Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Erik Johansson wrote: >> Open Database License (ODbL) >> “Attribution and Share-Alike for Data/Databases” > > Yep. Exactly. > > CC-BY-SA, famously, allows you to combine different types of "creative > content" as a collective work. Wikipedia regularly combines GFDL text with > CC-BY-SA photos, and no-one bats an eyelid: it's a collective work. I now have a practical case. Routes for public transports are usually printed on a map, this map is usually licensed and it might be difficult to get permissions to distribute the map on the net (see picture). So how do I get to use OSM data for free? I can store my data as 1. already georeffed shape files 2. shapefiles of the routes that are created from OSM data 3. route relations in OSM format, but no from OSM (just referencing IDs in OSM) 4. description used by bus drivers to get around Then a separate database with Share-Alike Openstreetmap data. When do I have to license my data as share alike? BTW, Wikipedia is CC now. <>___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
Erik Johansson wrote: > Open Database License (ODbL) > “Attribution and Share-Alike for Data/Databases” Yep. Exactly. CC-BY-SA, famously, allows you to combine different types of "creative content" as a collective work. Wikipedia regularly combines GFDL text with CC-BY-SA photos, and no-one bats an eyelid: it's a collective work. ODBL allows people to combine different type of databases. It's exactly the same. I like the idea of Pilsner at Dawn, I have to say. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ODbL-%22virality%22-questions-tp25719138p25838414.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - 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] ODbL "virality" questions
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Erik Johansson wrote: >> If this is all there is to it then you can make a collective database >> out of anything that is not connected on a map level to OSM data. >> That doesn't seem very viral to me. > > OSM's mission statement is: > > "OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps > to anyone who wants them." Open Database License (ODbL) “Attribution and Share-Alike for Data/Databases” > So it's all about "the map level". If you're an agitator for every single > form of content in the world being share-alike, all well and good, but > that's not OSM's role. Changing license isn't supposed to just be a pretty name for allowing anyone todo anything as long as they call it Collective Database. That's why I asked for better definition of it. Does it matter what kind of data is available in the PilsnerAtDawn proprietary database. Lets say they have location/names of pubs that are not available in OSM, then is it still a Collective Database? I'm sure you think Free vs. public domain is an interesting discussion... /emj ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
Erik Johansson wrote: > If this is all there is to it then you can make a collective database > out of anything that is not connected on a map level to OSM data. > That doesn't seem very viral to me. OSM's mission statement is: "OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them." So it's all about "the map level". If you're an agitator for every single form of content in the world being share-alike, all well and good, but that's not OSM's role. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ODbL-%22virality%22-questions-tp25719138p25836513.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - 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] ODbL "virality" questions
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > 1. OSM pubs (Derivative Database) > 2. CiderInTheMorning data (presumably proprietary) > 3. table mapping OSM ids to CITM ids If this is all there is to it then you can make a collective database out of anything that is not connected on a map level to OSM data. That doesn't seem very viral to me. Collective Database needs to be specified a lot better in this license. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
Matt Amos wrote: > are you suggesting that we change our guideline on what is substantial? I am. Well, not so much "change", more "clarify". "Substantial" in EU Database Directive terms can mean quantitative and/or qualitative. I agree that extracting a "pubs of Britain" dataset and distributing it would be quantitatively substantial, so the ODbL Derivative Database applies. However, in this case, we have a Collective Database made up of these three databases: 1. OSM pubs (Derivative Database) 2. CiderInTheMorning data (presumably proprietary) 3. table mapping OSM ids to CITM ids The third table is _not_ qualitatively substantial, as the OSM<->CITM mapping (done by name and locality matching) does not "represent, in terms of obtaining, verification or presentation, significant investment". Nor is it quantitatively substantial, because it doesn't contain any actual OSM data. Therefore it isn't a Derivative Database. I think this flows clearly from ODBL but that we could do with a brief clarification in our guidelines to reassure people this is ok. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
Matt Amos wrote:
> can the SA requirement be satisfied by saying that we consider the
> extracted IDs to be an ODbL part of a collective database, where the
> proprietary data is the other part? it would require the ODbL part
> (i.e: the list of IDs) to be made available, but nothing else.
