Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
Hi there, I would like to have clarification on this subject as well (but be aware that I'm just in the process of understanding the OSM license - see the other thread). What I do not understand with the OSM license is the following (constructed) example: * I have a separate geo coder application based on OSM data * I have my own user database which is public to every individual Now what happens when I use the geocoder to let users do autocompleting its addresses in my somehow public database? I have lots of users so this manual copying from OSM would be *substantial* but at the same time it is clear that I cannot make the database itself public. Or is the resulting database still separate as there are clean OSM columns? Regards, Peter. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
On 14/06/13 07:09, Michal Palenik wrote: On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 03:58:22PM +0200, Olov McKie wrote: Geocoding and license implications Manual geocoding of an entity that a person has prior local knowledge of, is the same process as adding a new entity to the OSM, and as such the person geocoding the entity retains their full copyright over the geocoded entity. All other geocoding results in a Produced Work, as that term is defined in the ODbL. Section 4.5 provides that a Produced Work is not subject to the share-alike provisions of Section 4.4 of the ODbL. as was pointed out before, these implications are wrong: after adding a poi based on underlaying map data, i do not have full copyright because it is partially based on underlaying map (if i added it solely based on GPS coordinates, without any use of map, it would be a different story) Produced Works is still a (derivative) database. it is both. Late to this discussion, sorry, but this is wrong. The Definitions section of ODbL explicitly says that Conveying does not include... creating and Using a Produced Work, and Using this database... to create a Produced Work does not create a Derivative Database. very similar to LGPL. share-alike definetly applies to the data (or we should have the discussion if the result is collective or derivative DB) michal -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
Robert Whittaker (OSM lists robert.whittaker+osm@... writes: I'd still very much like to hear of potential use cases, where regarding the inputted search data plus returned coordinates as a derivative database (which may be part of a collective database with other proprietary data in it) would actually cause problems. I feel that this requirement prevents state and municipality agencies in Finland from using OSM maps as base maps in their web applications. There are often some feedback mechanism in the applications so that users can send a message about data error or then they announce that something in broken or something has happened in some location. Usually user does not know the coordinates but only the address or that something happened in the corner of A- Street and B-Street. Uncertainty about if all the administrative data which have some connection with the user feedback would become share-alike if user locates the place by clicking on top of the OSM base map makes administration to use Google and other other base map providers instead. -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
On 07.06.13 11:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: At least for the substantial part of your question I believe if a professional geo service provider like map box would decide to use OSM to satisfy its geocoding needs, it is obvious that this use would be substantial, or you could use it only very few and for very short time ;-) +1. If you geocode just a few points, the result is not a work. If it's enough to be a database, it's probably derivative. Say, you geocode all housenumbers in an area, or all pubs in London, this list of coordinates probably is a database. But only local jurisdiction will tell you what is a database (a work) and what is not. ODbL can't (and shouldn't) give you an answer here. /al ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
On 13 June 2013 14:58, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote: Manual geocoding A person using an OSM map to find the latitude and longitude coordinates associated with a point or an area, normally by clicking, drawing or similarly marking where that point or area is on a map. As an example, the process of marking the point or area could be very similar to adding a new POI or area to OSM using the iD in-browser editor, but instead of uploading the additions to OSM, the coordinates and metadata are stored somewhere else. Manual geocoding can also be done completely whitout computer support for instance by reading coordinates of a printed paper map based on OSM data. I think you may be mixing up two different things here: * The method of doing the geocoding, which can be either automated or by hand. * The type of input data used, which could be details of the object itself (if the object exists in OSM, or can be interpolated from data that does), or local knowledge of where an object is in relation to other mapped data (e.g. knowing that a certain house is on the corner of two streets). (The second type here would be rather hard to automate, but the first type could be done automatically or by hand.) With either interpretation of manual, the insubstantial exclusions in ODbL will allow you do do a few such geocodings and retain all rights anyway. However, if you were to do a lot -- to the point at which is becomes substantial I don't see any reason for the share-alike provisions not to apply. You are making use of contributors' works to derive some additional data. The whole point of having a share-alike license is to ensure that such derivatives are shared back with the community. Geocoding and license implications Manual geocoding of an entity that a person has prior local knowledge of, is the same process as adding a new entity to the OSM, and as such the person geocoding the entity retains their full copyright over the geocoded entity. All other geocoding results in a Produced Work, as that term is defined in the ODbL. Section 4.5 provides that a Produced Work is not subject to the share-alike provisions of Section 4.4 of the ODbL. I think it's quite a stretch to claim that something that is clearly a derived dataset is actually a produced work. The point of the Produced Work provisions is to allow artistic renditions of the data to be licensed differently, as long as the underlying data is still shared. It is not supposed to be used as a get-out clause for avoiding sharing additional data. In any case, I'm not sure that calling the geocoded dataset a produced work will necessarily help. For if it were to be publicly used then you would be required to share the derived database behind it and/or the algorithm to create it, including AFAIK any external data you you added (i.e. the data associated with each object that you used in the search). So I don't think this would actually get you out of the obligation to share-alike the search data employed. If you don't publicly use the geocoded data, then there would be no-one external getting a copy that would need to be given share-alike rights to it anyway. (Share-alike only applies to those receiving a copy of the data/work.) So it then wouldn't matter if the data what the share-alike rules were. I'd still very much like to hear of potential use cases, where regarding the inputted search data plus returned coordinates as a derivative database (which may be part of a collective database with other proprietary data in it) would actually cause problems. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
