Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Frederik Ramm wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: It only says you must also _offer_ to recipients (my emphasis), not you must provide in case anyone wants it - it's like the GPL in that regard. So you don't have to upload a new dump of the whole derivative db (or a diff of your changes) every time you update with a minute diff; you could simply write e-mail me here for a copy and supply it on demand. And batch those requests and process them once a week? If that is deemed acceptable we should write it down somewhere. Because I can *just* see someone trying out what happens if he sends you one request per minute ;-) I don't think we should be too prescriptive about that. The definition of reasonable may well vary in different jurisdictions, and while I can see someone deciding to see what happens if you make one request per minute, I can't see them taking it to court. ISTM that more important than the reasonable minimum time for requests, is what is the reasonable MAXIMUM time for requests? How long after publishing my hypothetical local newsletter must I maintain the data I used for it, and the address I published for requests to be sent to, which I probably rent from my current ISP? Since I own my electronically readable database, shouldn't I be allowed to delete all copies of it if I want to? Isn't there a reasonable case that I should be allowed to do this, and become exempt from providing anyone who asks with a copy of my data? Clearly, being mandated to maintain copies of any derived works (just in case someone asks for a copy) at one's own expense, makes using OSM data *not free*. Jonathan. -- . Dr Jonathan Harley . . Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zac Parkplatz Ltd . Office Telephone: 024 7633 1375 www.parkplatz.net . Mobile: 079 4116 0423 ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Jonathan Harley wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: It only says you must also _offer_ to recipients (my emphasis), not you must provide in case anyone wants it - it's like the GPL in that regard. So you don't have to upload a new dump of the whole derivative db (or a diff of your changes) every time you update with a minute diff; you could simply write e-mail me here for a copy and supply it on demand. And batch those requests and process them once a week? If that is deemed acceptable we should write it down somewhere. Because I can *just* see someone trying out what happens if he sends you one request per minute ;-) I don't think we should be too prescriptive about that. The definition of reasonable may well vary in different jurisdictions, and while I can see someone deciding to see what happens if you make one request per minute, I can't see them taking it to court. veers off on a tangent A propos of this general discussion, I wonder if the best solution would be to admit a freely-available program - e.g. osm2pgsql - as a valid diff. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Tim Waters (chippy) wrote: On 10/11/08, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, I wouldn't dispute that it's healthy. I would just observe that perceived failings may actually not have been failings for several months. As I said it would be good, very good indeed, to get the new licence published - a lot of this has already been addressed, and thus it's ultimately wasted effort which could productively be spent on finding the failings with the _current_ draft. So do we have the new licence? Do we have the current draft? Where has this been addressed? What has been the results? How is what we are talking about wasted effort? Are you saying we shouldn't discuss things until we see the current licence? Isn't this what was happening before this discussion started? People saying oh, who knows! It's all up in the air! Do we, as a community, by discussing these things, have no influence on the direction of the future of OSM? Has everything been decided already by the OSMF? Goodness me, that's an enormously confrontational-sounding posting, and, er, utterly wrong to boot. I thought I'd made it clear, but in nice bullet points (remembering that I am no longer on OSMF, because I didn't have the time it merited, and I didn't want to continue slowing down the fine bunch of people who are on it): * I would like OSMF to publish the current licence * I say 'wasted effort' only because I know things are being agonised over which _have_ already been sorted (by Steve, Andy and me when working with Jordan last year) * This is why I would like OSMF to publish the licence, so that people can apply their minds to the things that still need sorting, not to the things that have already been sorted * I am not saying you shouldn't discuss things, or we as a community have no influence, or anyt of that, I am saying OSMF should publish the licence * IMHO OSMF should publish the licence cheers Richard P.S. did I mention something about publishing the licence? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On 10/12/08, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Goodness me, that's an enormously confrontational-sounding posting, Whoops, it was meant to be more controversial than confrontational. * I would like OSMF to publish the current licence * IMHO OSMF should publish the licence e.t.c Publish the licence +1 If things have been sorted and addressed, then please tell us! If things haven't been sorted and addressed, then tell us and we can continue debating use cases about avant-garde performance artists. (I've a couple ready in draft) ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
I have updated the wiki 'brief' to reflect a number of issues raised in the past few days. 1) I have removed all references to 'public' in the brief and now ensure that Derived Database are distributed at least as widely as the end-user experience itself and that others are free to distribute it more widely. 2) I have added a clause to clarify that automatically processing the dataset into a new form not in itself constitute the creation of a derived DB and that the original DB can be used if preferred. 3) I have added clarification that the derived DB should be provided in a suitable form and by a suitable means to allow it to be use by a 'competent person'. I hope this captures the issues about having any derived DB usable without unduly restricting access to the contents by the form, structure of the data or means while available tying us into any current technology. 