Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Who is the licensor / whose database is it?
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Iván Sánchez Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Temporary files (or information arranged in memory) in your computer are considered databases, so I'd go with option 1. To be protectec under the database directive, you need to make a significant investment for the database to be protected. You also need to be a citizen of a EU or EEA country. IANAL (could a lawyer please explain whu we keep saying this?) - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Who is the licensor / whose database is it?
Hi, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: A *database* is a bunch of stuff in my computer's RAM. *Any* stuff at all. It need not even be in your computer's RAM. And not everything in your computer's RAM is a database (it needs to have been arranged systematically or methodically). Database *protection* is granted only to DBs that have had a subtantial investment on them. That's how I read it too. - I did not invest much time while drawing these two pub nodes in $EDITOR, but I'll only upload them if you slap a ODbL to them the moment they are integrated in the main DB. That was what I meant with the number 3 in my original post, yes ;-) 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] ODbL: Who is the licensor / whose database is it?
Hi, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: El Miércoles, 10 de Diciembre de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribió: 1. Each mapper has his own database, of which he makes a copy available to OSM under ODbL which then creates a derived database. In that case, of course, each mapper is a licensor, and OSM is a giant work derived from many individual databases. Yep. Temporary files (or information arranged in memory) in your computer are considered databases, so I'd go with option 1. Even for someone who edits using Potlatch? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Who is the licensor / whose database is it?
El Jueves, 11 de Diciembre de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribió: Temporary files (or information arranged in memory) in your computer are considered databases, so I'd go with option 1. Even for someone who edits using Potlatch? IMHO, yes. Heck, I'd even hold that a data array of any kind held in RAM qualifies as a database. Not just because it's an array, but because somebody decided what goes into that array and in which way. Did somebody have to mindfully click-click-click-click to enter data in potlach? Database. (Of course, this is only my opinion) Cheers, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Who is the licensor / whose database is it?
Hi, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: El Jueves, 11 de Diciembre de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribió: Temporary files (or information arranged in memory) in your computer are considered databases, so I'd go with option 1. Even for someone who edits using Potlatch? IMHO, yes. Heck, I'd even hold that a data array of any kind held in RAM qualifies as a database. Not just because it's an array, but because somebody decided what goes into that array and in which way. But the database directive does not extend protection to each and every database; there has to be substantial investment in obtaining, verifying or presenting the contents. Now while I can just about see the substantial investment in getting out on a rainy day and collecting 50 road geometries with your GPS, there can be absolutely no doubt that entering the name of the pub around the corner will never come under substantial investment... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Who is the licensor / whose database is it?
Hi, there is another open question concerning the implementation of the planned ODbL. To recap, the ODbL/FDL Duo will acknowledge that the individual data items are not subject to copyright, but as a database they are protected. The question is: Where is the database created and who is, therefore, the licensor? In our current (faulty) assumption about CC-BY-SA, we say that a copyrighted work is created by the mapper who then licenses it under CC-BY-SA and allows OpenStreetMap (as well as anybody else) to use it. OSM does not have a special position in this construct; OSM is just one of many potential users of that mapper's CC-BY-SA licensed data. OSM collects and merges many CC-BY-SA licensed bits of data but so might anybody else. Ownership and copyright remains with the original author. In the future, legal protection will only arise from the fact that the data is part of a larger whole, where non-trivial work has been done to create that whole. The database directive assigns ownership of the whole to whoever has done the work to assemble and arrange the data in the database. I can see three possible interpretations: 1. Each mapper has his own database, of which he makes a copy available to OSM under ODbL which then creates a derived database. In that case, of course, each mapper is a licensor, and OSM is a giant work derived from many individual databases. 