This is my thought also.
Frederik Ramm replied:
> It would work, but I'm trying to think if this would have adverse side
> effects.
>
> Can this be compared to Google importing all of OSM into MapMaker
> and then only making available the OSM part and not anything newly
> created? Would that still count as a collective database? If not, then
> where is the boundary?
The boundary is the ODBL definition (and interpretations thereof):
"Collective Database: Means this Database in unmodified form as part of a
collection of independent databases in themselves that together are
assembled into a collective whole"
So you have to decide whether the two databases are independent of each
other. Independent cannot mean "no links at all"; we're talking about a
single ("collective whole") database here, and databases are meant to have
relational queries run on them.
Rather, it means "one database was created without extracting Substantial
copyrightable[1] content from the other". Think of the dictionary
definition: "not determined or influenced by someone or something else".
That's clear enough to me, at least.
But if you want to work through the two examples using the traditional (-ly
flawed ;) ) approach of applying programmers' logic to legalese:
a)
CiderInTheMorning loads an OSM pub extract (a Derivative Database) into
their database. The result is a Collective Database.
A new table, pub_to_osm, maps CiderInTheMorning pub ids to OSM node ids.
This table is essentially produced by matching the name of the pub and the
location. For example, if CiderInTheMorning has an entry for "Rose & Crown,
Charlbury", it's trivial to find the OSM ID from that - either by a query or
by hand.
This trivial linkage does not attract any copyright[1], and is effectively
just an artefact of producing a Collective Database. There is therefore no
further virality.
b)
Google adds OSM data for Vietnam to their existing MapMaker project in the
country.
If the two datasets can be kept independent of each other, then yes, they
can claim it's a Collective Database.
But as we know, that's impossible. Footpaths have to link to roads.
Duplication has to be removed. Roads have to be redrawn so they don't go
over shorelines. And so on.
This substantial linkage is subject to copyright[1] and therefore the
virality 'infects'[2] Google's existing and new user-contributed data.
I probably haven't phrased this as clearly as I could, but the key points
are to apply ODBL's usual "Substantial" test to the linkage; to remember
that "Substantial" is applied qualitatively and quantitatively (usual Waelde
reference here); and yes, to publish our interpretation of "Substantial" as
a guideline.
cheers
Richard
[1] or neighbouring rights as per usual
[2] those who are offended by these words may substitute their preference
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/ODbL-%22virality%22-questions-tp25719138p25801874.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - 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] ODbL "virality" questions
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Matt Amos wrote: > i think the more useful case to most people will be to use the OSM > data geographically. if i started beerintheOSM i'd want to use OSM for > as much of the geographic data as possible - that's kinda the point of > OSM isn't it? > > so, assuming beerintheOSM has a list of IDs, names and locations of Just to be clear you assume that there are no geodata that isn't in the OSM database? If there is also a non OSM database with lat/lon for pubs then that should be share-alike, but for the stuff that isn't geodata I can't really say I don't agree with Frederik. Using OSM ID will link your database in the same way as linking shared libraries does. Hence making your database share-alike, again the question is what data should be share-alike. /erik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
On 10/8/09, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Matt Amos wrote: >>> Or could we perhaps even specify that anything that doesn't use our >>> geometry is not substantial? A list of all pubs in Madrid would be >>> substantial since it needs geometry; a list of all pubs on the planet >>> would not be substantial. That would neatly cover anyone wanting to use >>> any number of OSM IDs for linking as he would never use the geometry >>> from OSM. >> >> are you suggesting that someone wanting to run beerintheOSM would have >> to have a worldwide scope? it wouldn't even be possible to be >> country-specific because that would give it a geographic scope and >> therefore depend on the geometry? > > I was thinking that if he relies on *our* geometry then he's making a > substantial extract, whereas if he uses some other means to list the > pubs in, say, England and then just references our nodes, that's ok then. does that mean it's not ok to look at the lat/lon to find the list of pubs, but it's ok to look at the name tag? is that still true