entity retains their full copyright over the geocoded entity. > All other geocoding results in a Produced Work, as that term is defined in > the ODbL. Section 4.5 provides that a Produced Work is not subject to the > share-alike provisions of Section 4.4 of the ODbL. I think it's quite a stretch to claim that something that is clearly a derived dataset is actually a produced work. The point of the Produced Work provisions is to allow artistic renditions of the data to be licensed differently, as long as the underlying data is still shared. It is not supposed to be used as a get-out clause for avoiding sharing additional data. In any case, I'm not sure that calling the geocoded dataset a produced work will necessarily help. For if it were to be "publicly used" then you would be required to share the derived database behind it and/or the algorithm to create it, including AFAIK any external data you you added (i.e. the data associated with each object that you used in the search). So I don't think this would actually get you out of the obligation to share-alike the search data employed. If you don't "publicly use" the geocoded data, then there would be no-one external getting a copy that would need to be given share-alike rights to it anyway. (Share-alike only applies to those receiving a copy of the data/work.) So it then wouldn't matter if the data what the share-alike rules were. I'd still very much like to hear of potential use cases, where regarding the "inputted search data plus returned coordinates" as a derivative database (which may be part of a collective database with other proprietary data in it) would actually cause problems. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
I too would like to see a clarification of "geocoding" and and the leagal issues surronding it. I think there are different types of geocoding and clear definitions are necessary. Built and added on the earlier suggestions in this thread, this is my proposal for addition to the Community guidelines: Geocoding The process of finding and storing the latitude and longitude coordinates for an entity. Automatic geocoding A program taking some form of entity or location description (e.g. a typical written address), searching for an appropriate match in the OSM or an OSM-derived database, and then returning the latitude and longitude coordinates associated with the matching OSM object. Manual geocoding A person using an OSM map to find the latitude and longitude coordinates associated with a point or an area, normally by clicking, drawing or similarly marking where that point or area is on a map. As an example, the process of marking the point or area could be very similar to adding a new POI or area to OSM using the iD in-browser editor, but instead of uploading the additions to OSM, the coordinates and metadata are stored somewhere else. Manual geocoding can also be done completely whitout computer support for instance by reading coordinates of a printed paper map based on OSM data. Geocoding and license implications Manual geocoding of an entity that a person has prior local knowledge of, is the same process as adding a new entity to the OSM, and as such the person geocoding the entity retains their full copyright over the geocoded entity. All other geocoding results in a Produced Work, as that term is defined in the ODbL. Section 4.5 provides that a Produced Work is not subject to the share-alike provisions of Section 4.4 of the ODbL. /Olov ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
2013/6/7 Alex Barth > > Over the past months, we've tried to get legal advice on this question. > This is difficult as the lack of existing case law makes it hard to get > official legal opinion on the document and the license is very complex. But > here is what we have heard back informally: > > 1. Geocoding can be interpreted as Produced Work per the defintion of > Produced Work in the ODbL [2]. > 2. The ODbL is too vague in the definition of its terms, requiring > additional clarifications by licensor. This is most importantly the case > around the terms "derivative database" and what constitutes a "substantial" > extraction of data [3]. > > > My take on this is the following: I don't agree with the approach to just add the statement to OSMF wiki page. What you want to achieve is to establish a Community Norm in order to eliminate a grey area in the ODbL - a grey area as there is room for interpretation and a Community Norm as it is intended to limit the room for interpretations in the sense of the community. Until now there is no official process to establish a Community Norm as well as no process to acknowlege a grey area and its priority to work on it. First we need to establish the process how we create a Community Norm. This is indeed required in order to serve requests like yours. In regards to "Geocoding" this needs to be distinguished from name browsing. I understand Geocoding as the addition of a coordinate to complete address. A "Geocoder" often works in a way that it looksup uncomplete addresses and matches the best result or proposes a list of the best candidates and then completes the uncomplete input to a full and valid address - this is the name browsing part - often considered as part of the Geocoder. From this perspective the Geocoder should be defined first. In regards to adding a coordinate to an address: if you add a coordinate to single address or even a list of addresses then the results remain "unlinked" from the original database - unlinked in the the sense that if you change the underlying database the geocoding results (coordinates) will remain the same - the address is just projected on the orginial database. You would need to "re-geocode" the address in order to adjust the geocoding results. Considering the OSM database and your list of addresses as a combination of two different independent databases - a collective database. Then even after geocoding the two databases would remain indepedent from each other as they are not "linked" to eachother. From this perspective there is not even a grey area. The namebrowsing part is more complicated as you might create a substantial extract from the OSM database - here the defintion of "substiantial extract" is key. Best regards, Oliver ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
