Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
Anthony wrote: Ah, but I don't plan on ever visiting the OSM website when and if they switch to the ODbL. Best. Reason to switch to ODbL. Ever. Richard -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/How-is-there-not-any-creative-type-%28US%29-copyright-in-OSM-data--tp26665700p26793270.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Anthony wrote: Ah, but I don't plan on ever visiting the OSM website when and if they switch to the ODbL. Best. Reason to switch to ODbL. Ever. Richard +1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:56:46 +1000, John Smith wrote: 2009/12/13 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:17 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The problem I have with that is my labour is used to commercially benefit others and in turn nothing they do would have to be returned to the community. So you want to be given something in return for your labor? Nothing wrong with that, but you're more likely to be successful if you choose a non-free project to contribute to. If your labor is valuable to commercial interests, don't give it away for free. Get those commercial interests to pay you, and then, if you'd like, you can donate your pay to the community. That's the issue I have, I have no problem giving back to the community, but I don't want commercial companies just sucking up all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the map, it's not fair to me or anyone else who chooses to donate our time for the greater good. John, What is *materially removed* from you if your labour is used to commercially benefit others and/or commercial companies [are] just sucking up all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the map? Brendan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD. I prefer copyleft. I prefer CC-BY-SA. It keeps people from taking my data and incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses. Like ODbL. I'm assuming this is your comment Anthony? (I'm starting to lose track of the thread). OdbL is meant to be copyleft for source data, as far as I can now tell. But what's the problem with people incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses? The data under the original licence will (should!) still be made available, and competes with the data made available under the more restrictive licence. Brendan --Original Message Text--- From: Anthony Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:22:55 -0500 On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:02 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/13 Anthony o...@inbox.org: If geodata is not copyrightable, then Share Alike is meaningless. The original work is public domain, and the modified work is also public domain. Assuming public domains is a valid option, which isn't valid in all jurisdictions. If the data is not copyrightable, then it is by definition public domain. Even where PD is valid if you modify it and choose a license which can be upheld it is no longer PD any more. If the the data is not copyrightable, it is PD, and no license is going to magically make it not PD. The point is, whichever way it's decided, it'll be the same for the modified data as it is for the original data. If the OSM database is not copyrightable, neither will the modified database be. If the OSM database is copyrightable, then the modified database must be. Just because certain copyrights don't exists in some jursidictions doesn't mean they aren't valid in others. Which is the whole reason for ODBL, because geodata may not be considered copyrightable in some areas a new method of enforcing the same thing CC-BY-SA is needed. For the areas where geodata is not copyrightable, CC-BY-SA isn't needed. If you'd prefer that, fine. But please be honest about this - the ODbL is more than just a more enforceable version of the spirit of CC-BY-SA. The How is this different than the requirements of the GPL where you need to make changes available if you distribute binaries? Well, it's different from the GPL because it uses contract law, and not just copyright law. As explained in the GPL: The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. The ODbL falls into the former category of licenses. The ODbL *is* somewhat more similar to the GPL than it is to CC-BY-SA. But CC-BY-SA was chosen as the license for OSM, not the GPL. So stop saying the ODbL is in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA. Claim it's in the same spirit as the GPL, and then we can have that discussion. requirements go beyond requiring derivative works to be licensed under the same license. Most significantly, the ODbL requires people to offer copies of any derivative databases that are used in the making of the final derivative work. Among other things, that means having to keep copies of such databases, something which is not always done (if I want to alter the database, render tiles, and then throw out the altered database, I'm not able to do that, because I have to offer people copies of the altered database). Again, this is no different than requirements of GPL software. And again, I was comparing ODbL to the intent of CC-BY-SA, not GPL. If you'd like me to compare the ODbL to the GPL, please start a new thread, and I'll be happy to make the full comparison. I hope you first realize, though, that CC-BY-SA is not the GPL. CC-BY-SA does not require you to distribute source code when you distribute binaries. It is not *intended* to require that. And anyone who takes the time to read the simple one page description of CC-BY-SA ought to know that. There is no way everyone is going to be happy as a result of this, that's human nature, people are influenced and motivated by various things, a lot of people agree with the GPL, at lot of people don't which is why you end up with others using BSD and other similar licenses. I agree with the GPL. There's little chance I'm going to release my software under the BSD license. But software isn't geodata. If you want to push your data as PD that's fine, tag the change set as PD when you upload and problem solved then such data can be extracted regardless what other data is licensed as then everyone is happy, of course this only counts in countries that have a notion of PD otherwise people in those countries wouldn't be able to use such data either. Ain't it grand having lawyers make laws? :) Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:17:41 +1000, John Smith wrote: If people or companies are benefiting, why shouldn't there be some expectations to return the benefits to everyone, not just hoard it away for the benefit of commercial operators if they themselves are benefiting from it? The home page of the OSM wiki currently states, The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways. And the copyleft mindset of the LWP continues to perpetuate substantial legal [...] restrictions on [...] use. So really, the OSM project has failed to deliver on this latent demand. And who else but government is in the best position (and has the most self interest) to determine exactly where the road was built? There is a lot of roads on paper that were never built so I don't see that as accurate either. It's in local government interest to keep it accurate, especially anything that requires a grader or roller to maintain. Brendan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: What is *materially removed* from you if your labour is used to commercially benefit others and/or commercial companies [are] just sucking up all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the map? I'm not a source of free labour for multinational corporations to abuse, if they want to hire me that's fine, but I choose to not work for them for free unless they want to contribute back as well. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: And the copyleft mindset of the LWP continues to perpetuate substantial legal [...] restrictions on [...] use. So really, the OSM project has failed to deliver on this latent demand. I've seen the same comments regarding GPL v BSD licenses, free and open are rather ambiguous. