Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL
Kate Chapman-2 wrote > 2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use > OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because of > the incompatibility of the two licenses. Aren't the results of geocoding produced works and therefore can be licensed according to the rules of produced works? They seem to be the exact equivalent of rendering tiles. In rendering tiles you input a tilenumber (and its associated coordinates) you then take a software which has access to a OSM database which then produces a bitmap rendering of those coordinates. In geocoding you input a coordinate you then take a software which has access to a OSM database which then produces a textual rendering of the coordinate. You can mass render tiles and the collection of tiles remain produced works. So you should equally be able to mass geocode and the collection of results remain produced works. So it seems as long as you attribute OpenStreetMap as the source of geocoding you should be fine. Furthermore, do the (problematic) rules of the license not only apply on redistribution? So if e.g. an Organisation mass geocodes and then combines it with their hospital data set, as long as the result remains in the organisation they are fine? Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Combining-NC-Data-with-ODbL-tp5744389p5744920.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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL > > This is very sad, I'm sure almost all contributors to OSM would like to > not have these restrictions for certain scopes (like HOT). What if we > made a change to our license to have different terms for different > fields of users? (Or is this completely unrealistic?). E.g. we could > release data for humanitarian work under attribution only (after > positive voting by the active contributors) terms? A license that discriminates based on field of use is not an open license. The CTs only allow switching to another free and open license. Items 7 and 8 of http://opendefinition.org/okd/ provide more information about discrimination against persons or groups or discrimination against fields of endeavor. Additionally, switching licenses would be a massive undertaking. I suspect that what they want to do is allowed under the license.* If not and it's something that should be allowed the next step would be to ask ODC to issue ODbL v1.1. Keep in mind that many of these terms like insubstantial are originally coming from the law, not from ODbL. We won't have real answers to what they mean until there are court cases that decide this. *: Likely from the definitions of derivative databases, etc as opposed to "insubstantial" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL
On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:03 AM, Simon Poole wrote: > > Am 15.01.2013 18:02, schrieb Alex Barth: >> On Jan 14, 2013, at 5:30 AM, Simon Poole wrote: > > It would not be out of the question to add a specific "geo-coding" > licence or terms to the canon of licences that the OSMF is allowed to > distribute the data with, but as you realize that is a major undertaking > and up to now nobody has stepped forward and taken ownership of the issue. This idea is looking interesting at first glance. And as to ownership over the issue: noted, I hope to be able to work on this at some point. Just flagging the issue as the discussion was coming up :) > > Simon > > > > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Alex Barth http://twitter.com/lxbarth tel (+1) 202 250 3633 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL
Alex, While I agree with the principal that the restrictions on geocoding are preventing groups from joining the OSM community, I don't think changing the insubstantial clause is the way to fix the issue. The clause is there for just that insubstantial use, to make it high enough to allow geocoding in the way that is desired things would no longer be insubstantial. Having an exception to the license however a big undertaking I think is the correct way to approach things. -Kate On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Simon Poole wrote: > > Am 15.01.2013 18:02, schrieb Alex Barth: >> On Jan 14, 2013, at 5:30 AM, Simon Poole wrote: >> >>> Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman: 2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because of the incompatibility of the two licenses. 3. I export school locations from OSM and then append capacity of the schools and other information to the exported data. I then release the data CC BY-NC on my organizations website. Also can't happen because of the incompatibility of licenses. >>> With both 2) and 3) if you remain within the bounds of an insubstantial >>> extract >>> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline) >>> your usage would be ok, even though as you correctly state both extracts >>> would normally be considered derivative databases and would require >>> release of the underlying data with the ODbL. >> The insubstantial guidelines are way too strict (less than 100 features(!)). > > As you say we have had this discussion before. The insubstantial > guideline is there to determine what trivial, inconsequential usage of > the data is. On the one hand I suspect that if we (though some kind of > consultation process) raise the numbers, it is never going to be enough > (10'000, 10'000'000?). On the other hand raising the number at one point > essentially creates a new (CC0) licence. We have both a ethical > fiduciary duty to respect the wishes of the part of the community that > wants strong share a like (there are reasons to believe that this is > large group) and a contractual one (contributor terms) to follow due > process for a licence change. > > It would not be out of the question to add a specific "geo-coding" > licence or terms to the canon of licences that the OSMF is allowed to > distribute the data with, but as you realize that is a major undertaking > and up to now nobody has stepped forward and taken ownership of the issue. > > 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL
