Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Jonathan Harley wrote:
>On 03/02/11 14:23, Anthony wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley
>> wrote:
>>> OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests
>>> specifically mentions "Map data".
>>
>> Again, who wrote the license attribution request? Not me. In fact,
>> I'm not even sure what license attribution request you're talking
>> about. If you mean the one in the slippy map, I consider that to be
>> incorrect. The entire work must be CC-BY-SA, not just the data.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright - if you think it's incorrect,
> you should probably take that up with the OSMF, which is the publisher
> of www.openstreetmap.org (so one can assume that the website
> represents the OSMF's view).
You are, once again, misunderstanding.
The cited webpage says:
"If you are using OpenStreetMap map images, we request that your credit
reads at least '© OpenStreetMap contributors, CC-BY-SA'. If you are using
map data only, we request 'Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors,
CC-BY-SA'."
That is perfectly correct. If you build (say) your own rendering using OSM
map data, then only the map data is (c) OpenStreetMap contributors. The
added value of the rendering is not (c) OpenStreetMap contributors. OSM's
contributors can ask you to credit them in a particular way for the data,
and you have to maintain that in any credit given with the rendering, but
you may of course request your own credit for the added value. That is what
the above says.
However, the rendering _is_ still subject to CC-BY-SA. That is made
perfectly clear on the cited page ("If you... build upon our... data, you
may distribute the result only under the same licence"); in the CC
"human-readable" terms; and the CC legal code.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CC-BY-SA-Non-separatable-combination-of-OSM-other-tp5982104p5990496.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
The license doesn't even mention "data", and attribution is not enough. >>> >>> OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests >>> specifically mentions "Map data". >> >> Again, who wrote the license attribution request? Not me. In fact, >> I'm not even sure what license attribution request you're talking >> about. If you mean the one in the slippy map, I consider that to be >> incorrect. The entire work must be CC-BY-SA, not just the data. >> > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright - if you think it's incorrect, you > should probably take that up with the OSMF, which is the publisher of > www.openstreetmap.org (so one can assume that the website represents the > OSMF's view). OSMF is entitled to any view it wants. But OSMF does not own the OSM database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 03/02/11 14:23, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: On 03/02/11 04:21, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Harleywrote: I think we may have differing interpretations of the intent of the license. Mine is that the license is supposed to allow people to use the map in a variety of ways, online and in print, so long as any new data is open and OSM is attributed; not that it was intended to prevent people from creating works in which not all elements are free. I'm not sure where you're getting that "interpretation" from. I'm partly guided by the idea that the ODbL is supposed to provide a better expression of the same intent. I've always understood that the intent of the ODbL was not to change the spirit of OSM licensing, just to clarify it. Whose intent are we talking about, here? The OSMF, I suppose, since they're driving the change. The intent of some may have been to use CC-BY-SA as though it were not a copyleft license (*), but I seriously doubt that was the intention of most of us. (*) To wit, Cloudmade seems to use it that way. I assume you're referring to the fact that Cloudmade's tiles are not released as CC-BY-SA but "Copyright Cloudmade", which I take as evidence that simply rendering OSM's data is not considered altering, transforming, or building upon OSM. The license doesn't even mention "data", and attribution is not enough. OSM applies the license to data - the license attribution it requests specifically mentions "Map data". Again, who wrote the license attribution request? Not me. In fact, I'm not even sure what license attribution request you're talking about. If you mean the one in the slippy map, I consider that to be incorrect. The entire work must be CC-BY-SA, not just the data. http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright - if you think it's incorrect, you should probably take that up with the OSMF, which is the publisher of www.openstreetmap.org (so one can assume that the website represents the OSMF's view). Peter's right that 10 amateurs discussing interpretations isn't worth 1 legal professional. Depends who the amateurs are. The interpretation of a single legal professional is fairly worthless, unless you've paid that legal professional for advice. Absolutely. No doubt Cloudmade have done so, and Peter has said that he will do at some stage. If I ever want to publish non-PD data on top of an OSM map I will certainly do that too. Jonathan. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Peter Miller wrote: > The strict view expressed above by Frederick and others would mean that it > would be impossible to use osm mapping as a bacground for this crime data as > in the chart, 'Violent crime in the USA' unless the overlaid data was also > on an open licence or the crime data was to the side of the map. > http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2009/02/17/typical-crime-map-victimization/ Yes, that is the intent of the license (specifically, the "overlaid data" must be CC-BY-SA, not just "on an open license"). This is my intent when I license my works under the license. > And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless the > photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the map. > http://www.traffordlawcentre.org.uk/contact_us/contact.htm I would say that this is fine. > How about this map of the Isle of White overlaid with illustrations? > http://www.steve.shalfleet.net/ Whole thing must be CC-BY-SA. > Indeed anything overlaid on the map, or any other ccbysa image or photograph > would need to be on an open license if the strict interpretation was used. Yes, that certainly could be argued, and if you want to be safe, you should release it all under CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Hi, On 02/02/11 