Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:37 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: It's clearly not the same difficulty. And the point of this is that it's going to be almost impossible to detect a derived database in use. You said yourself that you'd just assume that anyone processing OSM data would be presumed to be using a derived database. it is the same difficulty. it can be almost impossible to detect whether someone is using OSM data or not, especially if the output isn't tiles or extra data has been mixed in. The example I described above clearly demonstrates that you can't differentiate between company A who doesn't use a derived database and company B who does. You counter example, that maps are just as difficult is hardly relevant, and incorrect anyway. In most cases you can detect the infringment because you would have the evidence in front of you. my counter example is relevant, as it shows that the situation isn't really changing; only the terminology is changing. clearly we aren't going to be able to agree on this, but for the benefit of anyone else with the stamina to have reached this far down the thread: 1) if a company is publishing produced works, and isn't making an offer of a database available, you can contact them and ask them (politely of course) whether they have forgotten to make an offer of their derived database available. 2) if a company is publishing maps, and you suspect they're derived from OSM but aren't appropriately attributed or licensed, you can contact them and ask them (politely of course) whether they have forgotten to put the appropriate attribution and license on their maps. the situation we have at the moment is that most of these situations are clearly evidenced. with the ODbL i expect that to remain true, since it's going to be pretty obvious that company X's routing/geocoding/tiles aren't rendered directly from planet and will involve a derivative database. furthermore, i expect that in the future, as currently, most license violations will stem from an incomplete understanding of the license, or forgetfulness, more than maliciousness. The reality is that the derived database rule is almost unenforceable in the way that you describe it. It would be a massive drain on OSMF resources to try enforcing such a policy and would certainly be a very strong case for many commercial companies to avoid OSM data like the plague. i don't believe so. have you talked to any commercial companies who would be more put off by the new license than the old? cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:37 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: The example I described above clearly demonstrates that you can't differentiate between company A who doesn't use a derived database and company B who does. What if company C makes a derived database and gives it to company D? Does company D have to release the derived database? Do they have to mention company C? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:37 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: The example I described above clearly demonstrates that you can't differentiate between company A who doesn't use a derived database and company B who does. What if company C makes a derived database and gives it to company D? Does company D have to release the derived database? no. if company D is a subcontractor to company C and no produced works are published. if either company C or D publish produced works from the database, they must make an offer of it. if company D isn't a subcontractor then company C must make an offer of the database. Okay, so if company C makes derived database and gives it to company D, then company D creates tiles with that database, company D has to offer the database to anyone who receives the tiles, right? yes, if D is a subcontractor of C. otherwise both C and D must offer it. However, if company D downloads the original database from OSM, then company D creates tiles with that database, company D doesn't have to offer the database to anyone who receives the tiles, right? they've almost certainly created a derivative database, for example if they're using postgis+mapnik, so i'd say they would have to offer that database. Rereading the ODbL, this seems like the most natural way to read it. Assuming these two points are true, what is considered the original database? Anything on the official (planet.openstreetmap.org) download site? Only databases which were created by OSMF employees? Only the raw on-disk PostgreSQL datastores? Something else? technically, it's the on-disk postgresql datastore, plus the server implementation. the planet is a database dump, and loading that into a database is creating a derivative. If I distribute a tile on March 31, 2010, what exactly do I need to offer? The exact portion of the database which is used to create this tile? If the data later changes, I still need to keep the old version in case someone takes me up on my offer, right? Is it enough to keep the full history and expect people to look at the timestamps to figure out the state of the database at the time of their download? no. LWG took legal advice on this and it's sufficient to provide the latest version of the database, or whatever you have which is as close to the version the user used as possible. Can users decline the offer, in which case I can delete the database? Can I give users the option to download the database immediately or to decline the offer, so I don't have to keep historical data around indefinitely? it's not necessary to keep historical data. and you don't have to keep dumps around either. the offer is pretty much if you contact me, i'll give you my database as close as i can to the version you used. if you practically can't keep the dumps, then that's not a problem. if you delete all records of the database, then your only options are to recreate it, or reveal the method used to create it. Do they have to mention company C? if D produces works, or further distributes the database or a derivative of it then yes. What if company C gives them permission not to, or if company C asks them not to reveal who they are? attribution is at the company's option, so if company C doesn't want to be attributed then D can't mention them. the reverse is also true, if company C wants to be attributed then D can't remove that attribution notice. of course, neither C or D can remove the attribution to OSM, as OSM wants to be attributed. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Okay, so if company C makes derived database and gives it to company D, then company D creates tiles with that database, company D has to offer the database to anyone who receives the tiles, right? yes, if D is a subcontractor of C. otherwise both C and D must offer it. What constitutes being a subcontractor? Subcontractor as in work for hire? C has to offer it to whom? I thought C only has to offer the database to D. You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work... So, if Company C makes a derived database, and gives it to Company D, and Company D makes a Produced Work, and gives it to Company E, Company C has to offer Company E the Derivative Database? Can users decline the offer, in which case I can delete the database? Can I give users the option to download the database immediately or to decline the offer, so I don't have to keep historical data around indefinitely? it's not necessary to keep historical data. and you don't have to keep dumps around either. the offer is pretty much if you contact me, i'll give you my database as close as i can to the version you used. if you practically can't keep the dumps, then that's not a problem. if you delete all records of the database, then your only options are to recreate it, or reveal the method used to create it. So, you kind of didn't answer my question. If I distribute a produced work, can I ask the recipient Do you want the data?, and if they say no, then I never have to worry about them coming back and saying okay, now I want the data? I guess if I have to offer even downstream recipients the database, it doesn't much matter. That person might say they don't want the data, and then give the produced work to a friend, who then calls me on the phone and demands the data. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Okay, so if company C makes derived database and gives it to company D, then company D creates tiles with that database, company D has to offer the database to anyone who receives the tiles, right? yes, if D is a subcontractor of C. otherwise both C and D must offer it. What constitutes being a subcontractor? Subcontractor as in work for hire? C has to offer it to whom? I thought C only has to offer the database to D. the wording used in ODbL is Persons other than You or under Your control by either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct their activities (such as contracting with an independent consultant). oops, what i wrote earlier wasn't quite right: C only has to offer the database to D, and D has to offer it to recipients of tiles. (unless, of course, C is publicly using the database as well.) You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work... So, if Company C makes a derived database, and gives it to Company D, and Company D makes a Produced Work, and gives it to Company E, Company C has to offer Company E the Derivative Database? i think at that point company D has to offer the derived database to company E. Can users decline the offer, in which case I can delete the database? Can I give users the option to download the database immediately or to decline the offer, so I don't have to keep historical data around indefinitely? it's not necessary to keep historical data. and you don't have to keep dumps around either. the offer is pretty much if you contact me, i'll give you my database as close as i can to the version you used. if you practically can't keep the dumps, then that's not a problem. if you delete all records of the database, then your only options are to recreate it, or reveal the method used to create it. So, you kind of didn't answer my question. If I distribute a produced work, can I ask the recipient Do you want the data?, and if they say no, then I never have to worry about them coming back and saying okay, now I want the data? sorry, i must have misunderstood the question. i think that would be between you and the recipient. I guess if I have to offer even downstream recipients the database, it doesn't much matter. That person might say they don't want the data, and then give the produced work to a friend, who then calls me on the phone and demands the data. yeah, the following passage might apply: if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License. which seems to imply that the offer extends to anyone who sees your produced work. i'm not sure how it extends to derivatives (where permitted) of your produced work, though... cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, OdbL has this requirement where, if you publish a produced work based on a derived database, you also have to publish either (a) the derived database or (b) a diff allowing someone to arrive at the derived database if he has the original, publicly available database or (c) an algorithm that does the same. Is that correct so far? I don't think it's quite as simple as that. Suppose, considering your WMS example, two separate companies provide identical services: A) The first service uses massive processor power to analyse a raw planet dump and provides the output directly. Perhaps a larger company such as Google might take this approach. B) The second uses some algorithms and optimisations that involve creating a derived database, but results in exactly the same output as service A. Perhaps, a smaller company such as Geofabrik might take this approach. Let's assume that neither company voluntarily publishes any information about their methods. On what basis can you demand from company B that they release their intermediate database? You don't know (for sure) that they have an intermediate database. The ODbL doesn't give you any rights to ask company A to warrant that they are not using an intermediate database. What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database is involved in the process? 