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:06:36 +1000, John Smith wrote: 2009/12/14 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: What is *materially removed* from you if your labour is used to commercially benefit others and/or commercial companies [are] just sucking up all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the map? I'm not a source of free labour for multinational corporations to abuse, if they want to hire me that's fine, but I choose to not work for them for free unless they want to contribute back as well. I suppose you would have hated contributing to Linux then. National corporations are OK then? Where do you draw the line? All other things being equal, they give back by being able to make a profit at a *lower* selling price than what they otherwise would if they had to commission their own additional survey. You didn't answer the question about what of yours is materially removed btw. Brendan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:08:15 +1000, John Smith wrote: 2009/12/14 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: And the copyleft mindset of the LWP continues to perpetuate substantial legal [...] restrictions on [...] use. So really, the OSM project has failed to deliver on this latent demand. I've seen the same comments regarding GPL v BSD licenses, free and open are rather ambiguous. I agree! (-: When pondering this earlier today I realised one of the fundamental ambiguities is: Is freedom/openness enforced on the dataset *itself*? Or Is freedom/openness enforced on your right to *use* that dataset? I'd always assumed the second option. Brendan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: I suppose you would have hated contributing to Linux then. GPL has similar sharing required by ODBL, if you had said BSD you might have had a point, MS and others have taken BSD code and given nothing back, they have recently been shown to have used GPL code and as a result released the source code of the software. National corporations are OK then? Where do you draw the line? You can't make mega bucks being a nice guy, most nice guys die dirt poor and the scum bags laugh all the way to the bank. In fact one of the motivations I have for supporting OSM is to enable better competition against Google to keep them honest, some of the statements by one of the Google founders just highlights why this is important. All other things being equal, they give back by being able to make a profit at a *lower* selling price than what they otherwise would if they had to commission their own additional survey. You can still give back while making a profit, I can't comment on the profitability of geofabrik et al but I assume they aren't in business to go broke, but at the same time they do numerous things to give back to the community. You didn't answer the question about what of yours is materially removed btw. That's the same argument used by people commiting copyright infringement, physically nothing is stolen but that doesn't mean nothing is lost, even if what is lost is over stated most of the time. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/14 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: I agree! (-: When pondering this earlier today I realised one of the fundamental ambiguities is: Is freedom/openness enforced on the dataset *itself*? Or Is freedom/openness enforced on your right to *use* that dataset? I'd always assumed the second option. And you would be 90% correct, the limitations aren't on using the data set, it's when it comes to extending, but that isn't necessarily use. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.auwrote: Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD. I prefer copyleft. I prefer CC-BY-SA. It keeps people from taking my data and incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses. Like ODbL. I'm assuming this is your comment Anthony? (I'm starting to lose track of the thread). Yes, it's mine. OdbL is meant to be copyleft for source data, as far as I can now tell. I have no idea what it's meant to be. But what's the problem with people incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses? The data under the original licence will (should!) still be made available, and competes with the data made available under the more restrictive licence. There's not necessarily a problem. And in certain circumstances, I'd certainly be willing to grant individual licenses to people who are doing things that I feel are positive (although, realistically, there are just too many contributors for this to happen given current technologies). My primary reason for not wanting to release my data as PD is that I don't want to support OSM if it decides to go with the ODbL. A street map licensed under ODbL is not something I find worthy of my (uncompensated) support, and the fact that the project would go from a street map licensed under CC-BY-SA to a street map licensed under ODbL is enough to make me actively opposed to it. Hopefully there will be a fork, and I can contribute my data to the fork instead. If there is a fork, the more data we have in the fork that isn't in OSM, the more likely it is to succeed. I hope it doesn't come to that, and I still think there's a good chance it won't, because once it becomes clear how much data is going to not be relicensed due to people not responding, I think there's a chance the OSMF membership will come to its senses. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org: My primary reason for not wanting to release my data as PD is that I don't want to support OSM if it decides to go with the ODbL. A street map licensed under ODbL is not something I find worthy of my (uncompensated) support, and the fact that the project would go from a street map licensed under CC-BY-SA to a street map licensed under ODbL is enough to make me actively opposed to it. Hopefully there will be a fork, and I can contribute my data to the fork instead. If there is a fork, the more data we have in the fork that isn't in OSM, the more likely it is to succeed. Perhaps my previous hints were too subtle, but you've stated that cc-by-sa isn't enforceable in your jurisdiction so how will you use something unenforceable to prevent it from being relicensed as ODBL? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:17 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: Perhaps my previous hints were too subtle, but you've stated that cc-by-sa isn't enforceable in your jurisdiction so how will you use something unenforceable to prevent it from being relicensed as ODBL? Again, I don't remember saying that. And if I did, I apologize. In any case, if OSM decides to take the position that my contributions are not copyrightable, and therefore they are free to incorporate them into an ODBL project, that means I can take their ODBL project and incorporate it into my CC-BY-SA project. That would probably be the best case scenario, actually. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Again, I don't remember saying that. And if I did, I apologize. Sorry if I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure you mentioned it. In any case, if OSM decides to take the position that my contributions are not copyrightable, and therefore they are free to incorporate them into an ODBL project, that means I can take their ODBL project and incorporate it into my CC-BY-SA project. That would probably be the best case scenario, actually. Actually you wouldn't since ODBL would prevent you contractually from copying their data unless you abide by the license, which is the whole point of switching to something else other than cc-by-sa in the first place. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:57 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org: In any case, if OSM decides to take the position that my contributions are not copyrightable, and therefore they are free to incorporate them into an ODBL project, that means I can take their ODBL project and incorporate it into my CC-BY-SA project. That would probably be the best case scenario, actually. Actually you wouldn't since ODBL would prevent you contractually from copying their data unless you abide by the license, which is the whole point of switching to something else other than cc-by-sa in the first place. Yeah, well, a contract can't be enforced against people who agree to it. And don't you know, I have a contract on my web site which says that my data can't be used under the ODbL. Anyone who reads this email is thereby made aware of that contract. And anyone who uses my data is thereby in agreement with it. That's how contracts work, right? You just list a bunch of stuff you want and anyone who reads the contract and does the things you say constitute agreement, has to obey it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:28 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Yeah, well, a contract can't be enforced against people who agree to it. I think you meant disagree, but only if you have a suitable license/legal method that can enforce that term I meant don't agree. And I haven't been to your website so I can't be held to any TCs you might or might not have. Ah, but I don't plan on ever visiting the OSM website when and if they switch to the ODbL. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Ah, but I don't plan on ever visiting the OSM website when and if they switch to the ODbL. I doubt just visiting the OSM website without some kind of click wrapper similar to nearmap.com does would force you to agree with ODBL for just using the website. On the other hand if ODBL does become the license for OSM you might have to agree to license your future work under that for anything you submit to OSM, however ODBL restrictions would only kick in if you want to extend the OSM data and not upload changes to OSM. So most people just using rendered tiles, and uploading to OSM would have no reason to have any difference compared to the current license. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/15 Anthony o...@inbox.org: Browsewrap may or may not be enforceable. And even if it is enforceable any judgment for damages would probably be minimal. But I'm willing to abide by the terms of service of the sites that I visit, at least when I take the time to read them. Not doing so is effectively trespassing with notice, morally if not legally. Assuming that you are actually breaching something and have aggrevated someone enough to drag you into court over it. It's highly doubtful they'll ever kick in, at least for me. As you've said yourself, contracts are supposed to be mutually agreed upon, and they don't trump laws. What license do you plan to use to actual enforce this, simply staying with the status quo is unlikely to protect your work since copyright law isn't likely to be applicable in some jurisdictions, so people in those jurisdictions can simply take cc-by-sa licensed data and import in into a database using ODBL. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
Well I RTFM (i.e. the CCBYSA and OdbL licences) and this is what I got: CCBYSA only compels you to share the derived work, not the steps you followed to create the derived work. i.e. CCBYSA never asked people to share the steps they followed. So John, given you wish to don't want commercial companies just sucking up all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the map - - CCBYSA (in mature copyright jurisdictions like Australia) will compel them to share the published work, also under CCBY(SA), therefore there is some data interpretation and re-entry involved to get it back to the OSM schema. This is probably little different to tracing off a paper map or image. - OdbL intends to compel them to share the steps they followed e.g. the modified database before rendering. Mind you, there was nothing I saw in the OdbL that compelled the modifying body to share back in the same database *schema*, so we could still have a big data re-entry problem - the only difference being that there is a hope of a scriptable solution. The interesting bit (that I couldn't satisfy myself by a first read of the licences) is enforcement. Given the fear of a 10^100 just sucking up all the data ... OdbL intends to exploit copyright, database and contract rights. Since it seems the US is a weak copyright jurisdiction when it comes to factual data. It would seem OdbL will not compel 10^100 by copyright law. Database law only applies to European Union, right? So that mechanism is out too. So then we appear to rely on US contract law, such that it may exist in a form that supports OdbL. Well that's my amateur analysis. Has anyone actually done a desk check to see if OdbL can compel 10^100 or other US-domiciled corporates to follow the spirit of the licence? The OdbL FAQ also seems to allow you to choose the jurisdiction that enforcement is carried out under. So as an Australian citizen perhaps you can persue 10^100 in the Australian copyright law context. This doesn't help our US bretheren however, so I'd hope if they wanted to enforce SA on their edits, that the OdbL plays well with US contract law. Hope this helps, Brendan On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:12:34 +1000, John Smith wrote: 2009/12/13 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: That's the issue I have, I have no problem giving back to the community, but I don't want commercial companies just sucking up all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the map, it's not fair to me or anyone else who chooses to donate our time for the greater good. It's perfectly fair. You agreed to license your contributions under CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA doesn't require that you give anything back to anyone. It only requires that you give credit to the authors and license any derivative works that you distribute under CC-BY-SA. That isn't the debate, the debate is if CC-BY-SA can enforce it or not, some people claim it can't in some countries even Australia to some extent or other, so ODBL is being presented as an option to close loopholes that CC-BY-SA has. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
Oh, and I realised one of the main reasons the Australian Government lawyers are happy about CC* licences is that they prefer CCBY only, therefore avoiding the whole Sharealike-enforcement question. --Original Message Text--- From: Brendan Morley Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:31:59 +1000 Well I RTFM (i.e. the CCBYSA and OdbL licences) and this is what I got: CCBYSA only compels you to share the derived work, not the steps you followed to create the derived work. i.e. CCBYSA never asked people to share the steps they followed. So John, given you wish to don't want commercial companies just sucking up all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the map - - CCBYSA (in mature copyright jurisdictions like Australia) will compel them to share the published work, also under CCBY(SA), therefore there is some data interpretation and re-entry involved to get it back to the OSM schema. This is probably little different to tracing off a paper map or image. - OdbL intends to compel them to share the steps they followed e.g. the modified database before rendering. Mind you, there was nothing I saw in the OdbL that compelled the modifying body to share back in the same database *schema*, so we could still have a big data re-entry problem - the only difference being that there is a hope of a scriptable solution. The interesting bit (that I couldn't satisfy myself by a first read of the licences) is enforcement. Given the fear of a 10^100 just sucking up all the data ... OdbL intends to exploit copyright, database and contract rights. Since it seems the US is a weak copyright jurisdiction when it comes to factual data. It would seem OdbL will not compel 10^100 by copyright law. Database law only applies to European Union, right? So that mechanism is out too. So then we appear to rely on US contract law, such that it may exist in a form that supports OdbL. Well that's my amateur analysis. Has anyone actually done a desk check to see if OdbL can compel 10^100 or other US-domiciled corporates to follow the spirit of the licence? The OdbL FAQ also seems to allow you to choose the jurisdiction that enforcement is carried out under. So as an Australian citizen perhaps you can persue 10^100 in the Australian copyright law context. This doesn't help our US bretheren however, so I'd hope if they wanted to enforce SA on their edits, that the OdbL plays well with US contract law. Hope this helps, Brendan On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:12:34 +1000, John Smith wrote: 2009/12/13 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: That's the issue I have, I have no problem giving back to the community, but I don't want commercial companies just sucking up all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the map, it's not fair to me or anyone else who chooses to donate our time for the greater good. It's perfectly fair. You agreed to license your contributions under CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA doesn't require that you give anything back to anyone. It only requires that you give credit to the authors and license any derivative works that you distribute under CC-BY-SA. That isn't the debate, the debate is if CC-BY-SA can enforce it or not, some people claim it can't in some countries even Australia to some extent or other, so ODBL is being presented as an option to close loopholes that CC-BY-SA has. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/13 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: So John, given you wish to don't want commercial companies just sucking up all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the map - I never said at any point I agree with ODBL, I said I agreed with the intent. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:02 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/13 Anthony o...@inbox.org: If geodata is not copyrightable, then Share Alike is meaningless. The original work is public domain, and the modified work is also public domain. Assuming public domains is a valid option, which isn't valid in all jurisdictions. If the data is not copyrightable, then it is by definition public domain. Even where PD is valid if you modify it and choose a license which can be upheld it is no longer PD any more. If the the data is not copyrightable, it is PD, and no license is going to magically make it not PD. The point is, whichever way it's decided, it'll be the same for the modified data as it is for the original data. If the OSM database is not copyrightable, neither will the modified database be. If the OSM database is copyrightable, then the modified database must be. Just because certain copyrights don't exists in some jursidictions doesn't mean they aren't valid in others. Which is the whole reason for ODBL, because geodata may not be considered copyrightable in some areas a new method of enforcing the same thing CC-BY-SA is needed. For the areas where geodata is not copyrightable, CC-BY-SA isn't needed. If you'd prefer that, fine. But please be honest about this - the ODbL is more than just a more enforceable version of the spirit of CC-BY-SA. The How is this different than the requirements of the GPL where you need to make changes available if you distribute binaries? Well, it's different from the GPL because it uses contract law, and not just copyright law. As explained in the GPL: The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. The ODbL falls into the former category of licenses. The ODbL *is* somewhat more similar to the GPL than it is to CC-BY-SA. But CC-BY-SA was chosen as the license for OSM, not the GPL. So stop saying the ODbL is in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA. Claim it's in the same spirit as the GPL, and then we can have that discussion. requirements go beyond requiring derivative works to be licensed under the same license. Most significantly, the ODbL requires people to offer copies of any derivative databases that are used in the making of the final derivative work. Among other things, that means having to keep copies of such databases, something which is not always done (if I want to alter the database, render tiles, and then throw out the altered database, I'm not able to do that, because I have to offer people copies of the altered database). Again, this is no different than requirements of GPL software. And again, I was comparing ODbL to the intent of CC-BY-SA, not GPL. If you'd like me to compare the ODbL to the GPL, please start a new thread, and I'll be happy to make the full comparison. I hope you first realize, though, that CC-BY-SA is not the GPL. CC-BY-SA does not require you to distribute source code when you distribute binaries. It is not *intended* to require that. And anyone who takes the time to read the simple one page description of CC-BY-SA ought to know that. There is no way everyone is going to be happy as a result of this, that's human nature, people are influenced and motivated by various things, a lot of people agree with the GPL, at lot of people don't which is why you end up with others using BSD and other similar licenses. I agree with the GPL. There's little chance I'm going to release my software under the BSD license. But software isn't geodata. If you want to push your data as PD that's fine, tag the change set as PD when you upload and problem solved then such data can be extracted regardless what other data is licensed as then everyone is happy, of course this only counts in countries that have a notion of PD otherwise people in those countries wouldn't be able to use such data either. Ain't it grand having lawyers make laws? :) Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD. I prefer copyleft. I prefer CC-BY-SA. It keeps people from taking my data and incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses. Like ODbL. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: We could, however, introduce a arc tag... To represent an arc, you only need three points (start, end, and any third point on the arc uniquely defines a triangle which is circumscribed by exactly one circle). Of course, I can't copyright this idea... Not least because only one person is allowed to have each idea, and somebody has already had this idea... http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0919788.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:08 AM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: We could, however, introduce a arc tag... To represent an arc, you only need three points (start, end, and any third point on the arc uniquely defines a triangle which is circumscribed by exactly one circle). Of course, I can't copyright this idea... Not least because only one person is allowed to have each idea, and somebody has already had this idea... http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0919788.html Wow. Are you saying doing this would (possibly?) violate that patent? If so, does that mean we can't do it? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
The location, size, shape of each building is a fact. No inaccuracy was intended. So does this image have copyright protection? http://www.limitemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/steph02.jpg ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:15 AM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: The location, size, shape of each building is a fact. No inaccuracy was intended. So does this image have copyright protection? http://www.limitemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/steph02.jpg I don't think you can say no inaccuracy was intended. However, I'm now convinced that there probably is at least some copyright protection in the OSM database, even here in Florida (and any other state which is part of the US). I'd say it's a very thin copyright, though. If I used that drawing to make a list of buildings ordered by height, I highly doubt the image would be a derivative work of the original. Just like if I use the OSM database to determine a route, or to determine which streets are missing from my own map, or to determine the locations of all the fire stations in Tampa. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Just like if I use the OSM database to determine a route, or to determine which streets are missing from my own map, or to determine the locations of all the fire stations in Tampa. Or if I took a rendered Mapnik map and then traced the streets. Any creativity within the original work would likely be gone. Or, for the areas I'm interested in (mostly in the United States) I'd just go back to the PD TIGER data and then trace only the parts that have been significantly modified. Overpass information is likely not copyrightable. So that part could be imported automatically. To be sure, if I wanted to free OSM from copyright, I'd make my own designations of roads as primary/secondary/tertiary/etc (and probably use different designations all together). I'd choose the categories of POIs to extract, and leave out the others. (I don't think individual POI latitude/longitude pairs are copyrightable, but the selection of which POIs to include and which POIs not to include might be.) Personally, I wouldn't bother with all this, because CC-BY-SA is fine for me. If OSM goes to ODbL I probably will use some of these techniques when extracting modifications made after the fork with my area of interest, though. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/14 Anthony o...@inbox.org: If the the data is not copyrightable, it is PD, and no license is going to magically make it not PD. Not all legal systems are derived from the British/Common Law legal system, there are others that instead of having all rights by default you only have rights if granted them. For the areas where geodata is not copyrightable, CC-BY-SA isn't needed. You mean cc-by-sa doesn't apply, which is the whole point, some want SA to apply regardless if cc-by-sa is able to take effect or not. Well, it's different from the GPL because it uses contract law, and not just copyright law. As explained in the GPL: The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. The ODbL falls into the former category of licenses. I realise the ODBL doesn't just use copyright law, I thought that was kinda the point, copyright law may not be useful everywhere so other mechanisms had to be thought up. The ODbL *is* somewhat more similar to the GPL than it is to CC-BY-SA. But CC-BY-SA was chosen as the license for OSM, not the GPL. So stop saying the ODbL is in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA. Claim it's in the same spirit as the GPL, and then we can have that discussion. As I stated, I never said I agreed with ODBL, I agreed with the intent behind it. Also out of curiosity why are you so adamantly against people being required to give back to the community if you are already supporting this community? IN fact having such requirements means you will benefit from improvements others contribute. I agree with the GPL. There's little chance I'm going to release my software under the BSD license. But software isn't geodata. Again, it's the intent, not the specific license that I agree with at present, I won't be able to have this all sorted out till into the new year at the earliest because it's kind of too close to christmas and people are going on holidays etc. Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD. I prefer copyleft. I prefer CC-BY-SA. It keeps people from taking my data and incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses. Like ODbL. Since you keep claiming cc-by-sa can't protect geodata then it can't prevent your data from being re-licensed as ODBL, or did I miss something in your comments? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:20 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/14 Anthony o...@inbox.org: For the areas where geodata is not copyrightable, CC-BY-SA isn't needed. You mean cc-by-sa doesn't apply, which is the whole point, some want SA to apply regardless if cc-by-sa is able to take effect or not. No, I mean it isn't needed. Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD. I prefer copyleft. I prefer CC-BY-SA. It keeps people from taking my data and incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses. Like ODbL. Since you keep claiming cc-by-sa can't protect geodata then it can't prevent your data from being re-licensed as ODBL, or did I miss something in your comments? I believe you added something to my comments. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/14 Anthony o...@inbox.org: No, I mean it isn't needed. If everyone believed it wasn't needed we wouldn't be having this discussion... I believe you added something to my comments. What did I add? You said cc-by-sa can't protect geodata (in your jurisdiction), so it can't prevent it from being rebundled/relicensed, correct? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:14 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/14 Anthony o...@inbox.org: No, I mean it isn't needed. If everyone believed it wasn't needed we wouldn't be having this discussion... Quite true! I believe you added something to my comments. What did I add? You said cc-by-sa can't protect geodata (in your jurisdiction), so it can't prevent it from being rebundled/relicensed, correct? I certainly don't remember saying that, and it doesn't sound like something I'd say. As I have said before, to protect my geodata, I use backups. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/14 Anthony o...@inbox.org: I certainly don't remember saying that, and it doesn't sound like something I'd say. As I have said before, to protect my geodata, I use backups. I was extrapolating based on what you stated earlier, backups are a protection of sorts, but the discussion is about legal protections. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
Arc would make a certain amount of sense since the design of the built environment (e.g. road construction) is basically broken down into segments of lines, arcs and spirals (i.e. the transition from straight to curved sections). But then all associated tools would have to start acting like CAD applications, not just relying on the concepts used in say the OpenGIS Simple Features Specification. In the longer term, road engineers could (should?) just be able to load their as-built engineering drawings straight into OSM. Awesome... Brendan --Original Message Text--- From: Anthony Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:59:31 -0500 We could, however, introduce a arc tag. And if I was better at making proposals (and/or the OSM processes were better at accepting proposals), it would probably already be introduced. To represent an arc, you only need three points (start, end, and any third point on the arc uniquely defines a triangle which is circumscribed by exactly one circle). This could even be made backward compatible. Just split the way at the beginning and end of the arc and put arc=yes. Renderers that don't know about arcs would use three points (or four, or five, or whatever). Renderers that do know about them would use as many as is necessary for the resolution of the image. (In the case of an arc=yes tag with more than three points ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
If the intent of OSM is to represent the centerline of a road as accurately as possible (and presumably other land features too) then this is another reason to consider dropping the SA requirement - or dual licencing or dual databases or being able to assign a licence per-object. Australian Government is now quite happy to share using CCBY, but CCBYSA (and OdbL replicas) make it difficult for government to republish (e.g. it shouldn't be seen to discriminate against constituents that don't wish to accept the SA stipulation on contributed edits). And who else but government is in the best position (and has the most self interest) to determine exactly where the road was built? Brendan --Original Message Text--- From: Anthony Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:26:08 -0500 The intent of OSM is to represent the centerline of a road as accurately as possible. There aren't an infinite number of possibilities which we creatively choose from. (First of all, the number of possibilities that can be represented is finite, as the number of decimal places is finite. But more to the point, the purpose is to record exactly one result, and any deviation from that is simply an error.) Mistakes and inaccuracy do not represent creative input. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/12 Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au: If the intent of OSM is to represent the centerline of a road as accurately as possible (and presumably other land features too) then this is another reason to consider dropping the SA requirement - or dual licencing or dual databases or being able to assign a licence per-object. Australian Government is now quite happy to share using CCBY, but CCBYSA (and OdbL replicas) make it difficult for government to republish (e.g. it shouldn't be seen to discriminate against constituents that don't wish to accept the SA stipulation on contributed edits). The problem I have with that is my labour is used to commercially benefit others and in turn nothing they do would have to be returned to the community. If people or companies are benefiting, why shouldn't there be some expectations to return the benefits to everyone, not just hoard it away for the benefit of commercial operators if they themselves are benefiting from it? And who else but government is in the best position (and has the most self interest) to determine exactly where the road was built? There is a lot of roads on paper that were never built so I don't see that as accurate either. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:17 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: The problem I have with that is my labour is used to commercially benefit others and in turn nothing they do would have to be returned to the community. So you want to be given something in return for your labor? Nothing wrong with that, but you're more likely to be successful if you choose a non-free project to contribute to. If your labor is valuable to commercial interests, don't give it away for free. Get those commercial interests to pay you, and then, if you'd like, you can donate your pay to the community. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/13 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:17 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The problem I have with that is my labour is used to commercially benefit others and in turn nothing they do would have to be returned to the community. So you want to be given something in return for your labor? Nothing wrong with that, but you're more likely to be successful if you choose a non-free project to contribute to. If your labor is valuable to commercial interests, don't give it away for free. Get those commercial interests to pay you, and then, if you'd like, you can donate your pay to the community. That's the issue I have, I have no problem giving back to the community, but I don't want commercial companies just sucking up all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the map, it's not fair to me or anyone else who chooses to donate our time for the greater good. After all if the data isn't extended there is nothing to give back, which is a shame but you can't have everything I guess. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: That's the issue I have, I have no problem giving back to the community, but I don't want commercial companies just sucking up all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the map, it's not fair to me or anyone else who chooses to donate our time for the greater good. It's perfectly fair. You agreed to license your contributions under CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA doesn't require that you give anything back to anyone. It only requires that you give credit to the authors and license any derivative works that you distribute under CC-BY-SA. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/13 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: That's the issue I have, I have no problem giving back to the community, but I don't want commercial companies just sucking up all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the map, it's not fair to me or anyone else who chooses to donate our time for the greater good. It's perfectly fair. You agreed to license your contributions under CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA doesn't require that you give anything back to anyone. It only requires that you give credit to the authors and license any derivative works that you distribute under CC-BY-SA. That isn't the debate, the debate is if CC-BY-SA can enforce it or not, some people claim it can't in some countries even Australia to some extent or other, so ODBL is being presented as an option to close loopholes that CC-BY-SA has. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:12 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/13 Anthony o...@inbox.org: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: That's the issue I have, I have no problem giving back to the community, but I don't want commercial companies just sucking up all the data and not giving hardly anything back in return if they extend the map, it's not fair to me or anyone else who chooses to donate our time for the greater good. It's perfectly fair. You agreed to license your contributions under CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA doesn't require that you give anything back to anyone. It only requires that you give credit to the authors and license any derivative works that you distribute under CC-BY-SA. That isn't the debate, the debate is if CC-BY-SA can enforce it or not, some people claim it can't in some countries even Australia to some extent or other, so ODBL is being presented as an option to close loopholes that CC-BY-SA has. If CC-BY-SA can enforce what? Attribution? If geodata isn't copyrightable, then it doesn't matter if the derivative works are released under CC-BY-SA. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/13 Anthony o...@inbox.org: If CC-BY-SA can enforce what? Attribution? If geodata isn't copyrightable, then it doesn't matter if the derivative works are released under CC-BY-SA. CC-BY is attribution, CC-BY-SA is Attribution with Share Alike. While geodata might not be, the meta data should be imho, but I'm not a lawyer nor profess to be, and it would take legal action to actually settle it one way or the other and that is on a per jurisdiction basis. ODBL is trying to add extra legal layers to CC-BY-SA by not relying on just copyright to enforce the SA part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:32 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/12/13 Anthony o...@inbox.org: If CC-BY-SA can enforce what? Attribution? If geodata isn't copyrightable, then it doesn't matter if the derivative works are released under CC-BY-SA. CC-BY is attribution, CC-BY-SA is Attribution with Share Alike. And what does Share Alike mean? If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. If geodata is not copyrightable, then Share Alike is meaningless. The original work is public domain, and the modified work is also public domain. While geodata might not be, the meta data should be imho, but I'm not a lawyer nor profess to be, and it would take legal action to actually settle it one way or the other and that is on a per jurisdiction basis. The point is, whichever way it's decided, it'll be the same for the modified data as it is for the original data. If the OSM database is not copyrightable, neither will the modified database be. If the OSM database is copyrightable, then the modified database must be. ODBL is trying to add extra legal layers to CC-BY-SA by not relying on just copyright to enforce the SA part. ODBL is trying to enforce requirements beyond If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. Most significantly, a requirement to offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a machine readable form of [...] The Derivative Database (under a.) or alteration file (under b.). That is not at all a requirement of CC-BY-SA. It is something completely new that is being added, which IMO makes things less free, not more free. If you'd prefer that, fine. But please be honest about this - the ODbL is more than just a more enforceable version of the spirit of CC-BY-SA. The requirements go beyond requiring derivative works to be licensed under the same license. Most significantly, the ODbL requires people to offer copies of any derivative databases that are used in the making of the final derivative work. Among other things, that means having to keep copies of such databases, something which is not always done (if I want to alter the database, render tiles, and then throw out the altered database, I'm not able to do that, because I have to offer people copies of the altered database). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