18:00, Peter Miller wrote: The strict view expressed above by Frederick and others would mean that it would be impossible to use osm mapping as a bacground for this crime data as in the chart, 'Violent crime in the USA' unless the overlaid data was also on an open licence or the crime data was to the side of the map. http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2009/02/17/typical-crime-map-victimization/ Yes. (In fact I presume the overlaid data is PD in this case so no problem.) And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless the photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the map. http://www.traffordlawcentre.org.uk/contact_us/contact.htm This is a funny example because you could conceivably cut out a corner from the map, then place the image where it is now... it is just about conceivable to make a copy of this map without copying the image so maybe this could work as a collection. How about this map of the Isle of White overlaid with illustrations? http://www.steve.shalfleet.net/ Certainly the whole map needs to by CC-BY-SA. We did have some pages with examples about this on our wiki, years ago. I remember the example was a tourist guide with maps and photos, and there were several cases where maps and photos (and text) were sometimes superimposed, sometimes side-by-side, and the whole thing was commented as to what is derived and what is collected. I cannot find it now, however. I think that in those examples, there was the concept of interaction and co-dependency - the question of "does the overlaid stuff work without the map". So if you carefully place your photo or illustration at a certain point in the map, and your photo or illustration would lose its meaning without the map, then it is clearly a derived work; but if your photo just sits there and could just as well sit there without the map, then it could be called a collection. This is not an interpretation I necessarily share and I'm not sure about the exact wording but it has something going for it. Indeed anything overlaid on the map, or any other ccbysa image or photograph would need to be on an open license if the strict interpretation was used. I don't think this interpretation is particularly strict. There have indeed been several people requesting that my OSM book be fully CC-BY-SA'ed because it contains OSM illustrations on some pages - *That* I call a strict reading (and one I clearly don't share). Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
Jonathan Harley wrote: > Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the > sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, > in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work > based on a database, ever. For print, yes, that's about the size of it. It illustrates that CC have a mountain to climb in making CC 4.0 relevant to databases, and I (genuinely) wish them luck. Electronically, you could perhaps layer one database (represented as pushpins, say) on top of another (represented as other pushpins, or a polyline, or even a map), in a separable way (e.g. layers can be switched off), and call it a collective work. OSM users have traditionally permitted this, but I believe Rob generally refers to it as a "consensual hallucination". :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CC-BY-SA-Non-separatable-combination-of-OSM-other-tp5982104p5985604.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
I have been following the discussion but have been in meetings today so haven't been able to contribute. I agree we can discuss at lenght what 'separable' and 'unmodified' mean as abstract concepts but, as usual with legal contracts, the words will be interpreted in a particular context. It is probably worth looking at some more real examples therefore, in addition to my legal forest boundary example. The strict view expressed above by Frederick and others would mean that it would be impossible to use osm mapping as a bacground for this crime data as in the chart, 'Violent crime in the USA' unless the overlaid data was also on an open licence or the crime data was to the side of the map. http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2009/02/17/typical-crime-map-victimization/ And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless the photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the map. http://www.traffordlawcentre.org.uk/contact_us/contact.htm How about this map of the Isle of White overlaid with illustrations? http://www.steve.shalfleet.net/ Indeed anything overlaid on the map, or any other ccbysa image or photograph would need to be on an open license if the strict interpretation was used. In my view any corrections or additions to the map of features represented on that map view belong in the DB, anything else can be used to create a collection. Regards, Peter On 2 February 2011 16:35, Jonathan Harley wrote: > On 02/02/11 16:15, Anthony wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Harley >> wrote: >> >>> I think Peter is right - as long as >>> the CC-BY[-SA] content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other >>> things to >>> form a collective work. The CC-BY[-SA] licenses do not say that they >>> still have >>> to be separate and independent after assembly, just before. >>> >> Maybe that's a loophole in the license. But if so, it's a pretty big one. >> >> What is meant by "content is unmodified"? Obviously the printed base >> map is going to be modified from the original database. So under your >> interpretation, the part about the content being unmodified either >> prohibits everything, or allows everything. Or is there some other >> interpretation for "content is unmodified" that you can think of? >> >> > I have assumed it refers to the geodata, which is unmodified unless you > start changing the latitudes and longitudes of points. That's the only > reading I can think of that makes any sense of the phrase "unmodified form" > in the context of map data (in fact, of any kind of data). > > Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of > having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there > could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. Is > that what you mean by prohibits everything or allows everything? It seems > clear to me that the CC licenses are attempting to allow stuff but impose > conditions, not to prohibit everything. > > Jonathan. > > > -- > Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd > > Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com > Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/11 16:15, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: I think Peter is right - as long as the CC-BY[-SA] content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other things to form a collective work. The CC-BY[-SA] licenses do not say that they still have to be separate and independent after assembly, just before. Maybe that's a loophole in the license. But if so, it's a pretty big one. What is meant by "content is unmodified"? Obviously the printed base map is going to be modified from the original database. So under your interpretation, the part about the content being unmodified either prohibits everything, or allows everything. Or is there some other interpretation for "content is unmodified" that you can think of? I have assumed it refers to the geodata, which is unmodified unless you start changing the latitudes and longitudes of points. That's the only reading I can think of that makes any sense of the phrase "unmodified form" in the context of map data (in fact, of any kind of data). Clearly no rendering of any map is going to be unmodified in the sense of having identical sequences of 0s and 1s to the database, in which case there could be no such thing as a collective work based on a database, ever. Is that what you mean by prohibits everything or allows everything? It seems clear to me that the CC licenses are attempting to allow stuff but impose conditions, not to prohibit everything. Jonathan. -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/11 15:59, Jonathan Harley wrote: By referring to a collective whole, it seems to me that the license is asserting that such a thing can exist. I think Peter is right - as long Oh I see, I didn't realise that's the wording of the licence. That's an unfortunate turn of phrase then. :-) I'll suggest it's changed for CC 4.0. 2.0 UK states: ""Collective Work" means the Work in its entirety in unmodified form along with a number of other separate and independent works" http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/uk/legalcode Flattened layers are not separate or independent. 2.0 unported gives some good examples of what is meant by a "collective work": ""Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia" http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode The examples are of discrete, spatially separated aggregations of separate entities. Flattened layers are unambiguously derivative works. as the CC-BY content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other things to form a collective work. The CC-BY licenses do not say that they still have to be separate and independent after assembly, just before. It says precisely that they must be unmodified, separate and independent after collection. Otherwise they are derivative works. Layers combined destructively (such as in print) are modified, and so are an adaptation. Firstly, the topmost layer is clearly unmodified by this kind of combination. The derived work that exists as a result of combining it with the underlying tiles makes it an adaptation as per UK BY-SA 2.0 1.c If a CC-BY tile is below the top layer, then yes, you could argue that it is either modified, or no longer being used whole, by parts of it being hidden. But if we're talking about using OSM data, I do argue that, and it is the case. But I also argue that it is being combined with other material to create a derivative work, rather than placed alongside it to make a collective work. In either case it is an adaptation and therefore a Derivative Work. which is made up of points, as long as they're unmodified before "assembly" - ie rendering - then I still think it's a collective work But the rendering of those points, as a derivative of them, is under BY-SA. and only has to be attributed, not restricted to the same license. If it was a collective work then yes. ODbL is much clearer about this, but has this same effect - produced works have to be attributed but it doesn't attempt to force a license on them, only on the database they came from. ODbL is explicitly a database copyleft. It does "force" a licence on the producers of produced works, and the attribution is "forced" on the produced works as a way of advertising this. (IANAL, TINLA). - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Harley wrote: > I think Peter is right - as long as > the CC-BY[-SA] content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other things to > form a collective work. The CC-BY[-SA] licenses do not say that they still > have > to be separate and independent after assembly, just before. Maybe that's a loophole in the license. But if so, it's a pretty big one. What is meant by "content is unmodified"? Obviously the printed base map is going to be modified from the original database. So under your interpretation, the part about the content being unmodified either prohibits everything, or allows everything. Or is there some other interpretation for "content is unmodified" that you can think of? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other
On 02/02/11 13:21, Rob Myers wrote: On 02/01/2011 06:17 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Peter says that I would consider the proposed resulting work to be 'two or more distinct, separate and independent works selected and arranged into a collective whole with the ccbysa content being used in an entirely unmodified form'. If it's a whole then by definition it's not a collection (a "mere aggregation"). By referring to a collective whole, it seems to me that the license is asserting that such a thing can exist. I think Peter is right - as long as the CC-BY content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other things to form a collective work. The CC-BY licenses do not say that they still have to be separate and independent after assembly, just before. Layers combined destructively (such as in print) are modified, and so are an adaptation. Firstly, the topmost layer is clearly unmodified by this kind of combination. If a CC-BY tile is below the top layer, then yes, you could argue that it is either modified, or no longer being used whole, by parts of it being hidden. But if we're talking about using OSM data, which is made up of points, as long as they're unmodified before "assembly" - ie rendering - then I still think it's a collective work and only has to be attributed, not restricted to the same license. ODbL is much clearer about this, but has this same effect - produced works have to be attributed but it doesn't attempt to force a license on them, only on the database they came from. Jonathan (not-a-lawyer, but a user-of-lawyers) -- Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