4) I have added a clause about providing a differential dataset together with access details for the main dataset. The licence page is available here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License Btw, can someone provide a link for a primer to the requirements for 'DSFG-compliance' Thanks, Peter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst Sent: 11 October 2008 00:18 To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM Simon Ward wrote: It shouldn't be about specifically contributing back to OSM. Ivan has already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Could I please ask that you wait for the current licence to be published - and, if necessary, lobby for it to be so - before complaining that it fails DFSG, or in fact any of the other points under discussion. One of my objectives when I was working with Jordan, and other OSMF members, on the licence was that it would be DSFG-compliant. Now we may well have failed but at the moment this whole discussion is bonkers hypothetical - people are levelling accusations at a licence that they haven't even seen. I didn't submit myself for re-election to OSMF this year, so I can't do what I'd like to and just post the licence right here, right now. I have suggested that it be published and eagerly await OSMF doing so. Maybe others would like to suggest the same. However - and with the proviso there may be a host of little niggles of comparatively little import - I do think it's a seriously good, well-considered licence. I am trying to restrain myself from replying to any of the other 9876 messages in this thread because It Has All Been Said Before. cheers Richard ___ 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] Paid services from OSM
Richard Fairhurst wrote: I am trying to restrain myself from replying to any of the other 9876 messages in this thread because It Has All Been Said Before. Me too. ;-) - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:17:50AM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote: It shouldn’t be about specifically contributing back to OSM. Ivan has already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Could I please ask that you wait for the current licence to be published - and, if necessary, lobby for it to be so - before complaining that it fails DFSG, or in fact any of the other points under discussion. My responses in this thread have been in response to Peter Miller’s clarifications for the brief brief of the requirements for the new licence (and successive messages putting various points across). I cannot comment on the new licence because I haven’t seen it. I have only the old draft to go on, but that’s a moot point because I was commenting on the brief. _I_ think this discussion is healthy, and will give people ideas on what to look out for when the licence is released. 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] Paid services from OSM
Dair Grant wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: b. A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database offered under this Licence, including any additional Data, that make up all the differences between the Database and the Derivative Database. Assuming I choose option (b), how does this work if the alterations are all subtractions? [...] But it does seem a bit like jumping through hoops, when it would be simpler to say I truncated all coordinates to 4 decimal places or even the DD is a subset of the information in version X of the D, and here's a copy of that. IMO (and insert all the other abbreviations here), I truncated all coordinates to 4 decimal places is a valid diff. If people want to get pissy about machine readable, then supply the diff as a Perl script which comprises some XML parsing and a load of sprintf. ;) cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Richard Fairhurst wrote: 4.6 Access to Derivative Databases. If You publicly Use a Derivative Database You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database a copy in a machine readable form of: a. The entire Derivative Database; or b. A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database offered under this Licence, including any additional Data, that make up all the differences between the Database and the Derivative Database. Assuming I choose option (b), how does this work if the alterations are all subtractions? Say I'm converting a planet file for a hand-held device, and truncate all coordinates to 4 decimal places. If I don't want to publish the format for my Derivative Database, it sounds like I would need to publish a list like: - Add 0.123 to node 23 - Subtract 0.456 from node 42 Perhaps it's not worth treating the translating the Database to a less-expressive form case as different to any other modification case. But it does seem a bit like jumping through hoops, when it would be simpler to say I truncated all coordinates to 4 decimal places or even the DD is a subset of the information in version X of the D, and here's a copy of that. -dair ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.refnum.com/ ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 08:05:23PM -0700, Mikel Maron wrote: If this were about code, the belief would be that every time someone compiled that code into running software, that binary would need to be freely available. Clearly not the reasonable thing for software. But you would have this for data? I’d rather those providing the PostGIS data be obliged to provide their source (planet dumps, whatever) to the same people. Imagine you were in some place without Internet access and I gave you a DVD containing OSM data imported for use in some software (we’re not necessarily talking about free software, this could be proprietary). All you can do is use that software. You spot a couple of mistakes, and would like to change it. The software doesn’t let you do that, and this mere translated format is unknown to you, and most certainly not a preferred form for modification. Wouldn’t it be great if you had access to the OSM database that was imported? Thanks to some attribution you know where it is, but you don’t have Internet access. You should be able to request the source from your provider. If this were about code, and the code was GPL provided in binary form, the source would either be available on the same medium, or a written offer to provide the source on request. The example was convoluted, but I hope it illustrates my point that mere translation should not be excluded from being counted as a derived database. (I really hope nobody goes around distributing such rubbish sounding proprietary software using OSM data to people in tight corners (this may be charged for, remember).) -- 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] Paid services from OSM
