Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file
jynus wrote: > Dual licensing has a really big problem for the project: > 1) We release the data under CC OR ODbL > 2) A third party uses data under only one of the licenses > 3) Even if they are both "ShareAlike", the transformations made by > third party cannot be returned to OSM, as they are incompatible with > unused license That's true, of course, but the problem is not unique to dual licensing. With CT + ODbL: 1) We receive data according to CT and release the data under ODbL 2) A third party uses data under ODbL, but does not agree to CT 3) Even if the data is ODbL, the transformations made by the third party cannot be returned to OSM without giving up one of the primary advantages of the CT, the ability to relicense without contributor veto. CT + CC-BY-SA isn't different in that regard. Generally, we have to accept that we can only take modifications back into to OSM if either * a third party cooperates voluntarily (= dual-licenses/agrees to CT) or * we accept to be limited to /one/ license for that data. The latter is relevant no matter whether we actually use different licenses at the same time, or just want to have the option to switch to a different license in the future without deleting data. -- Tobias Knerr ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file
2011/7/1 Tobias Knerr : >> Most of these concerns could be alleviated by dual-licensing under both ODbL >> and CC-BY-SA. > > I'm not fond of the ODbL and would be happy with a CT + CC-BY-SA > solution (it could achieve most of the declared aims of CT + ODbL and > avoid most of the problems), but dual-licensing would of course be even > more convenient from the perspective of a data user. Dual licensing has a really big problem for the project: 1) We release the data under CC OR ODbL 2) A third party uses data under only one of the licenses 3) Even if they are both "ShareAlike", the transformations made by third party cannot be returned to OSM, as they are incompatible with unused license When Wikipedia changed it license from GFDL to CC, old texts remained also GFDL, but new ones are only CC, because of this. -- Jaime ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file
Rob Myers wrote: > On 01/07/11 09:43, Tobias Knerr wrote: >> >> The only motivation for data SA I can somewhat understand is to open up >> data that can be contributed back to OSM. > > Sharealike is meant to guarantee that the individual users of the > produced work have the same freedom to work with the data as the person > who produced it did. I suppose you mean that they get access to the producers own, up-to-then proprietary, data? If no data except publicly available databases under ODbL (such as OSM) or an ODbL-compatible license (such as SRTM) was used to create the derivative database, and subsequently the product, then individual users already *have* the same freedom as the producer. They, like the producer, can use these original, publicly available databases. And this will likely be the case for a vast majority of OSM-based products, if current uses of OSM are any indication. ODbL would be a lot less cumbersome if we could limit the share alike requirement to those derivative databases that contain unique data, i.e. are *not* calculated from public, ODbL compatible, data sources. > Any gifts to the *project* that result from this freedom are a side-effect. You are right, share alike can work well even if no data ever flows back to the project. I shouldn't have neglected that aspect. But like the OSM community, other data users benefit primarily when they gain access to unique data that was not publicly available before. -- Tobias Knerr ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file
- Original Message - From: "Jonathan Harley" To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file On 30/06/11 11:55, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: "Richard Fairhurst" Jonathan Harley wrote: Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4). I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database doesn't reduce the amount of information. The canonical case, often cited by those who say OSM needs a share-alike licence, is to prevent commercial map providers taking the data we have and they don't (e.g. footpaths), adding it to the data they have but we don't (e.g. complete road network), and not giving us anything back. IRMFI, not because I believe it myself. :) I think anyone who thought ODbL satisfies this case would be being naive. It's so easy to dodge really giving anything back in many different ways, including (off the top of my head): combining OSM with "additional contents" in the form of already rendered map data, with poor accuracy and no metadata, which would make it virtually impossible for things like a road network to be extracted; and/or publishing the derived database under a license that's compatible with ODbL but incompatible with the CTs. I have to admit to being slightly confused about what licence a derived database can be published under. Clause 4.4a "Any Derivative Database that You Publicly Use must be only under the terms of: (i). This License; (ii). A later version of this License similar in spirit to this License; or (iii). A compatible license." Clause 4.8 "Each time You communicate any Derivative Database to anyone else in any way, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Database on the same terms and conditions as this License" Clasue 4.8 seems to me to render Clause 4.4a obsolete since the only way to have a licence on "the same terms and conditions as this License" would be if the text was word for word the same, unless of course 4.8 is meant to mean