if i produce a planet derivative which automatically adds is_in tags based on the administrative boundary data - he can use that is_in tag? > In one case he has the data already (name of pub + as much knowledge > about the location as required for his application) and only links to > OSM as an additional source of info. In the other case he is using OSM > to find information in the first place. i think the more useful case to most people will be to use the OSM data geographically. if i started beerintheOSM i'd want to use OSM for as much of the geographic data as possible - that's kinda the point of OSM isn't it? so, assuming beerintheOSM has a list of IDs, names and locations of pubs, let's say extracted by xapi query using the UK bbox, does that mean it would have to release its whole database, or just the OSM-derived parts of that database? cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
Hi, Matt Amos wrote: >> Or could we perhaps even specify that anything that doesn't use our >> geometry is not substantial? A list of all pubs in Madrid would be >> substantial since it needs geometry; a list of all pubs on the planet >> would not be substantial. That would neatly cover anyone wanting to use >> any number of OSM IDs for linking as he would never use the geometry >> from OSM. > > are you suggesting that someone wanting to run beerintheOSM would have > to have a worldwide scope? it wouldn't even be possible to be > country-specific because that would give it a geographic scope and > therefore depend on the geometry? I was thinking that if he relies on *our* geometry then he's making a substantial extract, whereas if he uses some other means to list the pubs in, say, England and then just references our nodes, that's ok then. In one case he has the data already (name of pub + as much knowledge about the location as required for his application) and only links to OSM as an additional source of info. In the other case he is using OSM to find information in the first place. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
On 10/7/09, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Matt Amos wrote: >> can the SA requirement be satisfied by saying that we consider the >> extracted IDs to be an ODbL part of a collective database, where the >> proprietary data is the other part? it would require the ODbL part >> (i.e: the list of IDs) to be made available, but nothing else. > > It would work, but I'm trying to think if this would have adverse side > effects. > > Can this be compared to Google importing all of OSM into MapMaker and > then only making available the OSM part and not anything newly created? > Would that still count as a collective database? If not, then where is > the boundary? yep, that's the question ;-) > I'm going back to this notion of "usefulness". Firstly, is a database a > database if it is one-dimensional? My feeling is that a database must > always combine at least two values: Have one, look up the other; have > the other, look up the first. Is a list of all valid post codes in a > country still a database if it doesn't have names or geometries? Is the > list of all latitudes in OSM still a database? possibly. if we consider the IDs (or any other one dimension) to be insubstantial, then this might work. the problem comes when using the scheme that Andy suggested. it may not be practical to link to a single dimension of an OSM dataset - it might be necessary to extract multiple dimensions to do good fuzzy matching. > It could be that an extract of some OSM IDs is not even a derived database > > Assuming for a moment it were a database, then, being rather useless, is > it substantial? Could we perhaps say that if you extract only one > dimension from OSM, this can never be a substantial extract - a list of > latitudes, a list of longitudes, a list of keys or a list of values, or > a list of IDs? from the ODbL: “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new Database. so, if we consider ID extraction to be substantial, then the answer is definitely yes - it would be an arrangement of a substantial part of the contents. if we consider IDs to be insubstantial then it would be OK. special note: the word "new" in the above definition means "other or different from the first", not "created from scratch". > Or could we perhaps even specify that anything that doesn't use our > geometry is not substantial? A list of all pubs in Madrid would be > substantial since it needs geometry; a list of all pubs on the planet > would not be substantial. That would neatly cover anyone wanting to use > any number of OSM IDs for linking as he would never use the geometry > from OSM. are you suggesting that someone wanting to run beerintheOSM would have to have a worldwide scope? it wouldn't even be possible to be country-specific because that would give it a geographic scope and therefore depend on the geometry? > But that would again raise a cascading substantial-ness problem - what > if I publish an OSM extract of Madrid and someone else counts all pubs > in there. i think counts, or any other summary statistic of the non-identifiable sort (i.e: that which would pass privacy regulations), could be considered insubstantial. the number of pubs in any given large-enough bounding box, certainly a city or country, shouldn't be considered a substantial extract. in any case, the cascading substantialness is already taken care of: if my dataset A is substantial and you derive B from that, the same standards of substantialness apply to your extract of B from A as they do to my extract of A from OSM. if A is insubstantial, then it would be impossible to make a substantial extract from that insubstantial extract. or so the theory goes ;-) cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
Hi, Matt Amos wrote: > can the SA requirement be satisfied by saying that we consider the > extracted IDs to be an ODbL part of a collective database, where the > proprietary data is the other part? it would require the ODbL part > (i.e: the list of IDs) to be made available, but nothing else. It would work, but I'm trying to think if this would have adverse side effects. Can this be compared to Google importing all of OSM into MapMaker and then only making available the OSM part and not anything newly created? Would that still count as a collective database? If not, then where is the boundary? I'm going back to this notion of "usefulness". Firstly, is a database a database if it is one-dimensional? My feeling is that a database must always combine at least two values: Have one, look up the other; have the other, look up the first. Is a list of all valid post codes in a country still a database if it doesn't have names or geometries? Is the list of all latitudes in OSM still a database? It could be that an extract of some OSM IDs is not even a derived database. Assuming for a moment it were a database, then, being rather useless, is it substantial? Could we perhaps say that if you extract only one dimension from OSM, this can never be a substantial extract - a list of latitudes, a list of longitudes, a list of keys or a list of values, or a list of IDs? Or could we perhaps even specify that anything that doesn't use our geometry is not substantial? A list of all pubs in Madrid would be substantial since it needs geometry; a list of all pubs on the planet would not be substantial. That would neatly cover anyone wanting to use any number of OSM IDs for linking as he would never use the geometry from OSM. But that would again raise a cascading substantial-ness problem - what if I publish an OSM extract of Madrid and someone else counts all pubs in there. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Matt Amos wrote: >> this is the crux of the question. the ODbL makes no distinction >> between lat/lon data, ID data, or any other sort of data. so the >> question then becomes; if i'm using some data from an ODbL database >> and incorporating that into my database, do i have to release all of >> my database, or just the bits of it which came from or were derived >> from the ODbL database? > > Let's look at the reason why we have this whole viral license, shall we? > > (I'm taking off my "this is all stupid and we should do PD" hat for a > moment and act as if I were a share-aliker.) /me adjusts headgear also. > The idea behind this is that we don't want to give anything to people > which they then make proprietary - the worst case being that one day OSM > ceases to exist and only some proprietary copy remains. The license is > there to ensure that OSM data remains free. > > But a site that *only* takes OSM IDs in order to link to them does not > create anything of their own. If OSM one day ceases to exist then the > OSM IDs stored in that site become worthless. They only store pointers > into our database, they don't make a derived product. (If I tell you to > download a film and skip to 6'32 because that's where the action is, am > I creating a "derived work" of that film?) no, but a time code pointer into a copyrighted work isn't necessarily a good analogy for an ID extracted from a database rights-protected database. > You are right in saying that by the letter of the license, an id is data > just like anything else. But the spirit surely affects only *useful* data? i think i can hear lawyers having heart attacks over the word "useful" ;-) can the SA requirement be satisfied by saying that we consider the extracted IDs to be an ODbL part of a collective database, where the proprietary data is the other part? it would require the ODbL part (i.e: the list of IDs) to be made available, but nothing else. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