Simon Ward wrote: I¹d rather those providing the PostGIS data be obliged to provide their source (planet dumps, whatever) to the same people. ... The example was convoluted, but I hope it illustrates my point that mere translation should not be excluded from being counted as a derived database. If you're obligated to provide the source to your translation, providing access to the translation itself seems pointless. One difference between OSM usage and free software is that a great many uses of OSM will be a one way process. Tags will be discard or translated from the OSM model to a simpler model, IDs might be lost, coordinates might be truncated, etc. What's left might be useful for reconstructing OSM in an emergency, but the planet dump that went into the process would be much more helpful. If the data is just a translation from OSM (or some data literally derived from it, like a precalculated routing table/simplified graph/etc) then making that accessible is pointless. If the data is augmented or modified in a significant way then by far the best way (for everyone: OSM as a whole, and the translator) to pick up those changes would be to simply insert them into OSM and pick them up downstream. If that can't be done then, yes, those changes should be published in a form that could be used by OSM. I don't see that necessarily has to be via the translated database though. A .osm patch, or a modified planet file, would be easier to create and easier to merge in (if they turned out to be something we wanted). I believe the goal should be to pick up changes that improve OSM, rather than to use OSM as a lever to force open other file formats. If the translation doesn't improve the OSM data, and you get the source planet dump with the translation, what would you do with the translation that you couldn't do better with the planet dump? If the translation does improve the OSM data, but you get the source planet dump plus the improvements as a .osm file, requiring the translation itself be a public format seems excessive if the goal is to improve/protect OSM. -dair ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.refnum.com/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Mikel Maron wrote: --- On Thu, 10/9/08, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different format. I believe that PostGIS DB should be freely available. If this were about code, the belief would be that every time someone compiled that code into running software, that binary would need to be freely available. Clearly not the reasonable thing for software. But you would have this for data? If the ODL is unclear on this point (I'm not sure) than it should be clarified. Derivative Database – Any translation, adaptation, arrangement, or any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Data. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or Re- utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Data in a new Database. [...] Use – As a verb, means doing any act that is restricted by Database Rights or copyright and neighbouring rights whether in the original medium or any other; and includes modifying the Database as may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or format. [...] 4.6 Access to Derivative Databases. If You publicly Use a Derivative Database You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database a copy in a machine readable form of: a. The entire Derivative Database; or b. A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database offered under this Licence, including any additional Data, that make up all the differences between the Database and the Derivative Database. The Derivative Database (under a.) or alteration file (under b.) must be available at no more than a reasonable production cost for physical distributions and free of charge if distributed over the internet. [end quote] It looks pretty unambiguous to me that the PostGIS version _would_ be classed as a derivative database (includes modifying the Database as may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or format) and therefore must be made available. cheers Richard___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Hi, If the translation doesn't improve the OSM data, and you get the source planet dump with the translation, what would you do with the translation that you couldn't do better with the planet dump? I guess that is the core of Simon's argument - he fears that in some kind of doomsday scenario you would be stranded with only the derived product and no access to the real thing, that's why he wants the derived product accessible. I guess the easiest way would then be to leave this to the user: *Either* make your derived product so accessible that someone can somehow extract data from it, *or* ship the original OSM data from which you made your derived product alongside the derived product - whatever is easier for you. (Still an unnecessary complication in my eyes as I could easily construct scenarios where this would force someone to produce and ship an extra DVD... this whole discussion is, once again, getting into the negative, with us discussing all sorts of evil uses that have to be safeguarded against by implementing measures that will be a burden to everyone, evil or not evil.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## 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] Paid services from OSM
Frederik Ramm wrote: 2. if yes, add some sort of sponge wording like within a reasonable time frame to alleviate the problem for people who try to process current data. It only says you must also _offer_ to recipients (my emphasis), not you must provide in case anyone wants it - it's like the GPL in that regard. So you don't have to upload a new dump of the whole derivative db (or a diff of your changes) every time you update with a minute diff; you could simply write e-mail me here for a copy and supply it on demand. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:10:34AM +0100, Dair Grant wrote: Simon Ward wrote: I¹d rather those providing the PostGIS data be obliged to provide their source (planet dumps, whatever) to the same people. ... The example was convoluted, but I hope it illustrates my point that mere translation should not be excluded from being counted as a derived database. If you're obligated to provide the source to your translation, providing access to the translation itself seems pointless. Stop! I’m talking about someone who’s already providing a translation for whatever reason. They should provide the source to those they provide their work to as if it was a derived work. One reason for providing the translation in the first place is for convenience. Something that uses geodata expects a particular format that’s not OSM format, for example. One difference between OSM usage and free software is that a great many uses of OSM will be a one way process. Sure, it’s often a one way process, that’s why you would prefer the source be made available. What's left might be useful for reconstructing OSM in an emergency, but the planet dump that went into the process would be much more helpful. Which you may not have access to, and whoever distributed the derived DB to you should be obligated to provide. If the data is just a translation from OSM (or some data literally derived from it, like a precalculated routing table/simplified graph/etc) then making that accessible is pointless. Only in the simple scenario that OSM will always be available to provide the source. You can’t guarantee that. The one way you can do that is to get the distributor to also distribute their source. You have contact with