80n To use a simple example, let's say I build a WMS that works with OSM data. To make this perform well at low zooms, I have to combine ways into longer bits and simplify their geometry. The result is clearly a derived database that falls under the above, and in practice I would probably choose the a route and simply make a weekly PostGIS dump available for download and be done with it. However, I wonder about the permitted ways of doing (c). I guess it would probably permitted to specify a number of PostGIS commands that achieve the changes. - Let us assume for a moment that applying these PostGIS commands would require a machine with 192 GB of RAM and Quad Quadcore processors and still take two weeks to complete, putting it out of reach of many users. Would it still be permitted to do that? Or, would it be allowable to say: For simplification, a Douglas-Peucker algorithm link to DP wikipedia entry is used. (leaving open the exact implementation and parametrisation of DP - bear in mind that with some algorithms, how they work is easily explained but implementing them in a way that runs on standard hardware may be a hard task). Or, would it be allowed to say: For simplification, just load the data set into name of horribly expensive proprietary ESRI program and hit Ctrl-S X Y, then choose Export to PostGIS? What about: For simplification, we did the following steps: detailed instructions that are easy to follow. These steps in this sequence are patented by us, so if you want to follow them, please apply to us for a license to use our patent. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, OdbL has this requirement where, if you publish a produced work based on a derived database, you also have to publish either (a) the derived database or (b) a diff allowing someone to arrive at the derived database if he has the original, publicly available database or (c) an algorithm that does the same. Is that correct so far? you don't have to publish any of these. the language used is that you have to offer these things, which means you don't have to be able to host these things. for example, sending a DVD through the post is in compliance with the license. also, these things have to be in a machine readable form. I guess it would probably permitted to specify a number of PostGIS commands that achieve the changes. - Let us assume for a moment that applying these PostGIS commands would require a machine with 192 GB of RAM and Quad Quadcore processors and still take two weeks to complete, putting it out of reach of many users. Would it still be permitted to do that? yes. Or, would it be allowable to say: For simplification, a Douglas-Peucker algorithm link to DP wikipedia entry is used. (leaving open the exact implementation and parametrisation of DP - bear in mind that with some algorithms, how they work is easily explained but implementing them in a way that runs on standard hardware may be a hard task). no, i don't believe this would constitute machine readable form. Or, would it be allowed to say: For simplification, just load the data set into name of horribly expensive proprietary ESRI program and hit Ctrl-S X Y, then choose Export to PostGIS? i think this would constitute technological measures of restriction, so i think you'd need to provide a parallel distribution of the full unrestricted output. What about: For simplification, we did the following steps: detailed instructions that are easy to follow. These steps in this sequence are patented by us, so if you want to follow them, please apply to us for a license to use our patent. again, i think this would constitute technological measures, and would require a parallel unrestricted distribution. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On what basis can you demand from company B that they release their intermediate database? You don't know (for sure) that they have an intermediate database. The ODbL doesn't give you any rights to ask company A to warrant that they are not using an intermediate database. company B is required, under the ODbL, to provide an offer of their derived database (or a diff, etc...). What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database is involved in the process? if you suspect that someone is using a derived database, and isn't making an offer of it, you are suspecting that they are in breach of the ODbL. this can be tested by asking the company and, if they don't provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow. this is similar to the AGPL. if you suspected that someone was distributing or allowing users [to] interact[...] remotely through a computer network with a derivative version of AGPL'd code, you could ask them where the corresponding offer is and, if they don't provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On what basis can you demand from company B that they release their intermediate database? You don't know (for sure) that they have an intermediate database. The ODbL doesn't give you any rights to ask company A to warrant that they are not using an intermediate database. company B is required, under the ODbL, to provide an offer of their derived database (or a diff, etc...). What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database is involved in the process? if you suspect that someone is using a derived database, and isn't making an offer of it, you are suspecting that they are in breach of the ODbL. this can be tested by asking the company and, if they don't provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow. Exactly. On what grounds would you suspect that either company was using a derived database? this is similar to the AGPL. if you suspected that someone was distributing or allowing users [to] interact[...] remotely through a computer network with a derivative version of AGPL'd code, you could ask them where the corresponding offer is and, if they don't provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:30 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database is involved in the process? if you suspect that someone is using a derived database, and isn't making an offer of it, you are suspecting that they are in breach of the ODbL. this can be tested by asking the company and, if they don't provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow. Exactly. On what grounds would you suspect that either company was using a derived database? by whatever grounds you'd suspect that a company was providing services based on AGPL software, or distributing a binary incorporating GPL software - gut instinct ;-) In the scenario I described you'd have no grounds for suspicion. let's assume it's known that this company is definitely using OSM data - determining that can be difficult, depending on exactly what it is they're doing with the data. in general, it's very difficult to do anything directly from the planet file alone, so i'd suspect that any company doing anything with OSM data has a derived database of some kind and, if there's no offer evident on their site, i'd contact them about it. You're going to do that for every single organisation that publishes some kind of OSM data?!! Good luck. it's a similar situation to looking at a site and thinking they're using OSM data to render a map, without respecting the license. it's entirely possible that they have some other data source, or have collected the data themselves. so it's a gut instinct whether or not you think any of the data has come from OSM and should be followed up. Not at all. The lack of attribution is self evident. A derived database is not at all evident. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:20 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:30 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database is involved in the process? if you suspect that someone is using a derived database, and isn't making an offer of it, you are suspecting that they are in breach of the ODbL. this can be tested by asking the company and, if they don't provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow. Exactly. On what grounds would you suspect that either company was using a derived database? by whatever grounds you'd suspect that a company was providing services based on AGPL software, or distributing a binary incorporating GPL software - gut instinct ;-) In the scenario I described you'd have no grounds for suspicion. yes. and you'd have no grounds for suspicion if a company were using modified AGPL software, so you have to rely on gut instinct. let's assume it's known that this company is definitely using OSM data - determining that can be difficult, depending on exactly what it is they're doing with the data. in general, it's very difficult to do anything directly from the planet file alone, so i'd suspect that any company doing anything with OSM data has a derived database of some kind and, if there's no offer evident on their site, i'd contact them about it. You're going to do that for every single organisation that publishes some kind of OSM data?!! Good luck. no, i'm going to assume that most organisations and are going to read the license and abide by it, the same way they'd read and abide by any other open source/content license. it's a similar situation to looking at a site and thinking they're using OSM data to render a map, without respecting the license. it's entirely possible that they have some other data source, or have collected the data themselves. so it's a gut instinct whether or not you think any of the data has come from OSM and should be followed up. Not at all. The lack of attribution is self evident. A derived database is not at all evident. company A: publishing a map with no attribution, but it's at least partly derived from OSM. company B: publishing a map with no attribution and it's all their own data. a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data isn't. you have no grounds for suspicion, but you might have a gut instinct. what do you do? cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:03 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data isn't. you have no grounds for suspicion, but you might have a gut instinct. what do you do? If you have no grounds for suspicion then you do nothing. But checking the Easter Eggs is a pretty good method of establishing grounds in your example. That doesn't hold true for the derived databases in my scenario. are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the on the ground rule? ;-) it isn't a good method of establishing grounds if the data may have been modified by the inclusion of 3rd party data, or processed in a way which would change the visual texture of the data. basically, while sometimes you can be sure there's a derivative database or that data is from OSM, a lot of times you can't be. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:03 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data isn't. you have no grounds for suspicion, but you might have a gut instinct. what do you do? If you have no grounds for suspicion then you do nothing. But checking the Easter Eggs is a pretty good method of establishing grounds in your example. That doesn't hold true for the derived databases in my scenario. are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the on the ground rule? ;-) The two are not mutually exclusive. Ordnance Survey are well known for having very accurate maps, they are also known to have easter eggs. it isn't a good method of establishing grounds if the data may have been modified by the inclusion of 3rd party data, or processed in a way which would change the visual texture of the data. basically, while sometimes you can be sure there's a derivative database or that data is from OSM, a lot of times you can't be. I think you've lost the thread. Now, you are arguing that you can't spot a derivative database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
Hi, Matt Amos wrote: let's assume it's known that this company is definitely using OSM data - determining that can be difficult, depending on exactly what it is they're doing with the data. in general, it's very difficult to do anything directly from the planet file alone, so i'd suspect that any company doing anything with OSM data has a derived database of some kind and, if there's no offer evident on their site, i'd contact them about it. I think it would be great to have some standardised declaration form that we could point people to. Not something that people are forced to use, but something they *can* use as an easy way to help them play by the terms of the license if they want. Something like this: -- This site publicly uses data derived from OpenStreetMap. Description of derived data: ... [ ] We are making the derived data available [ ] here: ... in the following format: . on a regular basis, licensed under the ODbL. [ ] on request; please contact .. [ ] We are making a diff file available that allows you to arrie at the derived data if you have a recent OpenStreetMap database, [ ] here: in the following format: . on a regular basis, licensed under the ODbL. [ ] on request; please contact .. [ ] We are providing a machine-readable description of the algorithm used to arrive at the derived data, [ ] here: [ ] on request; please contact .. -- Another idea, again entirely voluntarily, would be to set up a register of organisations using OpenStreetMap data, where they could create an account and make the above declarations. If we sell that well, with a wizard kind of user interface that guides them through their obligations regarding ODbL, then many people would probably use it because it makes everything simpler for them. The über cool thing about this is that we'd get a list of OSM-using people for free ;-) Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