Hi, Matt Amos wrote: > this is the crux of the question. the ODbL makes no distinction > between lat/lon data, ID data, or any other sort of data. so the > question then becomes; if i'm using some data from an ODbL database > and incorporating that into my database, do i have to release all of > my database, or just the bits of it which came from or were derived > from the ODbL database? Let's look at the reason why we have this whole viral license, shall we? (I'm taking off my "this is all stupid and we should do PD" hat for a moment and act as if I were a share-aliker.) The idea behind this is that we don't want to give anything to people which they then make proprietary - the worst case being that one day OSM ceases to exist and only some proprietary copy remains. The license is there to ensure that OSM data remains free. But a site that *only* takes OSM IDs in order to link to them does not create anything of their own. If OSM one day ceases to exist then the OSM IDs stored in that site become worthless. They only store pointers into our database, they don't make a derived product. (If I tell you to download a film and skip to 6'32 because that's where the action is, am I creating a "derived work" of that film?) You are right in saying that by the letter of the license, an id is data just like anything else. But the spirit surely affects only *useful* data? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> as a concrete example, let's pretend i have a site, beerintheOSM,
>> which rates pubs and allows commenting and photo uploads. if i'm
>> storing the reviews linked against pubs linked against OSM
>> (name/location/ID), i definitely have to release the
>> (name/location/ID) records
>
> Wait a minute.
>
> If I run "beerintheOSM" as a crowdourced project - say, a Wiki - and
> people can enter new pubs, and the names are entered by those who create
> the entries, and I don't even store lat/lon locations, I just allow my
> users to add an OSM node id in some kind of template which I then use to
> retrieve and display the map for the area, then surely I do not have to
> release the records?
>
> * The name was not taken from OSM
> * the location is not even stored in my database
> * the OSM ID... well yes this would have to be released but not with
> context, i.e. I could simply release a list of OSM IDs saying "these are
> used in beerintheOSM somewhere
this is the crux of the question. the ODbL makes no distinction
between lat/lon data, ID data, or any other sort of data. so the
question then becomes; if i'm using some data from an ODbL database
and incorporating that into my database, do i have to release all of
my database, or just the bits of it which came from or were derived
from the ODbL database?
> If anyone doubts the above then think what would happen if I didn't use
> the OSM ID to draw a map, instead the OSM ID would just be listed there
> in the text ("by the way, this pub is OSM node #1234") - which is the
> same from a database perspective. Surely such reference cannot trigger
> any viral effect?
that reference isn't any different from any other datum from the
database, hence the question ;-)
cheers,
matt
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Dan Karran wrote: > What would happen if the beerintheOSM site encouraged their users to > add new pubs to their site, would that data - the equivalent of what > would have come from OSM, had they come from there - need to be > released as well, or again something we should just encourage the site > to release? good question. even if OSM IDs or lat/lons are OK for linking purposes, where do we draw the line on what is "attached" data, like reviews, and what is new data added to the ODbL extract, requiring it to be available? cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
2009/10/6 Matt Amos : > as a concrete example, let's pretend i have a site, beerintheOSM, > which rates pubs and allows commenting and photo uploads. if i'm > storing the reviews linked against pubs linked against OSM > (name/location/ID), i definitely have to release the > (name/location/ID) records - that's not up for discussion. should i > also have to release the reviews, comments and photos records despite > the fact that they have no OSM-derived data in them? should i have to > release my entire database, including my users table? I would say that related information like reviews, comments, etc. that were added to beerintheOSM shouldn't need to be released, but we should encourage any information that *could* live in OSM (e.g. if users added opening hours) to be released so it could be re-incorporated. What would happen if the beerintheOSM site encouraged their users to add new pubs to their site, would that data - the equivalent of what would have come from OSM, had they come from there - need to be released as well, or again something we should just encourage the site to release? Dan -- Dan Karran d...@karran.net www.dankarran.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
Hi,
> no-one is suggesting that the extraction of names, locations and IDs
> would be somehow outside of the ODbL. any site using these as lookup
> keys would have to release that data under the ODbL.
[...]