them, otherwise you wouldn’t have been able to get the derived work, and they can get you the source, otherwise they wouldn’t have been able to derive from it. If that can't be done then, yes, those changes should be published in a form that could be used by OSM. It shouldn’t be about specifically contributing back to OSM. Ivan has already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines. You take the data. You distribute it (modified or not). There shouldn’t have to be a requirement to explicitly contribute back to OSM, but you should be obligated to provide the preferred form for modification and reuse (that is most likely the OSM format DB dump in OSM’s case). That way anybody who has access to your modified work gets the freedoms to examine, use, modify and redistribute it themselves. In many cases this would mean the work is available to be incorporated into OSM, but if the user is on the desert island, they still have freedoms given. The problem is primarily to do with having data people are free to use, and not necessarily getting contributions back into OSM itself. I don't see that necessarily has to be via the translated database though. A j.osm patch, or a modified planet file, would be easier to create and easier to merge in (if they turned out to be something we wanted). They should be obligated to provide the source, not necessarily their own translated format. Again you’re concentrating on explicitly contributing back to OSM which would be very nice, but not always directly possible or helpful to reuse of the data. If the translation doesn't improve the OSM data, and you get the source planet dump with the translation, what would you do with the translation that you couldn't do better with the planet dump? Use it with the tools only written to use the translated format? Of course, if we assumed these were free too (clearly a wrong assumption) then the problem may not exist. Lacking fully free software or fully free data, one or the other existing is better than nothing. If the translation does improve the OSM data, but you get the source planet dump plus the improvements as a .osm file, requiring the translation itself be a public format seems excessive if the goal is to improve/protect OSM. My goal is free data. OSM is one way to achieve it, because that’s one of its aims (or I thought it was, am I wrong?), not the goal itself. The term “public” is being used far too much, and I think it should be avoided. I don’t require anything to be “public”, just that the people who receive the data get the same freedoms as those that they received it from. -- 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] Paid services from OSM
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:23:45PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: I guess that is the core of Simon's argument - he fears that in some kind of doomsday scenario you would be stranded with only the derived product and no access to the real thing, that's why he wants the derived product accessible. Gah! If someone gives you a database of OSM data not in OSM’s original format, they have already provided it to you. The source[*] should be available so you are free to make your own modifications. ([*] I’m willing to allow that “source” could be a lossless and reversible translation of the original where both the translation and reverse processes are also freely available.) I guess the easiest way would then be to leave this to the user: *Either* make your derived product so accessible that someone can somehow extract data from it, *or* ship the original OSM data from which you made your derived product alongside the derived product - whatever is easier for you. That’s not a problem with free software. Why is it a problem with free data? (Or it is seen as a problem, but only by those who don’t value others’ freedoms.) ( ... this whole discussion is, once again, getting into the negative, with us discussing all sorts of evil uses that have to be safeguarded against by implementing measures that will be a burden to everyone, evil or not evil.) Our freedoms are very important, they should be safeguarded. They’re only a burden if you try to restrict the freedom of other users. You may not see it that way, or value your freedom as much as I value everyone’s freedoms. If that’s the case there’s not much point in you discussing further, since it sounds like you are trying to protect some assumed right to remove the freedoms already given. 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] Paid services from OSM
Hi, 80n wrote: If someone forks the project then the fork should be able to operate on exactly the same basis as the original project. On closer inspection, this will never be possible. If you fork OSM, under the old OR new license, you will not take the data from the individual contributors, but from OSM. So you will always have an attribution stack that goes Cool New Database derived from OpenStreetMap derived from 60.000 people's contributions, whereas OSM's attribution stack is smaller by that one item. With the current share-alike license this is more of a problem for Cool New Database because a strict reading of the CC-BY-SA attribution requirements could force Cool New Database to include the OSM name next to its own on every derived product (e.g. Map) where it is suitable to the medium, whereas the proposed ODbL is likely to have relaxed attribution requirements for integrated experiences. But still the one extra level difference remains and could only be removed by asking users to contribute directly to Cool New Database. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## 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] Paid services from OSM
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: It only says you must also _offer_ to recipients (my emphasis), not you must provide in case anyone wants it - it's like the GPL in that regard. So you don't have to upload a new dump of the whole derivative db (or a diff of your changes) every time you update with a minute diff; you could simply write e-mail me here for a copy and supply it on demand. And batch those requests and process them once a week? If that is deemed acceptable we should write it down somewhere. Because I can *just* see someone trying out what happens if he sends you one request per minute ;-) 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] Paid services from OSM
Hi, 80n wrote: And, of course, the same rules will also apply to the main OSM database, Will they? I always thought that in the future, what I contribute to OSM is not a database, and OSM is not a database aggregator, but instead I contribute individual data items, which only become a database on the OSM server. So the OSM database would not be derived from another, ODBL licensed database, and would itself not be subject to the ODBL attribution and share-alike rules. 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] Paid services from OSM