Hi, 80n wrote: I think you've lost the thread. Now, you are arguing that you can't spot a derivative database. My original question was aiming at whether or not there are ways to weasel yourself out of the requirement release derivative databases or the algorithms leading to them. I think we have now established that whenever you do something with OSM data that involves a derivative database, but just to make things simpler for you and not as an absolutely necessary component, then nobody can prove that you are using a derivative database, and nobody has a legal right to challenge you for an explanation - it's your business secret. People can write to you and ask; and if you don't reply (or reply that you don't use a derivative database) all they can do is sue you for breach of license and hope that the judicial process finds out the truth. It is not such a big difference from what we have today. Even with Easter Eggs and all, I can never prove beyond doubt that someone is using OSM, I can only collect evidence and then ask a court to clear things up. But it is probably easier to collect that type of evidence than to collect evidence for someone having a secret derived database. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think we have now established that whenever you do something with OSM data that involves a derivative database, but just to make things simpler for you and not as an absolutely necessary component, then nobody can prove that you are using a derivative database, and nobody has a legal right to challenge you for an explanation - it's your business secret. Where does one draw the line between a Derivative Database, a Collective Database, and a Produced Work anyway? Can a Produced Work also be a Derivative Database? If not, which definition overrides the other? An image qualifies under the definition of Database, does it not? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Where does one draw the line between a Derivative Database, a Collective Database, and a Produced Work anyway? Can a Produced Work also be a Derivative Database? If not, which definition overrides the other? An image qualifies under the definition of Database, does it not? What about a collection of rendered tiles. That's gotta be a Derivative Database, doesn't it? It's definitely not a Collective Database. The individual tiles are Produced Works, but the collection of tiles is a database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
Hi, Anthony wrote: Where does one draw the line between a Derivative Database, a Collective Database, and a Produced Work anyway? Part of the answer is, in almost salomonic fashion, here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline There's also tons of discussions about this on the lists which i suggest you could read, e.g. start from http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-July/002673.html Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:45 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the on the ground rule? ;-) The two are not mutually exclusive. Ordnance Survey are well known for having very accurate maps, they are also known to have easter eggs. sure. but each easter egg is a deliberate inaccuracy. it isn't a good method of establishing grounds if the data may have been modified by the inclusion of 3rd party data, or processed in a way which would change the visual texture of the data. basically, while sometimes you can be sure there's a derivative database or that data is from OSM, a lot of times you can't be. I think you've lost the thread. Now, you are arguing that you can't spot a derivative database. i've been arguing that from the start. not only have i been saying it's difficult to tell if there's a derivative database, i've been saying it's the same difficulty as telling if a map is derived from OSM, or if a binary contains modified GPL code, or if a service is using modified AGPL code. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:45 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the on the ground rule? ;-) The two are not mutually exclusive. Ordnance Survey are well known for having very accurate maps, they are also known to have easter eggs. sure. but each easter egg is a deliberate inaccuracy. it isn't a good method of establishing grounds if the data may have been modified by the inclusion of 3rd party data, or processed in a way which would change the visual texture of the data. basically, while sometimes you can be sure there's a derivative database or that data is from OSM, a lot of times you can't be. I think you've lost the thread. Now, you are arguing that you can't spot a derivative database. i've been arguing that from the start. not only have i been saying it's difficult to tell if there's a derivative database, i've been saying it's the same difficulty as telling if a map is derived from OSM, or if a binary contains modified GPL code, or if a service is using modified AGPL code. It's clearly not the same difficulty. And the point of this is that it's going to be almost impossible to detect a derived database in use. You said yourself that you'd just assume that anyone processing OSM data would be presumed to be using a derived database. The example I described above clearly demonstrates that you can't differentiate between company A who doesn't use a derived database and company B who does. You counter example, that maps are just as difficult is hardly relevant, and incorrect anyway. In most cases you can detect the infringment because you would have the evidence in front of you. The reality is that the derived database rule is almost unenforceable in the way that you describe it. It would be a massive drain on OSMF resources to try enforcing such a policy and would certainly be a very strong case for many commercial companies to avoid OSM data like the plague. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