Hi Martin, I appreciate the sentiment, though I think it have unintended consequences. The reason I am asking the questions I'm asking is as part of a greater effort to advocate within humanitarian groups to release their data under licenses compatible to OSM. Often the issue with data after a disaster is that it is locked up and can't be reached in times of emergency. For example there actually was a map of Haiti after the earthquake. The office of the National Mapping Agency had collapsed and where the back-up of the data was not immediately known. One of the reasons for this is they had a long policy of selling that data, but nobody was actually buying it. It is also a slippery slope to make exceptions because then maybe there are other exceptions that groups would like to make. For example I could see some groups not wanting OSM used by the military or maybe large corporations. It is unrealistic though to make these types of distinctions I think. Thanks, -Kate On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2013/1/15 Kate Chapman : >> Hard to say if it would be substantial, I think that is going to >> depend on the size of the disaster and what exactly the data is being >> used. > > > I think with the current guidelines any extraction will be very soon > substantial, "The OSM community regards the following as being not > Substantial ... provided that the extraction is one-off and not > repeated over time for the same or a similar project." > > Especially the part "not repeated over time for the same or a similar > project" will be read that if you extract a second time hospitals or > schools the amount would add to the number from the first time you did > so. > > This is very sad, I'm sure almost all contributors to OSM would like > to not have these restrictions for certain scopes (like HOT). What if > we made a change to our license to have different terms for different > fields of users? (Or is this completely unrealistic?). E.g. we could > release data for humanitarian work under attribution only (after > positive voting by the active contributors) terms? > > cheers, > Martin > > ___ > 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] Combining NC Data with ODbL
2013/1/15 Kate Chapman : > Hard to say if it would be substantial, I think that is going to > depend on the size of the disaster and what exactly the data is being > used. I think with the current guidelines any extraction will be very soon substantial, "The OSM community regards the following as being not Substantial ... provided that the extraction is one-off and not repeated over time for the same or a similar project." Especially the part "not repeated over time for the same or a similar project" will be read that if you extract a second time hospitals or schools the amount would add to the number from the first time you did so. This is very sad, I'm sure almost all contributors to OSM would like to not have these restrictions for certain scopes (like HOT). What if we made a change to our license to have different terms for different fields of users? (Or is this completely unrealistic?). E.g. we could release data for humanitarian work under attribution only (after positive voting by the active contributors) terms? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL
Am 15.01.2013 18:02, schrieb Alex Barth: > On Jan 14, 2013, at 5:30 AM, Simon Poole wrote: > >> Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman: >>> 2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use >>> OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because of >>> the incompatibility of the two licenses. >>> 3. I export school locations from OSM and then append capacity of the >>> schools and other information to the exported data. I then release the >>> data CC BY-NC on my organizations website. Also can't happen because >>> of the incompatibility of licenses. >> With both 2) and 3) if you remain within the bounds of an insubstantial >> extract >> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline) >> your usage would be ok, even though as you correctly state both extracts >> would normally be considered derivative databases and would require >> release of the underlying data with the ODbL. > The insubstantial guidelines are way too strict (less than 100 features(!)). As you say we have had this discussion before. The insubstantial guideline is there to determine what trivial, inconsequential usage of the data is. On the one hand I suspect that if we (though some kind of consultation process) raise the numbers, it is never going to be enough (10'000, 10'000'000?). On the other hand raising the number at one point essentially creates a new (CC0) licence. We have both a ethical fiduciary duty to respect the wishes of the part of the community that wants strong share a like (there are reasons to believe that this is large group) and a contractual one (contributor terms) to follow due process for a licence change. It would not be out of the question to add a specific "geo-coding" licence or terms to the canon of licences that the OSMF is allowed to distribute the data with, but as you realize that is a major undertaking and up to now nobody has stepped forward and taken ownership of the issue. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL
On Jan 14, 2013, at 5:30 AM, Simon Poole wrote: > > Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman: >> 2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use >> OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because of >> the incompatibility of the two licenses. >> 3. I export school locations from OSM and then append capacity of the >> schools and other information to the exported data. I then release the >> data CC BY-NC on my organizations website. Also can't happen because >> of the incompatibility of licenses. > > With both 2) and 3) if you remain within the bounds of an insubstantial > extract > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline) > your usage would be ok, even though as you correctly state both extracts > would normally be considered derivative databases and would require > release of the underlying data with the ODbL. The insubstantial guidelines are way too strict (less than 100 features(!)). Not being able to geocode w/ OSM is hurting the project right now. We've discussed this issue earlier [1], I know next action is to gather examples of where OSM is currently not applicable in geocoding scenarios. This is one good example. [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2012-October/007283.html > > In both cases you are naturally free to simply produce such results on > the fly. My reading of the ODbL would seem to indicate that if you for > example geocoding on the fly you may not even have to provide an > indication from where you results were derived. > > Simon > > > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Alex Barth http://twitter.com/lxbarth tel (+1) 202 250 3633 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL
Thanks Simon, On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Simon Poole wrote: > > Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman: >> > >> 2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use >> OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because of >> the incompatibility of the two licenses. >> 3. I export school locations from OSM and then append capacity of the >> schools and other information to the exported data. I then release the >> data CC BY-NC on my organizations website. Also can't happen because >> of the incompatibility of licenses. > > With both 2) and 3) if you remain within the bounds of an insubstantial > extract > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline) > your usage would be ok, even though as you correctly state both extracts > would normally be considered derivative databases and would require > release of the underlying data with the ODbL. > > In both cases you are naturally free to simply produce such results on > the fly. My reading of the ODbL would seem to indicate that if you for > example geocoding on the fly you may not even have to provide an > indication from where you results were derived. That is my reading as well, though I think in most humanitarian use cases people are going to be doing traditional types of GIS processes. To me this means they are unlikely to link dynamically (bandwidth problems are fairly normal). Hard to say if it would be substantial, I think that is going to depend on the size of the disaster and what exactly the data is being used. Thanks for your help, -Kate > > 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL
Am 14.01.2013 08:36, schrieb Kate Chapman: > > 1. I used OSM as the basemap for my map of refugee camps, the camp > data is my organizations and licensed CC BY-NC. The data for OSM and > the camp data is never combined. I release my map under CC-BY-NC. I > believe this is okay. All IMHO naturally. This would be a typical produced work which leaves you are lot of leeway wrt your distribution licence. > 2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use > OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because of > the incompatibility of the two licenses. > 3. I export school locations from OSM and then append capacity of the > schools and other information to the exported data. I then release the > data CC BY-NC on my organizations website. Also can't happen because > of the incompatibility of licenses. With both 2) and 3) if you remain within the bounds of an insubstantial extract (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline) your usage would be ok, even though as you correctly state both extracts would normally be considered derivative databases and would require release of the underlying data with the ODbL. In both cases you are naturally free to simply produce such results on the fly. My reading of the ODbL would seem to indicate that if you for example geocoding on the fly you may not even have to provide an indication from where you results were derived. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL
Hi All, So I've been thinking a lot about non-commercial licenses. The reason is there are many humanitarian organizations that are releasing data CC BY-NC or CC BY-SA-NC. I've been thinking through the issues with this and trying to improve HOT's points about why using NC licenses is not recommended. I wanted to make sure I have a couple scenarios right and also ask if anyone else on the list has other scenarios they would like to suggest. 1. I used OSM as the basemap for my map of refugee camps, the camp data is my organizations and licensed CC BY-NC. The data for OSM and the camp data is never combined. I release my map under CC-BY-NC. I believe this is okay. 2. I have a spreadsheet of hospital locations licensed CC-BY-NC, I use OSM to geocode these locations. I believe this can't happen because of the incompatibility of the two licenses. 3. I export school locations from OSM and then append capacity of the schools and other information to the exported data. I then release the data CC BY-NC on my organizations website. Also can't happen because of the incompatibility of licenses. Is my reading of these okay? Are there other potential use cases you can think about? I do worry about pointing some of these out potentially and then organizations just not releasing the data (perhaps in example 3). Thanks, -Kate ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
