Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
On 04/09/2010, at 10:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > If it absolutely has to be one thing or the other I'd say it is a Produced > Work. Does it have to be though? I can't see anything in the ODbL that says Derived Database and Produced Work are mutually exclusive. A produced work is: "a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database." To me, it would seem that all Derivative Databases would be produced works too, since they are a work resulting from using the Database. Exactly what that would mean I'm not sure, but 4.5b (creating a Produced Work does not create a Derivative Database) would be a bit confusing if that were the case. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
Rob Myers wrote: > >> There is so much ambiguity about 'produced works' and 'derived databases' >> that it >> would be far better for the licence to state some example cases directly, >> rather >> than require clarifications hosted on the OSM wiki pages (!). > > They are novel concepts so good examples will help people to understand > them, yes. These should be on the wiki rather than in the licence, > though. Licences don't usually get to interpret themselves. :-) > Hello I think these examples should be in the licens or in an appendix of the licens. A wiki-page or a website could changed everytime. So today, a garminmap will be an produced work and tomorrow it could be a database and so on. This is arbitrariness and no company or free project can be sure, if there offer is legal. Best regards, aighes -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Garmin-Maps-Produced-Works-tp5496944p5501135.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] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
Hi,
80n wrote:
Ironically, for most people it is much easier to reverse engineer a .png
than it would be to inport a dataset.
It really depends on the situation. OSM has no concept of precision, so
if I give you a list of 100 POIs on a 1024x2048 map of England, you
simply wouldn't be able to place them in OSM because they would be
hundreds of meters off.
Firstly, the publisher can distribute
it in any arbitrary format, removing IDs, modifying tags, etc. There is
no incentive for the publisher to make it easy to use.
It must still be the database from which he has produced his produced
works. Granted, there is potential for obfuscation here, but if what it
published is sufficiently interesting, the community is going to take
note ("oh look, this guy wants to make it hard for us to use the data...
let's see what we can do").
Thirdly, the publisher can simply refuse to agree to the contributor terms.
Indeed; the publisher could even be completely oblivious of them.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
On 5 September 2010 00:00, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > I find it hard to imagine that *any* ODbL licensed data will ever get shared > back to OSM. If it is so difficult to share back data then I think that > will be a serious demotivator for many contributors. Unless the CTs change,or an exception is granted, it's not going to matter, since the data would breach the CTs... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Simon Ward wrote: > If you > render as a PNG, without additional metadata you are similarly going to > have difficulty reverse engineering it (admittedly more difficulty than > with vector graphics, which much more closely resemble the geodata). > The fact that you actually have to reverse engineer either to get useful > geodata out of them suggests they are Produced Works alone. > Ironically, for most people it is much easier to reverse engineer a .png than it would be to inport a dataset. Given a dataset in an arbitrary format then it will require a significant effort to analyse and extract data in a form that is useful to OSM. Conversely, it is almost trivial to trace from an image. It is an oft quoted aspect of the ODbL approach that it's the data that OSM is interested in. However, in practice it would seem to me that it is going to be really difficult to reincorporate data that has been combined with an ODbL database. Firstly, the publisher can distribute it in any arbitrary format, removing IDs, modifying tags, etc. There is no incentive for the publisher to make it easy to use. Secondly, the size of the database is likely to be formidable limiting the number of people who might have the resources to deal with it. OSMF could help here by providing hardware resources to anyone who wanted to perform an import, but that's a terrible burden on a project that has better things to do with it's hardware. Thirdly, the publisher can simply refuse to agree to the contributor terms. Finally, the possiblility of tracing the content from a published .png may also be denied as produced works can be published under very restrictive and/or incompatible licenses. I find it hard to imagine that *any* ODbL licensed data will ever get shared back to OSM. If it is so difficult to share back data then I think that will be a serious demotivator for many contributors. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
On 09/04/2010 01:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote: On 09/04/2010 12:49 PM, John Smith wrote: On 4 September 2010 21:38, Rob Myers wrote: In either case they are produced works as they extract a small amount of data from the database and add some new stuff in order to make something intended to be used visually. What about a SVG file of a substantial part of the database, SVG files don't have to be as small as a 256x256px PNG tile, and they could in theory contain all the information the same as a OSM file... odc-discuss Or Simon. :-) would be better able to answer this than I am. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
