Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question
On Tuesday 06 August 2019, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote: > > If a user misuses a produced work, that is the fault of the user > > (and > > perhaps a breach of the license by the user), not the work producer. > I don't this is a slippery slope, but rather a principled decision. > But the guideline is what it is, and I suppose you could lobby the > Board to change it, but I personally would view such a change as > unwise. Well - to stay within the metaphor - if the downhill location is considered desirable a slippery slope might be most welcome. The ability to decide at will if share-alike applies in a certain use case or not and avoiding responsibilities as much as possible are of course generally highly desirable features for an interpretation of the ODbL from the perspective of some creators of derived works. For guarding the social contract between mappers and data users that OSM is built on and depends on however the situation looks very different. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question
The produced work guideline goes down the slippery slope of trying to > define a produced work though the intention of the creator. This was > always a highly questionable approach. Not only because intention in > general is hard to determine objectively but also because the ODbL does > not require the creator of a produced work to put any contraints on how > the produced work is used so the intention of the creator does not have > any bearing on how users actually use this work. > > If a user misuses a produced work, that is the fault of the user (and perhaps a breach of the license by the user), not the work producer. I don't this is a slippery slope, but rather a principled decision. But the guideline is what it is, and I suppose you could lobby the Board to change it, but I personally would view such a change as unwise. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question
On Friday 02 August 2019, Tom Lee via legal-talk wrote: > [...] If you > replace "pixels" with "triangles", the exact same thing can be said > of the 3D objects being rendered here for use by the Flight Gear > simulator. And if you replace 'pixel' with node the exact same thing can be said about an OSM file. The idea to bind the legal concept of produced works and derivative databases to certain file formats is - though popular - not a very reasonable approach. There is no problem encoding any geometry from the OSM database in a raster image file. > The official guideline on this question can be found here: > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Prod >uced_Work_-_Guideline -- > > [...] If the published > result of your project is intended for the extraction of the original > data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work. [...] The ODbL is very interesting in so far that although the distinction between produced works and derivative databases is central to it, it does not actually explicitly define what a produced work is. It essentially just says that anything derived from ODbL data that is not a derivative/collective database is a produced work. The produced work guideline goes down the slippery slope of trying to define a produced work though the intention of the creator. This was always a highly questionable approach. Not only because intention in general is hard to determine objectively but also because the ODbL does not require the creator of a produced work to put any contraints on how the produced work is used so the intention of the creator does not have any bearing on how users actually use this work. The ODbL defines 'Database' (and thereby derivative/collective database) in the following form: "A collection of material (the Contents) arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means offered under the terms of this License" which is clearly based on the nature of the work and its suitability for access "by electronic or other means". Inversely the same applies to the nature of a produced work. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question
> if the way you use the data is more in a database-like fashion or more in the form of a finished product ready for human consumption This raises more questions, doesn't it? I think everyone agrees that a map contained by a PNG file is a produced work. But such a file is merely a collection of pixels that may be programmatically queried or rendered for human consumption by purpose-built software. If you replace "pixels" with "triangles", the exact same thing can be said of the 3D objects being rendered here for use by the Flight Gear simulator. The official guideline on this question can be found here: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Produced_Work_-_Guideline -- here is the relevant portion: > The published result of your project is either a Produced Worked or a Derivative Database within the meaning of the ODbL. If the published result of your project is intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work. However, if you publish a produced work, the underlying database has to be published as well (or alternations to the original database as is the case of derived databases), according to section 4.6 of ODbL. In this case it does not seem as though the intended use of generated files is extraction of the original data, so I'm inclined to agree with those arguing that this sounds like a produced work. On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:34 PM Christoph Hormann wrote: > > To avoid you drawing the wrong conclusions based on the (rather > abstract) explanations made by others - based on a quick look at the > documentation on > > http://wiki.flightgear.org/Osm2city.py > https://osm2city.