2. Each mapper only has an unprotected pile of data items which he uploads to OSM without any license; only by incorporating it into OSM is the database created, and the OSM Foundation as the operator of the servers on which all this happens is the creator of the database. OSMF is the sole licensor of OSM data, all database directive protection applies only to OSMF. 3. Each mapper only has an unprotected pile of data items which he uploads to OSM without any licens; only by incorporating it into OSM is the database created. In uploading his data, the mapper becomes a co-creator of the central database and he is entitled to protection from the database directive; however he has agreed not to exercise any rights arising from this co-creatorship as long as OSMF distributes the resulting database under ODbL. I am not sure if this is perfectly clear to everyone but these three options are vastly different and probably each carries along with it a wholly different bag of legal implications. Option 3, especially, would require a hitherto completely undiscussed sort of legal contract between the mapper and the operator of the database servers (I help you to create this big database, and I agree to do X/not to do Y as long as you publish the database under ODbL). Option 2 does not have such a contract between the mapper and the server operator, but basically assigns all database directive protection to the server operator (think the foundation taken over by Navteq carpetbaggers, rescinds ODbL, goes PD scenario). Option 1 does not have such a contract either, relying on the ODbL itself instead, but this only works if whatever the mapper hacks into JOSM/Potlatch can be construed to be a database in itself. I'm sure there are also options 1a, 2b, or 4, but I couldn't think of them right now. In my eyes this is an important topic to think about BEFORE selecting a license that is based on the database directive, not something that should be left for later as an implementation detail. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Who is the licensor / whose database is it?
Although option 3 as discussed above is likely the most legally fuzzy, it is also likely the most palatable to contributors. Landon On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, there is another open question concerning the implementation of the planned ODbL. To recap, the ODbL/FDL Duo will acknowledge that the individual data items are not subject to copyright, but as a database they are protected. The question is: Where is the database created and who is, therefore, the licensor? In our current (faulty) assumption about CC-BY-SA, we say that a copyrighted work is created by the mapper who then licenses it under CC-BY-SA and allows OpenStreetMap (as well as anybody else) to use it. OSM does not have a special position in this construct; OSM is just one of many potential users of that mapper's CC-BY-SA licensed data. OSM collects and merges many CC-BY-SA licensed bits of data but so might anybody else. Ownership and copyright remains with the original author. In the future, legal protection will only arise from the fact that the data is part of a larger whole, where non-trivial work has been done to create that whole. The database directive assigns ownership of the whole to whoever has done the work to assemble and arrange the data in the database. I can see three possible interpretations: 1. Each mapper has his own database, of which he makes a copy available to OSM under ODbL which then creates a derived database. In that case, of course, each mapper is a licensor, and OSM is a giant work derived from many individual databases. 2. Each mapper only has an unprotected pile of data items which he uploads to OSM without any license; only by incorporating it into OSM is the database created, and the OSM Foundation as the operator of the servers on which all this happens is the creator of the database. OSMF is the sole licensor of OSM data, all database directive protection applies only to OSMF. 3. Each mapper only has an unprotected pile of data items which he uploads to OSM without any licens; only by incorporating it into OSM is the database created. In uploading his data, the mapper becomes a co-creator of the central database and he is entitled to protection from the database directive; however he has agreed not to exercise any rights arising from this co-creatorship as long as OSMF distributes the resulting database under ODbL. I am not sure if this is perfectly clear to everyone but these three options are vastly different and probably each carries along with it a wholly different bag of legal implications. Option 3, especially, would require a hitherto completely undiscussed sort of legal contract between the mapper and the operator of the database servers (I help you to create this big database, and I agree to do X/not to do Y as long as you publish the database under ODbL). Option 2 does not have such a contract between the mapper and the server operator, but basically assigns all database directive protection to the server operator (think the foundation taken over by Navteq carpetbaggers, rescinds ODbL, goes PD scenario). Option 1 does not have such a contract either, relying on the ODbL itself instead, but this only works if whatever the mapper hacks into JOSM/Potlatch can be construed to be a database in itself. I'm sure there are also options 1a, 2b, or 4, but I couldn't think of them right now. In my eyes this is an important topic to think about BEFORE selecting a license that is based on the database directive, not something that should be left for later as an implementation detail. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