> as a concrete example, let's pretend i have a site, beerintheOSM,
> which rates pubs and allows commenting and photo uploads. if i'm
> storing the reviews linked against pubs linked against OSM
> (name/location/ID), i definitely have to release the
> (name/location/ID) records
Wait a minute.
If I run "beerintheOSM" as a crowdourced project - say, a Wiki - and
people can enter new pubs, and the names are entered by those who create
the entries, and I don't even store lat/lon locations, I just allow my
users to add an OSM node id in some kind of template which I then use to
retrieve and display the map for the area, then surely I do not have to
release the records?
* The name was not taken from OSM
* the location is not even stored in my database
* the OSM ID... well yes this would have to be released but not with
context, i.e. I could simply release a list of OSM IDs saying "these are
used in beerintheOSM somewhere
If anyone doubts the above then think what would happen if I didn't use
the OSM ID to draw a map, instead the OSM ID would just be listed there
in the text ("by the way, this pub is OSM node #1234") - which is the
same from a database perspective. Surely such reference cannot trigger
any viral effect?
Bye
Frederik
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
Matt Amos wrote: > as a concrete example, let's pretend i have a site, beerintheOSM, > which rates pubs and allows commenting and photo uploads. if i'm > storing the reviews linked against pubs linked against OSM > (name/location/ID), i definitely have to release the > (name/location/ID) records - that's not up for discussion. should i > also have to release the reviews, comments and photos records despite > the fact that they have no OSM-derived data in them? should i have to > release my entire database, including my users table? > I sincerely hope this is not the case. It would greatly restrict what people could do with the data. That really doesn't sound like "free" data, if that is the case. Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Andrew Turner wrote: >> On 2 Oct 2009, at 18:06, Matt Amos wrote: >> >>> hi legals, >>> >>> i've come across a couple of interesting questions / use-cases for the >>> ODbL and wider discussion. it basically reduces to whether we want the >>> ODbL to have viral (GPL-like) behaviour, or whether it should be less >>> viral (LGPL-like). we've discussed this at an LWG meeting and the >>> general feeling was that the LGPL-like behaviour would be more >>> desirable, as it would allow wider use of OSM by third parties. >>> however, it was felt that a wider discussion is necessary. >>> >>> first case: a site wishes to use OSM data as a basis for >>> non-geographic data. the example used is a review side, like >>> beerintheevening.com or tripadvisor.com. they might want to use OSM as >>> the source of geographic data by linking its reviews to OSM node IDs >>> (or lat/lons taken from the OSM data). under a GPL-like interpretation >>> of the ODbL, this would "taint" the database, requiring its release. >>> considering that the records in the database may contain private >>> information (IP/email address of the reviewer) this may mean that the >>> site decides not to use OSM, because releasing the DB would violate >>> their own privacy policy. >>> >>> second case: OSM data is downloaded to a handheld device (e.g: >>> iphone). this is likely (given the screen size of the device) to be an >>> insubstantial amount. the data is locally used for reference when >>> entering other information (e.g: abovesaid reviews). the reviews are >>> uploaded to a non-OSM site, linked to the OSM-derived node ID or >>> lat/lon. if many people do this, does that constitute repeated >>> extraction and therefore require release of the non-OSM DB under the >>> ODbL? i.e: can 3rd party sites use OSM IDs or lat/lons from OSM as >>> keys into their database? >> > > I've had these very same questions. The in-person responses have > typically been "of course that's ok to do without releasing the review > data" but never in any way that I thought would make a large company > feel comfortable. > > I understand that typically copyright law like this is at the behest > of 'best practices' and prior cases - but obviously this is not the > model OSM follows in general and is in fact trying to break out of. > > Really, it is akin to linking to a URL (if you consider any node in > OSM is a Resource and could have a URI). My linking to a Wikipedia > definition of "Map" does not change the copyright of my material. > > What can we do to make it very clear if this is acceptable use of OSM? > Can we make it very clear that the equivalent of 'linking' to OSM data > that doesn't alter it (or effectively replace primary data within OSM) > does not virally release all data linked to it? we can make this very clear