Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: I have said consistently that the Australian section of the map stands to lose an enormous amount of data in a change to ODbL. This is a strawman argument. If - and I really mean if - If we had to remove the Australian coastline, then we can get another version with very little effort. It's really not the big issue that it might seem. We managed for the rest of the planet, and there's nothing special about the Australian coastline. The accuracy of the coastline from ABS data compared to the previous PGS coastline is the reason that mappers have remade the coastline from the newer data. You are suggesting that we revert to the old coastline. Perhaps we prefer the vastly more accurate one we obtained from the Australian government. It is certainly not a straw argument. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Liz wrote: Anything this contrived and complex that the potential users can't sort it out fails the usability test. There are only three possible data licences that aren't complex: 1. You may do anything you like with the data. (=PD) 2. You may do anything you like with the data. We ask you to be nice and credit us, and to release any data you mix up with it. (=PD + Science Commons-like community norms) 3. This data is for your own personal use only. Anything else, you have to ask us. Sign on the dotted line to consent to this contract, and we'll let you access the data. (=proprietary) Anything else has to be complex in order to apply across wildly different jurisdictions. There ain't no Berne Convention for data and there is remarkably little case law, especially relating to a database with so many authors. You simply cannot write an open data licence which is legally enforceable the world over without some complexity. It's not ODbL's fault - it's the inevitable result of the OSM community not managing to agree to 1 or 2. There are levels of complexity, though. CC-BY-SA would be much more straightforward here, as there is no requirement to release anything you don't want to release. If I were advising that public transport operator I'd recommend they fork off a CC-BY-SA version of the database. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
On 09/07/2010, at 12:24 AM, Matt Amos wrote: I agree with Andy. This is what I understand the ODbL to be saying. Unfortunately, as with any legal text, its difficult to read and this is an unavoidable consequence of the legal system. If you need interpretation of the license, new or old, the best route may be to consult a lawyer. Consult a lawyer with the caveat that what they tell you may only apply to the one jurisdiction. While they can tell you whether you're likely to be able to do or not do[0] something, it's harder for them to tell you whether other people can/can't do something in a different legal environment. [0] as far as lawyers can advise about things, without being tested in court it's just an (obviously educated) estimate of your chances. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
Liz wrote: I am campaigning, actively for no change. Please do not ask me to change my opinion. I have said consistently that the Australian section of the map stands to lose an enormous amount of data in a change to ODbL. So let's say Australia wants to stick with CC licences because most of your data is imported and you reckon it's not relicensable under ODbL.[1] And let's say Europe wants to move to ODbL because CC isn't valid for data in most of Europe and most of our data is surveyed. That sounds like a fork to me. Cheerio. cheers Richard [1] I'm 100% confident that CC-BY data can be included within ODbL; the only question is whether the Contributor Terms allow individual mappers to contribute it to OSM. But that's a well-hashed debate by now. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-public-transport-routing-and-OSM-ODbL-tp5265671p5274050.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] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
Hi, Oliver (skobbler) wrote: Sure, any Derivative Database that is made available to a 3rd party falls under the share-alike. No doubt about that. This handled in section 4.4. The exceptions are handled in the following section 4.5. In case of your Produced Work, you make the Produced Work available to a 3rd party and not the Derived Database on which the Produced Work is based. This constitutes a public use of the derived database and triggers share-alike for the derived database. There is no exception. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Oliver (skobbler) wrote: But if you make a produced work (actually, if you publicly use said produced work), then the derived database must be shared in any case (4.4a and 4.4c). I think I you are right with the only limitation that the sharing is covered in 4.6 whereas 4.4 and 4.5 relate to the license that needs to be combined with DB. I have to admit that my interpretation seems to be wrong as I also thought that 4.4. and 4.5. were dealing with sharing while the actually sharing or obligation to offer the database is handled in 4.6. 4.6 Access to Derivative Databases. If You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a machine readable form of: a. The entire Derivative Database; or I read this and thought if we have people who have had lots of time to think about this proposed licence change come to differing opinions on rather basic questions of how we can use the data once its been put under this new licence well who understands what it is good for? Anything this contrived and complex that the potential users can't sort it out fails the usability test. Liz ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
2. If you manage to do your pre-processing in a way that only mixes your static network data with OSM, resulting in a data structure that contains information like transit from stop X to stop Y possible for these types of vehicles and so on, and then your router process, upon startup, reads this file plus another file with all the schedule data, then you can get away with only releasing the static network file. Wouldn't in this case the Fairhurst doctrine apply? [1] Regards, Oliver [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Metadata_Layers_-_Guideline -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-public-transport-routing-and-OSM-ODbL-tp5265671p5270065.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] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