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, 80n wrote: And, of course, the same rules will also apply to the main OSM database, Will they? I always thought that in the future, what I contribute to OSM is not a database, and OSM is not a database aggregator, but instead I contribute individual data items, which only become a database on the OSM server. So the OSM database would not be derived from another, ODBL licensed database, and would itself not be subject to the ODBL attribution and share-alike rules. There's no dispensation in the proposed license for a Master database. If someone forks the project then the fork should be able to operate on exactly the same basis as the original project. If the master database has some special status then any derivative must also be able to acquire this special status - otherwise the spirit of share-alike is surely violated. 80n 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Hi, 80n wrote: There's no dispensation in the proposed license for a Master database. But there is a distinction between a database and data. I always thought that what I collect with my GPS is just data, and only becomes a database when combined with the work of others and arranged in a common electronic format. But I might be totally wrong there. If someone forks the project then the fork should be able to operate on exactly the same basis as the original project. My opinion as well, I'm all in favour of history dumps. 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] Paid services from OSM
I notice that the conversation has moved on from issues around Derivative Databases to factual/copyright data. Can I confirm that we have agreement on the previous point re Derivative DBs? Can I suggest: 1) We clarify that a Derived Database is only deems to exist when the martial changes have occurred to the content of the DB, but not if the dataset has merely been processed into a different format. 2) We clarify that when any derived Database should be made available in a 'reasonable' time period. This deals with the minutely update concern. 3) That any Derivative Database can either be provided together with the end-user experience or can be published in a publically accessible forum where an interested user may be reasonably expected to find it. [Not sure is this is good enough - do we really always want full publication of the DB?] 3) That any Derived DB should be made generally available in a form designed to allow it to be conveniently processed by a computer. [The wording isn't very good - but I think you see what I am getting at] Regards, Peter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm Sent: 09 October 2008 00:43 To: Iván Sánchez Ortega Cc: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM Hi, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: Namely, by spending that time, IIRC, you have created a derived DB (you have changed the format of the data). You have to let people extract data from *that* DB. So OpenStreetMap would really have to publish psql dumps of the data structure created by osm2pgsql. (Seems I misunderstood you, I thought you denied that idea.) Next question... do we *want* that? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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] Paid services from OSM
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 08:48:07AM +0100, Peter Miller wrote: 1) We clarify that a Derived Database is only deems to exist when the martial changes have occurred to the content of the DB, but not if the dataset has merely been processed into a different format. Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different format. I believe that PostGIS DB should be freely available. 2) We clarify that when any derived Database should be made available in a 'reasonable' time period. This deals with the minutely update concern. “reasonable” is too variable. The derived database should be made available as the product using the data is. 3) That any Derivative Database can either be provided together with the end-user experience or can be published in a publically accessible forum where an interested user may be reasonably expected to find it. [Not sure is this is good enough - do we really always want full publication of the DB?] The key is being able to access the DB, if I understand the ODbL correctly. Of course, I could be very wrong. [Yes, preferrably, though publication of modified parts may be acceptable.] 3) That any Derived DB should be made generally available in a form designed to allow it to be conveniently processed by a computer. [The wording isn't very good - but I think you see what I am getting at] Wording… :) I’ll pick up on “generally available” since that implies “public” when it should be possible for someone to use the data, and derive from it, without ever releasing it to anybody else. I’d comment on “in a form designed to allow it to be conveniently processed by a computer” too but I suspect that’s where you mainly thought the wording wasn’t good (and I agree). 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] Paid services from OSM
Hi, Simon Ward wrote: Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different format. I believe that PostGIS DB should be freely available. Either I am misreading half of what you say, or you are concerned very little about the usability of OpenStreetMap after the license change. We're drifting towards a system where people update their mirrors every minute (OSMXAPI is a good example here). It is simply not possible to offer (a) a *current* database dump from OSMXAPI to anyone who requests it at any time, or (b) direct read access to the OSMXAPI database to anyone except what the API provides. [Going out on a limb with (b) as I don't know the internals of OSMXAPI but if it were PostGIS based then (b) would certainly hold.] If I combine your statement above with “reasonable” is too variable. The derived database should be made available as the product using the data is. Then this means basically that OSMXAPI would have to shut down, and our own Mapnik tileserver would probably never get beyond importing one planet file per day because every planet file import would mean, at the same time, that a PostGIS dump has to be made available and this might simply take too long to be usable. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 07:26:05AM -0700, Sunburned Surveyor wrote: I can think of three types of material changes that we would want contributed back to OSM: [1] Modifications that improve (not degrade) the accuracy of a Feature geometry. [2] Modifications that improve (not degrade) the topology of a Feature geometry. [3] Modifications that improve (not degrade) the quality of the Feature Tags (attributes) of a Feature. There are two other types of changes that would seem less critical to contribute back: [4] Modifications that add Feature Tags (attributes) to a Feature. [5] Modifications that add Features. It seems like #4 and #5 may be the type of modifications that make a derived database? Dair wrote: What I would like to come back would be any improvements they made to the OSM data; either by merging it with another database, correcting the OSM data, etc. I would think that this complies with the spirit of the OSM license, correct? I don't care if you are adding some useless bit of proprietary information as a feature tag. However, if you are making more accurate feature geometries, I would be interested in that. I’m told distinguishing between factual information with rights and that without is hard. Distinguishing between derived works that may improve the data and derived works that don’t sounds even harder. I think it’s better not to attempt to and just make the derived works available to those you distribute your product to. All of the discussion is very OSM centric at the moment. Granted, it is about a new licence for OSM, but we shouldn’t try to tie it specifically to OSM. If, for whatever reason, OSM itself becomes unavailable, or someone somewhere does not have access to it, but they have access to a derived work, should they be denied access to the data that makes this usable just because it may be of lower quality? 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] Paid services from OSM
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:09:09AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Simon Ward wrote: Merely processing into a different format needs to be clarified. If someone takes OSM ways + nodes + relations and imports it into PostGIS without changing any of it, I see that as processing into a different format. I believe that PostGIS DB should be freely available. Either I am misreading half of what you say, or you are concerned very little about the usability of OpenStreetMap after the license change. You’re mis‐reading. OSM data will still be as usable. More so, people will derive from it, will translate it, and those forms will also be usable. Nothing except someone’s inability to agree to sharing makes this any less usable. We're drifting towards a system where people update their mirrors every minute (OSMXAPI is a good example here). It is simply not possible to offer (a) a *current* database dump from OSMXAPI to anyone who requests it at any time, or (b) direct read access to the OSMXAPI database to anyone except what the API provides. [Going out on a limb with (b) as I don't know the internals of OSMXAPI but if it were PostGIS based then (b) would certainly hold.] I concede on a previous point I made about data being made immediately accessible vs accessible in reasonable time, but I don’t believe the PostGIS database in this example should not be free. Maybe the requirement should be that a dump (from the last n days, or last change before then) be made available on request? If I combine your statement above with “reasonable” is too variable. The derived database should be made available as the product using the data is. Then this means basically that OSMXAPI would have to shut down, and our own Mapnik tileserver would probably never get beyond importing one planet file per day because every planet file import would mean, at the same time, that a PostGIS dump has to be made available and this might simply take too long to be usable. Yeah, see above. -- 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] Paid services from OSM
Peter Miller wrote: 1) We clarify that a Derived Database is only deems to exist when the martial changes have occurred to the content of the DB, but not if the dataset has merely been processed into a different format. On the face of it this sounds reasonable, although I can see there being some contention over what counts as a material difference. To give a concrete example, similar to the routing service Frederik mentioned, I would like to be able to use OSM data for my company's (commercial) application. This would involve: 1. Split the planet dump into smaller units (individual countries). 2. Convert from OSM's XML format to shapefiles+Dbase files. The geometry is unchanged, but the database schema is simplified (e.g., units are made metric, highway tags are converted to a fixed set of values - this is lossy, as we might map multiple tags to the same value). 3. Convert the shapefiles+Dbase files to SQLite databases. The schema is unchanged, but each geometry is lossily compressed. 4. Build additional indices (R*Tree, full text, etc) in the SQLite database. 5. Build additional tables (for routing, more efficient rendering, etc) in the SQLite database. 6. Convert the SQLite database into our proprietary format (compressed and encrypted). Each of these steps does change the data from OSM, however none of them would be useful for improving OSM (tags are lost, node coordinates are less precise, tables get built that are no use to anyone else). Given that, providing documentation on our file format (or supplying a tool to go back from that format to XML) seems pointless. The final data is a lower-quality version of the data in OSM, so I would hope that publishing the source planet file would be sufficient. If _improvements_ are made to the data along the way (perhaps we employ someone to sit down and fix any typos in name tags) then I would like the licence to compel us to send those improvements back. I, as a mapper, don't really care if company X turns a planet file into whatever format is most appropriate for their medium (using whatever compression or proprietary format they need). What I would like to come back would be any improvements they made to the OSM data; either by merging it with another database, correcting the OSM data, etc. In (my) order of preference, those changes could be supplied as: A. Directly to OSM (if you ship data with positive improvements to OSM, you have N weeks to insert those into the OSM database and perhaps publish a list of what you changed/when/why). B. In an OSM-compatible format (if you ship data with positive improvements to OSM, you publish a .osm file at the same time so someone else can integrate them). C. In a machine-readable format (perhaps shapefiles+dbf files, after step 2 in the above). This is the worst case, since it's unlikely anyone will sift through these files and actually apply them to OSM unless a lot of new data was added over the source OSM data. You could argue that we need to publish our proprietary file format and that would avoid us having to do anything. That would be equivalent to C), and I think would make us less likely to want to use OSM data. Primarily because we want to keep that format private (since publishing it would allow decompilation of the commercial data we publish in that format), but also because I don't think it would really help OSM. I imagine any database that's optimised to minimise space would have the same problem, as your derived DB is a lower-quality version of the OSM DB. I'm not sure where you draw the line for a material change (if IDs are dropped to save space, do we even