by: 1) discussing it here, 2) forming a consensus, 3) documenting the results (e.g: on the license FAQ on the wiki) when i have discussed the question of grey areas with lawyers the answer has always been that we can make up our own rules in those areas. the prerequisites for it having a good chance of standing up in court are that it is easy to find these guidelines in association with the license and that it represents a consensus view of the community. so far, all the responses seem to indicate that everyone thinks linking to OSM data by ID is OK. what about Andy's idea, though? is it OK to take a location, name and possibly an ID as well to perform "fuzzy" linking? my view is that all the linked-to OSM information would have to be released; the list of (location, name, ID) tuples. but that it would still be OK to not release the linked-by proprietary information. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
On 10/5/09, Laurence Penney wrote: > It seemed clear that such data extractions would not be considered > public domain, simply by virtue of having no grid reference or lat- > long. They were part of MasterMap, hence regarded as chargeable data. that's the suck-'em-dry licensing model ;-) > So even if they had responded with the data, I probably wouldn't have > been able to anything with it. (A local authority might well respond > positively to an FOIA request of, say, a list of all the footbridges > in its jurisdiction, yet I'd not necessarily be allowed to republish > that data, or use the TOIDs in my database.) FOIA, for some values of "free"... > It’s good that OSM is asking the same questions of itself! > > FWIW, I very much hope that OSM would be freer with its IDs than > Ordnance Survey seems to be with its TOIDs. However, since Vanessa had > “no idea” about the OS's policy on TOID reuse, perhaps there isn’t one. i would hope so too, as it makes OSM data more attractive for those users who don't need to manipulate the data, but need to annotate it or reference it. i, for one, would really like to see the next beerintheevening or tripadvisor based on OSM data, not just the tiles. we have the opportunity here to decide whether or not we, as a community, feel that this use of OSM data is OK. from my reading of the ODbL (insert standard disclaimers here) it's a grey area which we can strongly influence by public discussion. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
Interesting stuff, Matt. Back in 2005 I asked Ed Parsons, then still at Ordnance Survey, a similar question about OS TOIDs. I wondered if I could use TOIDs as tags in my own database of photos, in the sense "photo x depicts TOID y" - of course omitting all location data associated with the TOID in MasterMap. The method of acquiring the TOIDs wasn't specified. He didn't know the answer, and to my proposal that a Freedom of Information request might be one way for me to get the data out of the OS, he suggested I give it a go. So I did. For my test case I asked for a list of all churches in London, along with their TOIDs. I got the response: “Whilst I can confirm that Ordnance Survey does hold this information, I regret to inform you that your request falls within the ‘Formats of documents’ exclusion under section 11.(3)(a) of the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005 (PSI) whereby we are not obliged to adapt information to comply with a request. This exclusion applies because even though the information exists, it does do as a part of the Ordnance Survey MasterMap topography layer and is not available through us as separate information. Additionally, under section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), we would not release the information as it is ‘accessible to the applicant (you) by other means’. This same reason applies under section 5.(2)(c) of PSI.” It seemed clear that such data extractions would not be considered public domain, simply by virtue of having no grid reference or lat- long. They were part of MasterMap, hence regarded as chargeable data. Even if the OS had responded with the data, often forgotten is the fact that any data provided in an FoI responses is, by default, under crown copyright. See this notorious case: http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2006/07/craig_murray_an.html So even if they had responded with the data, I probably wouldn't have been able to anything with it. (A local authority might well respond positively to an FOIA request of, say, a list of all the footbridges in its jurisdiction, yet I'd not necessarily be allowed to republish that data, or use the TOIDs in my database.) At the Society of Cartographers conference last month Peter Miller put a closely related question to Vanessa Lawrence: “Is it possible to, and I have had some indications that it is possible, to create a database that basically