the "same *spirit* as the terms and conditions as this License", but thats not what it says.. That would certainly seem a very good thing. In lots of peoples opinion where you *add* data, then it is good if that data can be shared back to the community. It would seem a good thing and I hope people who use OSM will do it, but I don't believe ODbL enforces it effectively, while placing a heavy burden on anyone who wants to use OSM without combining it with other data. However where you *don't* add data, but merely process the OSM data, either by extracting some sub-set of it, or simply by transforming it from one form of database to another, then what is the point of requiring compliance with ODbL clause 4.6. I can't see any point. At least you don't have to publish your database/method unless someone requests it. I hadn't reaslised that, where is that stated in the ODbL licence? Regards David But we have to assume that sooner or later, some busy-body is going to go around doing exactly that. J. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file
On 01/07/11 10:51, Jonathan Harley wrote: > > I think anyone who thought ODbL satisfies this case would be being > naive. It's so easy to dodge really giving anything back in many > different ways, including (off the top of my head): combining OSM with > "additional contents" in the form of already rendered map data, with > poor accuracy and no metadata, which would make it virtually impossible > for things like a road network to be extracted; and/or publishing the > derived database under a license that's compatible with ODbL but > incompatible with the CTs. OSM is not the presumed beneficiary of this kind of thing. The downstream users of the easy dodges are. > I can't see any point. At least you don't have to publish your > database/method unless someone requests it. But we have to assume that > sooner or later, some busy-body is going to go around doing exactly that. That sounds like a *very* good idea. ;-) - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file
On 01/07/11 09:43, Tobias Knerr wrote: > > The only motivation for data SA I can somewhat understand is to open up > data that can be contributed back to OSM. Sharealike is meant to guarantee that the individual users of the produced work have the same freedom to work with the data as the person who produced it did. Any gifts to the *project* that result from this freedom are a side-effect. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file
Tobias Knerr writes: >Altogether, it seems that ODbL does burden creative users of OSM with >significant restrictions, even though in many cases there is no reason >why anyone would even want that databases they are forced to share - >because it will usually be much more practical to just use the original >databases. That's true, but to be fair it does allow the final 'produced work' to be distributed under any licence, where previously it had to be under the same licence as the underlying map (CC-BY-SA). Most of these concerns could be alleviated by dual-licensing under both ODbL and CC-BY-SA. Then, if you want to take advantage of the ODbL's provision to make 'produced works' under non-share-alike terms, you can do so, although you take on the burden of providing the derived database or the 'method' used. If you choose to work entirely within the share-alike world, then as at present, you can use the CC-BY-SA licence without any worries. Then everyone who is currently using OSM will be able to continue using OSM, without any doubt. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file
On 30/06/11 11:55, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: "Richard Fairhurst" Jonathan Harley wrote: Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4). I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database doesn't reduce the amount of information. The canonical case, often cited by those who say OSM needs a share-alike licence, is to prevent commercial map providers taking the data we have and they don't (e.g. footpaths), adding it to the data they have but we don't (e.g. complete road network), and not giving us anything back. IRMFI, not because I believe it myself. :) I think anyone who thought ODbL satisfies this case would be being naive. It's so easy to dodge really giving anything back in many different ways, including (off the top of my head): combining OSM with "additional contents" in the form of already rendered map data, with poor accuracy and no metadata, which would make it virtually impossible for things like a road network to be extracted; and/or publishing the derived database under a license that's compatible with ODbL but incompatible with the CTs. That would certainly seem a very good thing. In lots of peoples opinion where you *add* data, then it is good if that data can be shared back to the community. It would seem a good thing and I hope people who use OSM will do it, but I don't believe ODbL enforces it effectively, while placing a heavy burden on anyone who wants to use OSM without combining it with other data. However where you *don't* add data, but merely process the OSM data, either by extracting some sub-set of it, or simply by transforming it from one form of database to another, then what is the point of requiring compliance with ODbL clause 4.6. I can't see any point. At least you don't have to publish your database/method unless someone requests it. But we have to assume that sooner or later, some busy-body is going to go around doing exactly that. J. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file