want that modified DB back? Or do we just want DBs that are a material improvement?), but thought it'd be useful to show exactly what our conversion process would look like. -dair ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.refnum.com/ ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Hi, 1) We clarify that a Derived Database is only deems to exist when the martial changes have occurred to the content of the DB, but not if the dataset has merely been processed into a different format. On the face of it this sounds reasonable, although I can see there being some contention over what counts as a material difference. To give a concrete example, similar to the routing service Frederik mentioned, I would like to be able to use OSM data for my company's (commercial) application. [...] You say your example is about lossy compression, but this may not always be the case - simplification algorithms can be arbitrarily complex and time consuming. You might also, for example, make a single geometry from connecting ways that bear the same name and apply other non-trivial operations which don't technically enrich the data as they operate solely on the OSM input, but which still represent significant know-how and/or computing power. Question is: Is it our aim to force OSM users to donate this know-how and/or computing power to the project by requesting that the resulting data bases - even though containing only of OSM with no added input or no material difference - be share-aliked, or is it ok for us to say that unless additional inputs come into play, a note like just take the motorway data from a planet file and apply reasonable simplification is sufficient? For some use cases, this might be quite a big difference. 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] Paid services from OSM
Hi, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: Namely, by spending that time, IIRC, you have created a derived DB (you have changed the format of the data). You have to let people extract data from *that* DB. So OpenStreetMap would really have to publish psql dumps of the data structure created by osm2pgsql. (Seems I misunderstood you, I thought you denied that idea.) Next question... do we *want* that? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## 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] Paid services from OSM
El Miércoles, 8 de Octubre de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribió: Database – A collection of Data arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means offered under the terms of this Licence. This includes the Database as protected by Database Rights or by copyright and neighbouring rights law. But it says or other means, so it doesn't have to be electronic? In my eyes a printed telephone book fits the above description perfectly: It is arranged in a systematic way and individually accessible by (other) means. OK, OK, phonebooks qualify, and microfiches qualify too. [...] But what if obfuscation happens naturally. E.g if you look at yournavigation.org [...] Anyone also wanting to provide the service theoretically only needs that highly compressed indexed file, but without documentation or the code that creates/uses it, it would be really hard to use that file for anything. I definitely think we need some lawyer to step into the conversation. Otherwise, let's keep in mind that the EU DB directive, just as IP laws, has been written to protect the stuff, not allowing people to copy and use the stuff on a copyleft basis. Adding some bits about well-known data interchange standards, or data specifications, seems to me like a sensible addition to the text of the ODbL. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED] Proudly running Debian Linux with 2.6.26-1-amd64 kernel, KDE 3.5.9, and PHP 5.2.6-3 generating this signature. Uptime: 00:11:05 up 48 days, 12:06, 4 users, load average: 1.09, 0.74, 0.56 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iván Sánchez Ortega Sent: 08 October 2008 21:42 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM El Miércoles, 8 de Octubre de 2008, Sunburned Surveyor escribió: [...] You take OSM data and modify the feature geometries using data you collected in the field. [...] (For example: You add Road Speed Limit attributes to all of the road segments in the dataset). What are you required to release? *Nothing*. Please keep in mind that the ODbL (or CC-by-sa, for that matter) does not *require* you to release anything. The share-alike licenses, however, control the *way* you have to release the data, *if* you want to release it. I think we want someone who derives a better/new DB from OSM data to make that available if they use that data for publically available product. Just the feature geomtries? Or do you have to release all of the feature attributes as well? Just the data you make publicly available, or otherwise publicly Use. For example: you display in a webpage a slippy map of your geometries, applying colours based on the OSM speed limit tag. You'd be using a Derivative Database of OSM data (speed limits) and your data (geometries). And, given that you're publicly Using this DB, you'd have to release it all (i.e. just the data needed for a third party to replicate just what you're displaying in the webpage). (In this case, you'd be publicly Using the derivative DB by extracting a significant portion of data and using that data to display an image in a public webpage. To be clear if you are only using the standard public OSM Dataset then you wouldn't have to publish any derivative dataset because there isn't one. I suspect that 99% of users of OSM data will not create Derivative Database but will use standard tools on the standard DB. What if you keep the road speed limits in a separate table in your GIS and just refernece a feature geometry ID? What if the original OSM data contained a tag for speed limit data, but your speed limit data is more up-to-date or accurate? Do any of these things make a difference? Nope, they don't matter. The ODbL and the european database directive it is based upon don't care about things like RDBMS tables, fields, references, geometries or whatever. While determining how much data composes the Derivative Database that you'd be publicly Using, I think it will be safe to assume an inclusive stance: the Derivative Database should include things in other tables, and features, and referenced stuff, and even things outside of a RDBMS* that are neccesary for the GIS to work properly. Just ask yourself, If another person would like to do the same thing I'm doing, how much data would he need? * RDBMS is the formal name we computer guys usually call a Database. The legalese definition of a DB is *much* broader. Ummm, if I have a separate pre-existing complete dataset for all speed limits in my country, or in my case all a Crown (c) DB of all the bus Stops and public transport schedule data for my country then I would want to be able to use them as part of a Collective