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ > > that tool seems mainly a geometry data conversion program for OSM data - > not unlike tools used routinely for cartographic applications like > osm2pgsql etc. The output of this tool is in most cases likely a > derivative database or a collective database depending on how much > intermingling of OSM data with other data is happening. If for example > extruded building geometries based on OSM polygons are textured with > texture images from other sources that is quite clearly a collective > database. If you generate guessed building geometries based on non-OSM > landuse data as explained on: > > > https://osm2city.readthedocs.io/en/latest/how_it_works.html#chapter-howto-generate-would-be-buildings-label > > (which is an interesting feature by the way) and combine this with OSM > based buildings that would be a derivative database. > > For distinguishing between a produced work and a derivative database a > useful approach is to see if the way you use the data is more in a > database-like fashion or more in the form of a finished product ready > for human consumption. The scene geometry for a 3d rendering is quite > clearly more database-like in its use. > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question
To avoid you drawing the wrong conclusions based on the (rather abstract) explanations made by others - based on a quick look at the documentation on http://wiki.flightgear.org/Osm2city.py https://osm2city.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ that tool seems mainly a geometry data conversion program for OSM data - not unlike tools used routinely for cartographic applications like osm2pgsql etc. The output of this tool is in most cases likely a derivative database or a collective database depending on how much intermingling of OSM data with other data is happening. If for example extruded building geometries based on OSM polygons are textured with texture images from other sources that is quite clearly a collective database. If you generate guessed building geometries based on non-OSM landuse data as explained on: https://osm2city.readthedocs.io/en/latest/how_it_works.html#chapter-howto-generate-would-be-buildings-label (which is an interesting feature by the way) and combine this with OSM based buildings that would be a derivative database. For distinguishing between a produced work and a derivative database a useful approach is to see if the way you use the data is more in a database-like fashion or more in the form of a finished product ready for human consumption. The scene geometry for a 3d rendering is quite clearly more database-like in its use. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question
Agreed, my opinion is that generally a scenery generating program should be considered a produced work. It's possible the program reads from a derived database, depending on whether map features were added, but that *database* could be made available under ODbL. The program being GPL shouldn't block that (otherwise, you couldn't have a photo processing program that was GPL, for example) -Kathleen On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 7:54 AM wrote: > Considering the Produced Work - Guideline: Is the result of Osm2city > in your opinion a product or a derived database? > > If it is a product, then you can choose your own license, but you > still have comply with the conditions of No. 4.3. ODbL . > > If it is a derived database then you have to comply especially with > the conditions of No. 4.2 and 4.4 ODbL (but not only). Your derived > database will still be under ODbL. > If it's a derived database , then it also raises the question of > whether ODbL (Open Data License) and GPL (Free Software/Open Source > License) are compatible with each other, No. 4.4 a. iii. ODbL. > > Falk > > Zitat von merspieler : > > > Hello, > > > > I've got a question about licensing. > > > > I'm using a program called Osm2city [1] that generates scenery for the > > flight gear flight simulator(FGFS) [2]. > > > > To be on the safe side, I've currently released the results under the > > WTFPL which isn't a big deal for me but FGFS is GPL2 only and it's > > impossible, to get anything packaged with it, that's not GPL2. > > > > So my question: May I release the results under the GPL2 (if needed with > > dual licensing)? > > > > This may affect others as well, as I'm not the only one, who's > > generating any scenery but I haven't seen any licensing statement for > > their work. > > A list of this work is available on our wiki[3]. > > > > Example results can be downloaded as well from the wiki page[3]. > > > > > > [1] https://gitlab.com/fg-radi/osm2city > > [2] http://www.flightgear.org/ > > [3] http://wiki.flightgear.org/Areas_populated_with_osm2city_scenery > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > merspieler > > > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 6:32 PM merspieler wrote: > I'd consider the work a produced work. I will apply 4.3. ODbL. > > Thank you for your help. > > newsgr...