says ‘this feature in Ordnance Survey is the same as this feature in all of these other databases [Teleatlas, Navteq, OSM] such that an asset which is collected and associated with a feature in one of them can be used in features in the other ones as long as the person who provides that information is happy for that to be the case.” After some apparent confusion about whether Peter was asking a technical or a legal question [the latter was the case], Vanessa responded: “I’m afraid I have no idea. If that’s a question you’d like to pose to us, please write in.” (Any response yet, Peter?) It’s good that OSM is asking the same questions of itself! FWIW, I very much hope that OSM would be freer with its IDs than Ordnance Survey seems to be with its TOIDs. However, since Vanessa had “no idea” about the OS's policy on TOID reuse, perhaps there isn’t one. - L On 2 Oct 2009, at 18:06, Matt Amos wrote: > hi legals, > > i've come across a couple of interesting questions / use-cases for the > ODbL and wider discussion. it basically reduces to whether we want the > ODbL to have viral (GPL-like) behaviour, or whether it should be less > viral (LGPL-like). we've discussed this at an LWG meeting and the > general feeling was that the LGPL-like behaviour would be more > desirable, as it would allow wider use of OSM by third parties. > however, it was felt that a wider discussion is necessary. > > first case: a site wishes to use OSM data as a basis for > non-geographic data. the example used is a review side, like > beerintheevening.com or tripadvisor.com. they might want to use OSM as > the source of geographic data by linking its reviews to OSM node IDs > (or lat/lons taken from the OSM data). under a GPL-like interpretation > of the ODbL, this would "taint" the database, requiring its release. > considering that the records in the database may contain private > information (IP/email address of the reviewer) this may mean that the > site decides not to use OSM, because releasing the DB would violate > their own privacy policy. > > second case: OSM data is downloaded to a handheld device (e.g: > iphone). this is likely (given the screen size of the device) to be an > insubstantial amount. the data is locally used for reference when > entering other information (e.g: abovesaid reviews). the reviews are > uploaded to a non-OSM site, linked to the OSM-derived node ID or > lat/lon. if many people do this, does that constitute repeated > extraction and therefore require release
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
hi legals, i've come across a couple of interesting questions / use-cases for the ODbL and wider discussion. it basically reduces to whether we want the ODbL to have viral (GPL-like) behaviour, or whether it should be less viral (LGPL-like). we've discussed this at an LWG meeting and the general feeling was that the LGPL-like behaviour would be more desirable, as it would allow wider use of OSM by third parties. however, it was felt that a wider discussion is necessary. first case: a site wishes to use OSM data as a basis for non-geographic data. the example used is a review side, like beerintheevening.com or tripadvisor.com. they might want to use OSM as the source of geographic data by linking its reviews to OSM node IDs (or lat/lons taken from the OSM data). under a GPL-like interpretation of the ODbL, this would "taint" the database, requiring its release. considering that the records in the database may contain private information (IP/email address of the reviewer) this may mean that the site decides not to use OSM, because releasing the DB would violate their own privacy policy. second case: OSM data is downloaded to a handheld device (e.g: iphone). this is likely (given the screen size of the device) to be an insubstantial amount. the data is locally used for reference when entering other information (e.g: abovesaid reviews). the reviews are uploaded to a non-OSM site, linked to the OSM-derived node ID or lat/lon. if many people do this, does that constitute repeated extraction and therefore require release of the non-OSM DB under the ODbL? i.e: can 3rd party sites use OSM IDs or lat/lons from OSM as keys into their database? the discussion at the LWG meeting centered around whether the database "linking to" OSM data could be considered stand-alone. using the similarity with the LGPL; whether the reviews database could be "re-linked" against another source of geographic data while continuing to work. this would imply that the list of (e.g: pubs or hotels) would need to be released as an extract of OSM as a list of OSM IDs or lat/lons, but that the reviews themselves and auxillary tables (such as the users' information) wouldn't constitute a derivative work of the OSM database. what are your thoughts? cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