DB. I would want to: Create a Derivative Dataset of OSM containing all of OSM except the bus stops (and publish it). This avoids overlap between the OSM part and the (c) part. Then create a Collective Database combining this published Derivative Dataset together with my official Crown (c) bus stop data and schedule data and use it but not publish it. Of course, there will always be a murky boundary between Collective and Derivative, which is why I am proposing the words 'distinct' and 'significant' to give a feel of where the boundary is. I really won't be impressed with the suggesting that because there are 200 bus stops in the UK post offices in the current OSM dataset that I can't create a collective DB combining OSM data with a (c) dataset with 350,000 validated bus stops with official names and geocodes. Is this an issue for people? I hope not. To be clear, I am talking about what I would like to see in the licence, not what is currently in it, although what I am proposing is not very different from what I believe is in it (IANAL etc). I only say that in case I have been coming across too official looking and lawyer like (however I will be talking to a lawyer soon on this matter, I just want some feedback from the OSMF before I do so which I am currently not getting, but that is another story)! (You might want to consult a lawyer for further details, IANAL, TINLA, etc etc etc) Cheers, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iván Sánchez Ortega Sent: 08 October 2008 23:21 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM El Miércoles, 8 de Octubre de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribió: Database A collection of Data arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means offered under the terms of this Licence. This includes the Database as protected by Database Rights or by copyright and neighbouring rights law. But it says or other means, so it doesn't have to be electronic? In my eyes a printed telephone book fits the above description perfectly: It is arranged in a systematic way and individually accessible by (other) means. OK, OK, phonebooks qualify, and microfiches qualify too. [...] But what if obfuscation happens naturally. E.g if you look at yournavigation.org [...] Anyone also wanting to provide the service theoretically only needs that highly compressed indexed file, but without documentation or the code that creates/uses it, it would be really hard to use that file for anything. I definitely think we need some lawyer to step into the conversation. My experience is that if we can capture what we want to achieve that lawyers will be very good at spotting all the issues of definition and the ways around what we are trying to achieve. In general though, we need to remember that we should err on the side of allowing things to happen not stopping the happen. Can people look to capture any conclusions on the wiki page, either in the 'brief' section or in the 'use cases' section? Possibly we need to add some black-hat use cases that we what to protect against. Possibly we also need a 'questions for lawyer' section I do wish we had some input from the OSMF on all this, however we can still queue up the questions in an orderly form on the wiki for them when they do appear. Peter Otherwise, let's keep in mind that the EU DB directive, just as IP laws, has been written to protect the stuff, not allowing people to copy and use the stuff on a copyleft basis. Adding some bits about well-known data interchange standards, or data specifications, seems to me like a sensible addition to the text of the ODbL. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED] Proudly running Debian Linux with 2.6.26-1-amd64 kernel, KDE 3.5.9, and PHP 5.2.6-3 generating this signature. Uptime: 00:11:05 up 48 days, 12:06, 4 users, load average: 1.09, 0.74, 0.56 ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Hi, To be clear if you are only using the standard public OSM Dataset then you wouldn't have to publish any derivative dataset because there isn't one. I don't think we should over-regulate things but technically, strictly, legally speaking if you run osm2pgsql on the planet file you have already created a derivative dataset. If you then use this to serve map images to the public, the license could be used to force you to provide the contents of your pgsql data base to the public. You might be running a version of osm2pgsl that imports minutely diffs into your database. Providing minutely dumps of your database would however be impractical (creating them takes more than a minute). So your only avenue would be to grant public read access to your psql database, right? (Which of course is a security and performance nightmare, you can bring down any Postgres server with an evil query.) This would also be true for our own psql database that sits behind the Mapnik rendering - a very strict reading of the current license draft would require you to make some sort of SQL dump available, I guess - it is probably not enough to simply say I used the planet dump and processed it with osm2pgsql. (Note that I'm playing advocatus diaboli here, it's not that I *want* this to be the case, I'm just looking for ways the proposed license could backfire!) Maybe the license needs some provision that says you *either* have to make your derived database public *or* provide documentation that explains how you created the database using publicly available tools from publicly available sources. In that case, the aforementioned map provider could just say: The map you see here is based on OSM data processed by osm2pgsql with daily patches applied, rather than having to make available a full dump or grant people read access to his RDBMS. Another thing we could do is put in a provision that says if your data is permanently updated, it is sufficient to provide regular snapshots to the public instead of the live thing. 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] Paid services from OSM
El Jueves, 9 de Octubre de 2008, Peter Miller escribió: The share-alike licenses, however, control the *way* you have to release the data, *if* you want to release it. I think we want someone who derives a better/new DB from OSM data to make that available if they use that data for publically available product. *If* someone derives a DB, and they make a *publicly* available product out of it, they must make *public* the DB. My point is that if someone uses a derived DB in a non-public way, they aren't required to disclose or publish the DB. To be clear if you are only using the standard public OSM Dataset then you wouldn't have to publish any derivative dataset because there isn't one. You have to let people extract data from your DB. But, guess what, it's the main OSM DB, so anybody can already extract data. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED] Un ordenador no es un televisor ni un microondas, es una herramienta compleja. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