Anthony osm at inbox.org writes: Why do people believe that there no creative copyright in OSM data I'm going with that assumption because that's what the OSM, Creative Commons, and Open Data Commons, all are telling us. Do you have sources for that? I haven't seen any statement by the OSMF saying that there is no creativity (and hence, in some countries, no copyright) in the OSM data. Similarly I don't think Creative Commons have said that. They have published opinions on what licences might be suitable for factual data, but they haven't made any pronouncement on the legal status of OSM data in particular. As for Open Data Commons, I don't know, but I would welcome any references. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Anthony osm at inbox.org writes: Why do people believe that there no creative copyright in OSM data I'm going with that assumption because that's what the OSM, Creative Commons, and Open Data Commons, all are telling us. Do you have sources for that? I haven't seen any statement by the OSMF saying that there is no creativity (and hence, in some countries, no copyright) in the OSM data. I'm basically going on what I read in http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf and the supporting documents. Rereading it, I guess it doesn't come right out and say that OSM isn't protected by US copyright (although I'd find it extremely unlikely for such a definitive legal statement to be made even if it were true). It implies it, though, and says full background can be read at http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable , which in turn says *Conclusion*: It is quite likely that OSM data is not protected by U.S. (and other jurisdictions') copyright laws. About as definitive of a legal statement as you're likely to get for free. I'm not sure who the author of that conclusion was, though. But the OSMF seemingly endorsed it by linking to it for full background. Similarly I don't think Creative Commons have said that. They have published opinions on what licences might be suitable for factual data, but they haven't made any pronouncement on the legal status of OSM data in particular. You're probably right on that. Again, I didn't read the license proposal carefully enough, and while it makes the implication that CC made that conclusion, presenting the CC statement: In the United States, data will be protected by copyright only if they express creativity. after Creative Commons themselves have said several times that CC BY-SA is not suitable for OSM., I now realize that this is misleading. Good catch. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
Really, considering how many discussions about how to map things (just recall all those footway/cycleway discussions) have been on these lists, at least tagging seems to be a creative process right now. On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Anthony osm at inbox.org writes: Why do people believe that there no creative copyright in OSM data I'm going with that assumption because that's what the OSM, Creative Commons, and Open Data Commons, all are telling us. Do you have sources for that? I haven't seen any statement by the OSMF saying that there is no creativity (and hence, in some countries, no copyright) in the OSM data. I'm basically going on what I read in http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf and the supporting documents. Rereading it, I guess it doesn't come right out and say that OSM isn't protected by US copyright (although I'd find it extremely unlikely for such a definitive legal statement to be made even if it were true). It implies it, though, and says full background can be read at http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable , which in turn says *Conclusion*: It is quite likely that OSM data is not protected by U.S. (and other jurisdictions') copyright laws. About as definitive of a legal statement as you're likely to get for free. I'm not sure who the author of that conclusion was, though. But the OSMF seemingly endorsed it by linking to it for full background. Similarly I don't think Creative Commons have said that. They have published opinions on what licences might be suitable for factual data, but they haven't made any pronouncement on the legal status of OSM data in particular. You're probably right on that. Again, I didn't read the license proposal carefully enough, and while it makes the implication that CC made that conclusion, presenting the CC statement: In the United States, data will be protected by copyright only if they express creativity. after Creative Commons themselves have said several times that CC BY-SA is not suitable for OSM., I now realize that this is misleading. Good catch. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.com wrote: Really, considering how many discussions about how to map things (just recall all those footway/cycleway discussions) have been on these lists, at least tagging seems to be a creative process right now. But if it's copyrighted, who owns the copyright on it? Each person who uses the tag? The people who participate in the list discussion? The OSMF? If the OSM database were a work for hire, and all of us mappers were employees, it'd be one thing. Then, I think a thin copyright would probably be meaningful. But it isn't a work for hire, so whatever copyright there is is spread out among 100,000 different people. Arguably, if there is a copyright on the OSM database, it is collectively owned as a work of joint authorship with 100,000 or so joint authors. That means any one of the 100,000 authors can use the OSM database any way they want, and all they have to do is split the profits 100,000 ways. Of course, that's ridiculous, so it's unlikely a judge would ever hold that to be the case (unless maybe she'd recently read a book on jurisprudence written by King Solomon). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/8 Anthony o...@inbox.org: But if it's copyrighted, who owns the copyright on it? Each person who uses the tag? The people who participate in the list discussion? The OSMF? You own the copyright on your changes but you also agreed to release it at present under CC-BY-SA, as does everyone else, so all contributors own the copyright, but you also license your changes under cc-by-sa so there is no one owner. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote: Why do people believe that there no creative copyright in OSM data (i.e., why is CC-BY-SA supposedly indefensible for OSM data)? I'm talking about the US-type of copyright that is based on sufficient creativity, and not on the sweat-of-the-brow copyright that is part of UK IP. I'm going with that assumption because that's what the OSM, Creative Commons, and Open Data Commons, all are telling us. But I think you're right that there could be argued to be some creative content in the OSM database. Essentially every time someone decides to map for the renderer rather than map what's on the ground, they're making a creative decision. I think *most* of the OSM database is uncopyrightable here in the US. The road networks, at least the public road networks, are probably public domain. The service roads, maybe not - there was a certain amount of selectivity to them. The POIs, yes and no. If I extract all the police stations from the OSM database, that's probably public domain. But if I take all the POIs, maybe not. There was a selective process used to determine which types of POIs to include and which not to include. On the other hand, who owns the copyright on this selection process? Probably we all do. But I would argue that a selection of a finite set from an infinite possible nodes that can represent the centerline of a road is a sufficiently creative endeavor that is automatically afforded copyright according to the US copyright system. Inaccuracy isn't copyrightable. Mistakes aren't copyrightable (see Feist). The intent of OSM is to represent the centerline of a road as accurately as possible. There aren't an infinite number of possibilities which we creatively choose from. (First of all, the number of possibilities that can be represented is finite, as the number of decimal places is finite. But more to the point, the purpose is to record exactly one result, and any deviation from that is simply an error.) Mistakes and inaccuracy do not represent creative input. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote: But I would argue that a selection of a finite set from an infinite possible nodes that can represent the centerline of a road is a sufficiently creative endeavor that is automatically afforded copyright according to the US copyright system. Inaccuracy isn't copyrightable. Mistakes aren't copyrightable (see Feist). The intent of OSM is to represent the centerline of a road as accurately as possible. There aren't an infinite number of possibilities which we creatively choose from. (First of all, the number of possibilities that can be represented is finite, as the number of decimal places is finite. But more to the point, the purpose is to record exactly one result, and any deviation from that is simply an error.) Mistakes and inaccuracy do not represent creative input. It's true that the intent of OSM is the represent the centerline of a road as accurately as possible but I think that only means that the selected nodes have to be positioned accurately. Now whether one set of 20 nodes or a different set of 20 nodes better represent the shape of a road is a matter of creative subjectivity. Neither set is more mistaken nor more inaccurate than the other. For practical purposes, we can't add an infinite number of nodes or should even add 100 nodes to represent a perfectly circular roundabout, so the fact that we use maybe 8 or even 16 nodes to represent that roundabout is not a mistake or an inaccuracy. Now the particular selection of 8 or 16 nodes is what's creative and so those set of nodes deserves copyright. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote: Now whether one set of 20 nodes or a different set of 20 nodes better represent the shape of a road is a matter of creative subjectivity. Neither set is more mistaken nor more inaccurate than the other. What set of nodes constitutes a best fit to a given shape with a given number of points, is fairly objective. You may creatively choose something other than the best solution, but again, I don't think that constitutes copyrightability. Not within context. (If you intentionally chose something other than the best fit, for something sort of stylistic purpose, fine, but I really don't see how that's applicable to road mapping.) I think that's borderline at best. But I do agree with your greater point, that there probably is some sort of thin copyright to the OSM database. (Of course, that thin copyright is then further diluted among a couple hundred thousand contributors, making it very thin indeed.) For practical purposes, we can't add an infinite number of nodes or should even add 100 nodes to represent a perfectly circular roundabout, We could, however, introduce a arc tag. And if I was better at making proposals (and/or the OSM processes were better at accepting proposals), it would probably already be introduced. To represent an arc, you only need three points (start, end, and any third point on the arc uniquely defines a triangle which is circumscribed by exactly one circle). This could even be made backward compatible. Just split the way at the beginning and end of the arc and put arc=yes. Renderers that don't know about arcs would use three points (or four, or five, or whatever). Renderers that do know about them would use as many as is necessary for the resolution of the image. (In the case of an arc=yes tag with more than three points Of course, I can't copyright this idea... So you're free to use it if you'd like with or without attribution to me. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote: Now whether one set of 20 nodes or a different set of 20 nodes better represent the shape of a road is a matter of creative subjectivity. Neither set is more mistaken nor more inaccurate than the other. What set of nodes constitutes a best fit to a given shape with a given number of points, is fairly objective. You may creatively choose something other than the best solution, but again, I don't think that constitutes copyrightability. Not within context. (If you intentionally chose something other than the best fit, for something sort of stylistic purpose, fine, but I really don't see how that's applicable to road mapping.) Sure, there is only one set of N nodes that best represents a particular shape, but our problem is determining what exactly is that shape in the first place. Our GPS-based methodolody is only accurate to so much that the particular shape can't be defined if you want to be objective (in an Ayn Rand way) about it. Hence, we OSM as a project cannot determine the best fit per your definition. Well, unless you specify an accuracy tolerance level AND the number of nodes for each geographical feature. But then, the selection of both metrics for each geographical feature can still be considered a creative selection since they will be both arbitrary. Moreover, unless there is a ridiculously easy and systematic way of determining the best fit, mappers would not bother doing it and will always use a subjective and personal criteria to determine the good enough fit. This good enough fit is fit for OSM purposes and just because it's not mathematically proven to be the best fit doesn't make the data useless. Thus, the good enough fit (for increasing levels of good enough as time passes by) is still a product of a creative process deserving of copyright. For practical purposes, we can't add an infinite number of nodes or should even add 100 nodes to represent a perfectly circular roundabout, We could, however, introduce a arc tag. And if I was better at making proposals (and/or the OSM processes were better at accepting proposals), it would probably already be introduced. To represent an arc, you only need three points (start, end, and any third point on the arc uniquely defines a triangle which is circumscribed by exactly one circle). This could even be made backward compatible. Just split the way at the beginning and end of the arc and put arc=yes. Renderers that don't know about arcs would use three points (or four, or five, or whatever). Renderers that do know about them would use as many as is necessary for the resolution of the image. (In the case of an arc=yes tag with more than three points Of course, I can't copyright this idea... So you're free to use it if you'd like with or without attribution to me. Maybe a perfectly circular roundabout is not the best example. How about an S-shaped road? Sure, we can add Bezier curves but we go back to the argument just above. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote: Well, unless you specify an accuracy tolerance level AND the number of nodes for each geographical feature. But then, the selection of both metrics for each geographical feature can still be considered a creative selection since they will be both arbitrary. I don't think it makes sense to argue this further. Perhaps the selection of which nodes to include and which nodes not to include can be considered to display some minimal level of creativity. On the other hand, perhaps it could be successfully argued that the creative spark is utterly lacking or so trivial as to be virtually nonexistent. I really don't know. And I don't think it particularly matters. I agree with your basic premise, that there probably is a (very) thin copyright in the OSM database. And in that sense I think I have to disagree with both the OSMF and Creative Commons that CC-BY-SA is wholly inapplicable to the OSM database. It's nice to have CC-BY-SA to fall back on, rather than engaging in a long legal battle over exactly how sparky the plaintiff's creative sparks were. To me, CC-BY-SA says this database might be copyrighted - if it is, to the extent it is, we allow you do X anyway, so long as you also do Y. For that, I'd prefer CC0, or maybe CC-BY, as a statement that this database might be copyrighted - if it is, to the extent it is, we allow you to do X anyway [so long as you tell people where you got the data from]. If this database is copyrighted, the copyright is thin. So thin, that's it's better to just give it away than to go through all the legal hassle of trying to protect it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
2009/12/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org: But I would argue that a selection of a finite set from an infinite possible nodes that can represent the centerline of a road is a sufficiently creative endeavor that is automatically afforded copyright according to the US copyright system. Inaccuracy isn't copyrightable. Mistakes aren't copyrightable (see Feist). The intent of OSM is to represent the centerline of a road as accurately as possible. There aren't an infinite number of possibilities which we creatively choose from. (First of all, the number of possibilities that can be represented is finite, as the number of decimal places is finite. But more to the point, the purpose is to record exactly one result, and any deviation from that is simply an error.) Mistakes and inaccuracy do not represent creative input. Actually a circle by definition is a line with infinite number of points. Also I agree there is a number of creative things that go into making up the data, it isn't just a set of facts, you are making creative choices all the time about how to best fit facts into how things will render later, plenty of people are making square roundabouts, others make works of art. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