@pirschkarte.de: > > Considering the Produced Work - Guideline: Is the result of Osm2city in > > your opinion a product or a derived database? > > > > If it is a product, then you can choose your own license, but you still > > have comply with the conditions of No. 4.3. ODbL . > > > > If it is a derived database then you have to comply especially with the > > conditions of No. 4.2 and 4.4 ODbL (but not only). Your derived database > > will still be under ODbL. > > If it's a derived database , then it also raises the question of whether > > ODbL (Open Data License) and GPL (Free Software/Open Source License) are > > compatible with each other, No. 4.4 a. iii. ODbL. > > > > Falk > > > > Zitat von merspieler : > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> I've got a question about licensing. > >> > >> I'm using a program called Osm2city [1] that generates scenery for the > >> flight gear flight simulator(FGFS) [2]. > >> > >> To be on the safe side, I've currently released the results under the > >> WTFPL which isn't a big deal for me but FGFS is GPL2 only and it's > >> impossible, to get anything packaged with it, that's not GPL2. > >> > >> So my question: May I release the results under the GPL2 (if needed with > >> dual licensing)? > >> > >> This may affect others as well, as I'm not the only one, who's > >> generating any scenery but I haven't seen any licensing statement for > >> their work. > >> A list of this work is available on our wiki[3]. > >> > >> Example results can be downloaded as well from the wiki page[3]. > >> > >> > >> [1] https://gitlab.com/fg-radi/osm2city > >> [2] http://www.flightgear.org/ > >> [3] http://wiki.flightgear.org/Areas_populated_with_osm2city_scenery > >> > >> > >> regards, > >> > >> > >> merspieler > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > legal-talk mailing list > > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question
I'd consider the work a produced work. I will apply 4.3. ODbL. Thank you for your help. newsgr...@pirschkarte.de: > Considering the Produced Work - Guideline: Is the result of Osm2city in > your opinion a product or a derived database? > > If it is a product, then you can choose your own license, but you still > have comply with the conditions of No. 4.3. ODbL . > > If it is a derived database then you have to comply especially with the > conditions of No. 4.2 and 4.4 ODbL (but not only). Your derived database > will still be under ODbL. > If it's a derived database , then it also raises the question of whether > ODbL (Open Data License) and GPL (Free Software/Open Source License) are > compatible with each other, No. 4.4 a. iii. ODbL. > > Falk > > Zitat von merspieler : > >> Hello, >> >> I've got a question about licensing. >> >> I'm using a program called Osm2city [1] that generates scenery for the >> flight gear flight simulator(FGFS) [2]. >> >> To be on the safe side, I've currently released the results under the >> WTFPL which isn't a big deal for me but FGFS is GPL2 only and it's >> impossible, to get anything packaged with it, that's not GPL2. >> >> So my question: May I release the results under the GPL2 (if needed with >> dual licensing)? >> >> This may affect others as well, as I'm not the only one, who's >> generating any scenery but I haven't seen any licensing statement for >> their work. >> A list of this work is available on our wiki[3]. >> >> Example results can be downloaded as well from the wiki page[3]. >> >> >> [1] https://gitlab.com/fg-radi/osm2city >> [2] http://www.flightgear.org/ >> [3] http://wiki.flightgear.org/Areas_populated_with_osm2city_scenery >> >> >> regards, >> >> >> merspieler > > > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question
Considering the Produced Work - Guideline: Is the result of Osm2city in your opinion a product or a derived database? If it is a product, then you can choose your own license, but you still have comply with the conditions of No. 4.3. ODbL . If it is a derived database then you have to comply especially with the conditions of No. 4.2 and 4.4 ODbL (but not only). Your derived database will still be under ODbL. If it's a derived database , then it also raises the question of whether ODbL (Open Data License) and GPL (Free Software/Open Source License) are compatible with each other, No. 4.4 a. iii. ODbL. Falk Zitat von merspieler : Hello, I've got a question about licensing. I'm using a program called Osm2city [1] that generates scenery for the flight gear flight simulator(FGFS) [2]. To be on the safe side, I've currently released the results under the WTFPL which isn't a big deal for me but FGFS is GPL2 only and it's impossible, to get anything packaged with it, that's not GPL2. So my question: May I release the results under the GPL2 (if needed with dual licensing)? This may affect others as well, as I'm not the only one, who's generating any scenery but I haven't seen any licensing statement for their work. A list of this work is available on our wiki[3]. Example results can be downloaded as well from the wiki page[3]. [1] https://gitlab.com/fg-radi/osm2city [2] http://www.flightgear.org/ [3] http://wiki.flightgear.org/Areas_populated_with_osm2city_scenery regards, merspieler ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question
Hello, I've got a question about licensing. I'm using a program called Osm2city [1] that generates scenery for the flight gear flight simulator(FGFS) [2]. To be on the safe side, I've currently released the results under the WTFPL which isn't a big deal for me but FGFS is GPL2 only and it's impossible, to get anything packaged with it, that's not GPL2. So my question: May I release the results under the GPL2 (if needed with dual licensing)? This may affect others as well, as I'm not the only one, who's generating any scenery but I haven't seen any licensing statement for their work. A list of this work is available on our wiki[3]. Example results can be downloaded as well from the wiki page[3]. [1] https://gitlab.com/fg-radi/osm2city [2] http://www.flightgear.org/ [3] http://wiki.flightgear.org/Areas_populated_with_osm2city_scenery regards, merspieler signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