I agree with Andy. This is what I understand the ODbL to be saying. Unfortunately, as with any legal text, its difficult to read and this is an unavoidable consequence of the legal system. If you need interpretation of the license, new or old, the best route may be to consult a lawyer. Cheers, Matt On Jul 8, 2010 10:18 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Oliver (skobbler) osm.oliver.ku...@gmx.de wrote: Hi Frederick,... Either you mis-spoke in this sentence, or you are wrong with this assertion. If you have a derived database, and make a produced work, you are required to make the derived database available under the ODbL. That's practically the whole point of the ODbL! Section 4.5b, which amongst other things is a classic could do with some scoping parenthesis piece of legalese, is only clarifying that if the produced work is made up from a collective database, e.g. (derived + some other db) =produced work then the collective db is not considered derived - i.e. the some-other-db can stay non-ODbL licensed. But if you make a produced work (actually, if you publicly use said produced work), then the derived database must be shared in any case (4.4a and 4.4c). As for Frederik's initial question, part 1. is unavoidably share-alike as soon as the produced work is publicly used. Part 2 I'll leave for others. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.or... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
Hi Frederick, However, in terms of ODbL the route description they produce will be a produced work which is based on a database derived from OSM a derivative database that is only used to create a Produced Work is excluded from the share-alike: 4.5 Limits of Share Alike. The requirements of Section 4.4 (Share-alike, remark Oliver) do not apply in the following: a. [..] b. Using this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database to create a Produced Work does not create a Derivative Database for purposes of Section 4.4; and Regards, Oliver -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-public-transport-routing-and-OSM-ODbL-tp5265671p5267171.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] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
Hi, Oliver (skobbler) wrote: a derivative database that is only used to create a Produced Work is excluded from the share-alike: 4.5 Limits of Share Alike. The requirements of Section 4.4 (Share-alike, remark Oliver) do not apply in the following: a. [..] b. Using this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database to create a Produced Work does not create a Derivative Database for purposes of Section 4.4; and No, I believe you misread that (but would appreciate a third set of eyeballs on this). The sentence you quoted means: The act of using a derivative database (or this database, or this database as part of a collective database) for the creation of a produced work does not in itself create a derivative database. I.e. simply using some database to create a produced work does not somehow magically create a derivative database which you would have to share. For example if you use the planet file to create a produced work, you are not automatically creating a derivative database. However if you explicitly make a derivative database for the purpose of creating a produced work - and this is what would happen in my scenario - the full force of 4.4c, A Derivative Database is Publicly Used and so must comply with Section 4.4. if a Produced Work created from the Derivative Database is Publicly Used. and then 4.4a, Any Derivative Database that You Publicly Use must be only under the terms of: i. This License; ii. A later version of this License similar in spirit to this License; or iii. A compatible license. There is no doubt in my mind that the derived database on which the routing is based *must* be shared. Your interpretation of 4.5b would effectively render 4.4c completely useless. 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
[OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
Hi, I talked to a public transport operator today. They want to build a routing engine for their network with special focus on accessibility (e.g. taking into account that if you have a certain type of wheelchair you may perhaps not be able to reach bus stop X from your starting point and rather need to use bus stop Y, or a certain changeover is unsuitable if you're blind and you'd better use something else etc.). Because there's an endless list of things that might affect accessibility, they would like to use OSM data for that, so that their users can fix things themselves. They have no problem releasing information about their halts/stops and their route network, but what they want to keep private is their schedule database, i.e. which bus stop or underground station is serviced by which line when. I would really like to find a way to make this possible because it would be a brilliant application of OSM data (and nobody in OSM is interested in when a bus calls at a station anyway). However, in terms of ODbL the route description they produce will be a produced work which is based on a database derived from OSM, so they will have to release that database. It is probably going to be very painful to try and separate OSM data from their schedule data. Would you agree with me when I say: 1. If you have a pre-processing step that mixes your schedule data with OSM data and then something else that does routing on the resulting data set, you will have to release it all. 2. If you manage to do your pre-processing in a way that only mixes your static network data with OSM, resulting in a data structure that contains information like transit from stop X to stop Y possible for these types of vehicles and so on, and then your router process, upon startup, reads this file plus another file with all the schedule data, then you can get away with only releasing the static network file. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