On 7 June 2013 01:56, Alex Barth wrote: > With two State of the Map conferences coming up now and plenty of > opportunities for face time, I'd like to restart our conversation around > clarifying the ODbL's implications for geocoding and get to a result. Over > here at MapBox we're hoping to use OpenStreetMap soon as much as possible > for geocoding (right now we don't) and we'd like to do this on firm legal > ground. I know that others have raised similar questions in the past [1]. For the avoidance of doubt, could you clarify exactly what you mean by "geocoding" here? I presume it would be something along the lines of taking some form of location description (e.g. a typical written address), searching for an appropriate match in an OSM-derived database, and then returning the latitude and longitude coordinates associated with the matching OSM object. This process could possibly be repeated many times, once for each record with a location description in an external database. In that case, then from a philosophical point of view, I think I'd agree that other data about the location found in the database shouldn't be tainted by share-alike. But at the same time, I don't think that the coordinates should be available to be completely freely used by the person obtaining them. As for the actual location data used in the search, I think that's a more difficult question. On the one hand, it's sort of necessary to do the search and interpret the coordinates, so we'd want it to be shared). On the other hand, while individual location data items aren't really proprietary, the collection of them could be (e.g. identifying a set of customers), so there may be reasons why it wouldn't be appropriate to share it. My reasoning behind not wanting to allow the coordinates to be used freely would be that I could, for example, produce a list of all possible post box reference numbers in the UK since they're always a postal district plus a 1-4 digit number. Then I could use OSM to get coordinates for each reference number where it existred. If I was able to freely use the resulting data without any restrictions, I'd then have a public-domain dataset of all the post box locations that were in OSM, sidestepping the share-alike provisions of ODbL. I think this would be unacceptable. It seems to me, that each location description (whatever was used to search in OSM) plus the returned coordinates should probably be regarded as a derivative database, which then forms part of a collective database with any other (possibly private) data associated with the location description. It's only if you "publicly use" the data that the share-alike provisions kick in, and then you'd only need to share the location descriptions and coordinates for points that are shown to a user (which would probably be visible to them anyway). Remember that the share alike provisions only apply to those receiving the "public use" of the work. So if you only provide something based on the data to a particular customer, that's the only person you have to allow share-alike use to. (Of course there's nothing to stop the customer sharing that data further, but that's up to them.) Would something like this be a problem for any of the use cases that you have in mind? Of course, if you can argue that your geocoding results are "insubstantial" under the ODbL then you can do what you want with them. The above would only apply to "substantial" uses. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
2013/6/7 Alex Barth > 2. The ODbL is too vague in the definition of its terms, requiring > additional clarifications by licensor. This is most importantly the case > around the terms "derivative database" and what constitutes a "substantial" > extraction of data [3]. At least for the "substantial" part of your question I believe if a professional geo service provider like map box would decide to use OSM to satisfy its geocoding needs, it is obvious that this use would be "substantial", or you could use it only very few and for very short time ;-) cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
With two State of the Map conferences coming up now and plenty of opportunities for face time, I'd like to restart our conversation around clarifying the ODbL's implications for geocoding and get to a result. Over here at MapBox we're hoping to use OpenStreetMap soon as much as possible for geocoding (right now we don't) and we'd like to do this on firm legal ground. I know that others have raised similar questions in the past [1]. To quickly recap: the ODbL is unclear on whether or not its share alike stipulations extend to a dataset that is geocoded by a geocoder that is powered by ODbL data. So, if I use Nominatim or MapQuest Open's geocoder and geocode my vacation trip, schools in Kenya or BestBuy's store fronts, would my vacation trip, schools in Kenya or BestBuy's store fronts need to be licensed under the ODbL? Over the past months, we've tried to get legal advice on this question. This is difficult as the lack of existing case law makes it hard to get official legal opinion on the document and the license is very complex. But here is what we have heard back informally: 1. Geocoding can be interpreted as Produced Work per the defintion of Produced Work in the ODbL [2]. 2. The ODbL is too vague in the definition of its terms, requiring additional clarifications by licensor. This is most importantly the case around the terms "derivative database" and what constitutes a "substantial" extraction of data [3]. This is the gist of two different opinions and obviously they are somewhat conflicting. (2) is particularly an issue as the publicized guidelines [4] do not include clarifications on Geocoding. To start this process at a concrete point, I'd like to suggest to adopt to following terminology as part of the Community Guidelines [4]: > Geocoding > Geocoding results in a Produced Work, as that term is defined in the ODbL. Section 4.5 provides that a Produced Work is not subject to the share-alike provisions of Section 4.4 of the ODbL. This would broadly clarify that databases geocoded with OSM data would not have to be licensed under ODbL, the share alike provisions would not apply. >From a political standpoint, I think this is a key move for OpenStreetMap. The project needs a strong incentive to build up its most lacking asset - addressing. As long as it's not clear that addresses in OSM can actually be used reasonably this incentive will be missing. That's particularly an issue for businesses and organizations where buying whole sale into the ODbL is just not an option because of strategic considerations but much more often because of the complexity of ownership situations on typical databases. Further, ODbL is not just incompatible with less open licenses but also with more open licenses (e. g. public domain). For the upcoming State of the Map US I'd like to invite attendees to a Birds of a Feather round table to discuss these aspects. I'm particularly interested in finding out how we can take a decision on this question and update the community guideline accordingly over the next month to three months. I (and others?) will be posting summaries of the discussion here. Suggested date and time for the State of the Map US session: Saturday, June 8, 5PM Pacific - **look out for confirmation on the white board**. Please also post your comments here on the thread. Thank you, Alex [1] https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/14449/license-question-odbl-use-case [2] ODbL section 1.0 "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. http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ [3] “Substantial” – Means substantial in terms of quantity or quality or a combination of both. The repeated and systematic Extraction or Re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the Contents may amount to the Extraction or Re-utilisation of a Substantial part of the Contents. http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