Richard Fairhurst wrote: > David Groom wrote: >> However where you *don't* add data, but merely process the OSM data, >> either by extracting some sub-set of it, or simply by transforming it from >> one form of database to another, then what is the point of requiring >> compliance with ODbL clause 4.6. > > You seem to be assuming that compliance _would_ be required. I'm not sure > whether it would be. It's possible that the diff between (say) a full planet > and a regional subset isn't qualitatively Substantial and therefore doesn't > need to be released. That may also be true for transforming from one form of > database to another. The only motivation for data SA I can somewhat understand is to open up data that can be contributed back to OSM. Even leaving aside that it would still be problematic for us to accept ODbL-compatible, but CT-incompatible data, this intention does not provide a reason for the (likely) requirement to publish * a database calculated exclusively from content of the original ODbL Db * a database calculated from content of the original ODbL DB and another Db that is publicly available under an ODbL-compatible license. Thus it would be great if ODbL did not require publishing the derivative databases in these cases, but unfortunately, I currently have to assume that it does indeed require publication. > (In any case, even if it is, the requirement could be > fulfilled by putting a single line on a wiki page somewhere with the > Osmosis/ogr2ogr/whatever command line you used.) That might work well for a member of the OSM community who intends to offer a regularly-updated map or something. It's not a nice solution for a casual user who does not want to set up a service of any kind, but just uses a piece of software he just downloaded to create a produced work. At the minimum, that user would also need to make sure that the program he used remains available somewhere as long as he wants to publish his produced work, wouldn't he? After all, it would be pointless if people could just say that they created a derivative database using a piece of software that you cannot download anywhere. > But let's say that you produce a Derivative Database that contains a very > cool optimised routing graph from OSM data: no new data, just processed. The > share-alike viewpoint might be that it's genuinely useful to OSM to have > either the full Derivative, or the algorithm. That would be "the point". As for that hypothetical routing graph, I don't understand why share-alike-for-data supporters would want it. It seems to make no sense to request share alike when the routing graph was created by publicly available software. But even some evil proprietary routing graph would only be of limited usefulness without access to the similarly proprietary routing engine. Altogether, it seems that ODbL does burden creative users of OSM with significant restrictions, even though in many cases there is no reason why anyone would even want that databases they are forced to share - because it will usually be much more practical to just use the original databases. > (Again, IRMFI, as you probably know I'm a PD sort myself.) It's funny that several of these legal threads contain mostly exchanges between PD people and PD people who, RMFI, explain the share-alike pov. -- Tobias Knerr ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file
David Groom wrote: > However where you *don't* add data, but merely process the OSM data, > either by extracting some sub-set of it, or simply by transforming it from > one form of database to another, then what is the point of requiring > compliance with ODbL clause 4.6. You seem to be assuming that compliance _would_ be required. I'm not sure whether it would be. It's possible that the diff between (say) a full planet and a regional subset isn't qualitatively Substantial and therefore doesn't need to be released. That may also be true for transforming from one form of database to another. (In any case, even if it is, the requirement could be fulfilled by putting a single line on a wiki page somewhere with the Osmosis/ogr2ogr/whatever command line you used.) But let's say that you produce a Derivative Database that contains a very cool optimised routing graph from OSM data: no new data, just processed. The share-alike viewpoint might be that it's genuinely useful to OSM to have either the full Derivative, or the algorithm. That would be "the point". (Again, IRMFI, as you probably know I'm a PD sort myself.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Exception-in-Open-Data-License-Community-Guidelines-for-temporary-file-tp6504201p6533566.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] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file
- Original Message - From: "Richard Fairhurst" To: Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file Jonathan Harley wrote: Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4). I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database doesn't reduce the amount of information. The canonical case, often cited by those who say OSM needs a share-alike licence, is to prevent commercial map providers taking the data we have and they don't (e.g. footpaths), adding it to the data they have but we don't (e.g. complete road network), and not giving us anything back. IRMFI, not because I believe it myself. :) cheers Richard That would certainly seem a very good thing. In lots of peoples opinion where you *add* data, then it is good if that data can be shared back to the community. However where you *don't* add data, but merely process the OSM data, either by extracting some sub-set of it, or simply by transforming it from one form of database to another, then what is the point of requiring compliance with ODbL clause 4.6. Regards David ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