On 13/giu/2013, at 15:58, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote: All other geocoding results in a Produced Work, IMHO it results in a Derivative Database, as long as the amount of data geocoded is not too small. Cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
2013/6/7 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com Over the past months, we've tried to get legal advice on this question. This is difficult as the lack of existing case law makes it hard to get official legal opinion on the document and the license is very complex. But here is what we have heard back informally: 1. Geocoding can be interpreted as Produced Work per the defintion of Produced Work in the ODbL [2]. 2. The ODbL is too vague in the definition of its terms, requiring additional clarifications by licensor. This is most importantly the case around the terms derivative database and what constitutes a substantial extraction of data [3]. My take on this is the following: I don't agree with the approach to just add the statement to OSMF wiki page. What you want to achieve is to establish a Community Norm in order to eliminate a grey area in the ODbL - a grey area as there is room for interpretation and a Community Norm as it is intended to limit the room for interpretations in the sense of the community. Until now there is no official process to establish a Community Norm as well as no process to acknowlege a grey area and its priority to work on it. First we need to establish the process how we create a Community Norm. This is indeed required in order to serve requests like yours. In regards to Geocoding this needs to be distinguished from name browsing. I understand Geocoding as the addition of a coordinate to complete address. A Geocoder often works in a way that it looksup uncomplete addresses and matches the best result or proposes a list of the best candidates and then completes the uncomplete input to a full and valid address - this is the name browsing part - often considered as part of the Geocoder. From this perspective the Geocoder should be defined first. In regards to adding a coordinate to an address: if you add a coordinate to single address or even a list of addresses then the results remain unlinked from the original database - unlinked in the the sense that if you change the underlying database the geocoding results (coordinates) will remain the same - the address is just projected on the orginial database. You would need to re-geocode the address in order to adjust the geocoding results. Considering the OSM database and your list of addresses as a combination of two different independent databases - a collective database. Then even after geocoding the two databases would remain indepedent from each other as they are not linked to eachother. From this perspective there is not even a grey area. The namebrowsing part is more complicated as you might create a substantial extract from the OSM database - here the defintion of substiantial extract is key. Best regards, Oliver ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
2013/6/7 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com 2. The ODbL is too vague in the definition of its terms, requiring additional clarifications by licensor. This is most importantly the case around the terms derivative database and what constitutes a substantial extraction of data [3]. At least for the substantial part of your question I believe if a professional geo service provider like map box would decide to use OSM to satisfy its geocoding needs, it is obvious that this use would be substantial, or you could use it only very few and for very short time ;-) cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL
On 7 June 2013 01:56, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: With two State of the Map conferences coming up now and plenty of opportunities for face time, I'd like to restart our conversation around clarifying the ODbL's implications for geocoding and get to a result. Over here at MapBox we're hoping to use OpenStreetMap soon as much as possible for geocoding (right now we don't) and we'd like to do this on firm legal ground. I know that others have raised similar questions in the past [1]. For the avoidance of doubt, could you clarify exactly what you mean by geocoding here? I presume it would be something along the lines of taking some form of location description (e.g. a typical written address), searching for an appropriate match in an OSM-derived database, and then returning the latitude and longitude coordinates associated with the matching OSM object. This process could possibly be repeated many times, once for each record with a location description in an external database. In that case, then from a philosophical point of view, I think I'd agree that other data about the location found in the database shouldn't be tainted by share-alike. But at the same time, I don't think that the coordinates should be available to be completely freely used by the person obtaining them. As for the actual location data used in the search, I think that's a more difficult question. On the one hand, it's sort of necessary to do the search and interpret the coordinates, so we'd want it to be shared). On the other hand, while individual location data items aren't really proprietary, the collection of them could be (e.g. identifying a set of customers), so there may be reasons why it wouldn't be appropriate to share it. My reasoning behind not wanting to allow the coordinates to be used freely would be that I could, for example, produce a list of all possible post box reference numbers in the UK since they're always a postal district plus a 1-4 digit number. Then I could use OSM to get coordinates for each reference number where it existred. If I was able to freely use the resulting data without any restrictions, I'd then have a public-domain dataset of all the post box locations that were in OSM, sidestepping the share-alike provisions of ODbL. I think this would be unacceptable. It seems to me, that each location description (whatever was used to search in OSM) plus the returned coordinates should probably be regarded as a derivative database, which then forms part of a collective database with any other (possibly private) data associated with the location description. It's only if you publicly use the data that the share-alike provisions kick in, and then you'd only need to share the location descriptions and coordinates for points that are shown to a user (which would probably be visible to them anyway). Remember that the share alike provisions only apply to those receiving the public use of the work. So if you only provide something based on the data to a particular customer, that's the only person you have to allow share-alike use to. (Of course there's nothing to stop the customer sharing that data further, but that's up to them.) Would something like this be a problem for any of the use cases that you have in mind? Of course, if you can argue that your geocoding results are insubstantial under the ODbL then you can do what you want with them. The above would only apply to substantial uses. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