On 09/04/2010 12:49 PM, John Smith wrote: On 4 September 2010 21:38, Rob Myers wrote: In either case they are produced works as they extract a small amount of data from the database and add some new stuff in order to make something intended to be used visually. What about a SVG file of a substantial part of the database, SVG files don't have to be as small as a 256x256px PNG tile, and they could in theory contain all the information the same as a OSM file... odc-discuss would be better able to answer this than I am. Let's assume that we have a very large SVG file that precisely encodes the co-ordinates, relationships and tagged information from a Substantial part of a Planet dump in a way that renders visually as a usable map but that can also be read by a machine as a structured geodata database. I think that if you use it as an image it's a Produced Work and if you use it as a structured geodata database it's a Derivative Database. It's ODbL's cat, or possibly a Heisenbase. ;-) If it absolutely has to be one thing or the other I'd say it is a Produced Work. I don't think that causes any problems, as soon as a Substantial amount of data is extracted from it, the user knows their responsibilities as a result of the ODbL advertisement on the SVG file. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 09:49:18PM +1000, John Smith wrote: > On 4 September 2010 21:38, Rob Myers wrote: > > In either case they are produced works as they extract a small amount of > > data from the database and add some new stuff in order to make something > > intended to be used visually. > > What about a SVG file of a substantial part of the database, SVG files > don't have to be as small as a 256x256px PNG tile, and they could in > theory contain all the information the same as a OSM file... In theory. In practice pure SVG is a series of drawing instructions (that’s simplified), and without additional metadata you are going to have difficulty reverse engineering the SVG into the OSM data. If you render as a PNG, without additional metadata you are similarly going to have difficulty reverse engineering it (admittedly more difficulty than with vector graphics, which much more closely resemble the geodata). The fact that you actually have to reverse engineer either to get useful geodata out of them suggests they are Produced Works alone. SVG allows metadata, but it doesn’t define a format for the metadata: That comes from other XML formats (this could be OSM XML). If SVG is mixed with other formats, is it just an SVG file any more? You could argue that if the default XML namespace is SVG it is, but that’s besides the point, I think. If it simply contains drawing instructions, then I can’t think of a reason for it not being always acceptable as a Produced Work. If, on the other hand, it contained a substantial amount of geodata as metadata, I would go more towards it being a Derivative Database. If not a Derivative Database, then it might be a Produced Work created from a Derivative Database, in which case the recipients of the work should also be able to get a copy of the Derivative Database. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
On 4 September 2010 21:38, Rob Myers wrote: > In either case they are produced works as they extract a small amount of > data from the database and add some new stuff in order to make something > intended to be used visually. What about a SVG file of a substantial part of the database, SVG files don't have to be as small as a 256x256px PNG tile, and they could in theory contain all the information the same as a OSM file... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
On 09/04/2010 12:17 PM, Ed Avis wrote: Frederik Ramm writes: "If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work." I wonder if a Garmin map would really count as a database. The purpose of the GMAPSUPP.IMG file is to display the map on the Garmin device. (A Garmin map might or might not be a map. I suspect it is a map, but it's an interesting case and I recommend asking odc-discuss.) Raster map tiles (e.g. SVG) would also be an interesting case. SVG is a vector file format. A raster map tile would be a PNG. In either case they are produced works as they extract a small amount of data from the database and add some new stuff in order to make something intended to be used visually. There is so much ambiguity about 'produced works' and 'derived databases' that it would be far better for the licence to state some example cases directly, rather than require clarifications hosted on the OSM wiki pages (!). They are novel concepts so good examples will help people to understand them, yes. These should be on the wiki rather than in the licence, though. Licences don't usually get to interpret themselves. :-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
Frederik Ramm writes: >"If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it is >a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced Work." > >I wonder if a Garmin map would really count as a database. The purpose >of the GMAPSUPP.IMG file is to display the map on the Garmin device. Raster map tiles (e.g. SVG) would also be an interesting case. There is so much ambiguity about 'produced works' and 'derived databases' that it would be far better for the licence to state some example cases directly, rather than require clarifications hosted on the OSM wiki pages (!). -- Ed Avis http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Garmin Maps / Produced Works
This is pretty much in line with Francis' claim about copyright being on maps, and copyright law not stating anything about the form the map comes in, but of course without court cases on the matter we're all left guessing. Next problem with the Garmin maps, suppose they use extracts from Geofabrik, who sources data from OSM directly, but someone abuses the Garmin maps, would OSM-F have to sue Geofabrik and in turn sue who ever produced the Garmin maps to enforce the contract part of ODBL? What happens if the person downloading the Garmin map packs doesn't abuse them directly, but puts them up via p2p, and OSM-F is removed from the actual offender by 10 degrees of separation, how will the ODBL actually be enforced, the recent Waze issue was a good example, they copied the data from another party, what has actually happened to the other party to stop them selling the data to others? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
