Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Thursday meet
Anyone going to Halesowen on Thursday evening? Miked29 ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Thursday meet
You mean Harborne I hope Mike ;-) Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Mike Duffy [mailto:mdbg02...@blueyonder.co.uk] Sent: 05 July 2011 11:10 PM To: talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Thursday meet Anyone going to Halesowen on Thursday evening? Miked29 ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright issues of checking details on other websites
On 4 July 2011 14:05, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: On 04/07/2011 12:48, Donald Noble wrote: Sorry if this has been covered before, but I was just wondering what the copyright position is with checking details of, say a church or a shop, on their website and then adding those details to OSM? I would have thought that this was fair use of the information they are providing on their website, and if anything would help to promote their business, but it would be good to get another opinion. I certainly do this all the time for a street address and other information since I consider fair use in the way you point out and the they are not in the business of trying to make money from listing locations, (such websites I avoid). Also for information and to provide an implicit attribution, I also add their website as website=. Unfortunately there is no concept of fair use in UK copyright law. We have something called fair dealing, which is much more limited and wouldn't cover these cases: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law So I suspect it's potentially breaching copyright, and a matter of judgement as to whether it's worth the risk. For example, if you were copying in data from a commercial web site whose business model was based around that data (like a listing of pubs) you might get yourself and OSM into some trouble. On the other hand, copying in some basic contact details for a local church or restaurant off their own web site is unlikely to cause any trouble! Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright issues of checking details on other websites
Tom Chance wrote: So I suspect it's potentially breaching copyright, and a matter of judgement as to whether it's worth the risk. For example, if you were copying in data from a commercial web site whose business model was based around that data (like a listing of pubs) you might get yourself and OSM into some trouble. On the other hand, copying in some basic contact details for a local church or restaurant off their own web site is unlikely to cause any trouble! Exactly that. If you want a very very broad rule of thumb, you could ask am I checking these contact details against a database of contact details?. If so (e.g. tesco.com list of their stores, beerintheevening.com list of pubs, etc.), then don't do it. If not (e.g. an individual 'contact us' page on a one-off shop), you'll be fine. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Copyright-issues-of-checking-details-on-other-websites-tp6545632p6549071.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 04/07/11 18:36, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: So presumably we also need confirmation from Ordnance Survey that they're happy for their content to be distributed under DbCL (or at least under the ODbL+DbCL combination). No, because they've agreed that licensing their data under ODbL is not a breach of their original licence. That means that once it is under ODbL it is simply a matter of whether DbCL is compatible with ODbL, which I'm assuming it is. I other words, once the data is licensed under ODbL, the OS OpenData license is irrelevant. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Fantastic news - thanks to the License Working Group for their efforts on this. I've added a new answer to the http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/5792/can-i-accept-the-new-contributor-terms-if-ive-contributed-data-from-ordnance-survey-opendata /Can I accept the new Contributor Terms if I've contributed data from Ordnance Survey OpenData?/ question on the OSM Help Centre. I would encourage everyone on this list to seek out any contributors who have previously held off accepting the CTs because of this licensing issue and make them aware of this new announcement. Would a mention on the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:News OSM News be appropriate? -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6549115.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Michael Collinson mike@... writes: Ordnance Survey has explicitly considered any licensing conflict between their license and ODbL and has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0. As I understand it the objection was not so much whether the data can be distributed under the ODbL but whether the contributor terms (which under some reasonable interpretations allow OSMF to distribute under a different licence in future) are compatible. You have previously given your personal interpretation of the CTs, which is that a contributor need only assert that data is compatible with the *current* licence terms (and so might be incompatible with some putative future licence). Will there be official confirmation from OSMF backing up this interpretation? If not, is there a means for people to click 'I accept the CTs, subject to the interpretation posted on the talk-gb mailing list'? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright issues of checking details on other websites
My rule of thumb is that getting facts from an individual website for a cafe or shop or church is fine, but do not copy from online directories or the databases maintained by search engines. If adding details from a website I will usually note it in the 'source' or 'uri' tags, or in the changeset comment, to provide some evidence that I found it independently and didn't just copy off Google. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright issues of checking details on other websites
David Earl wrote: Even then, to infringe database copyright under UK law you would have to copy a substantial part of the database. Checking or obtaining a few names against such a list isn't database copyright infringement Oh, absolutely. The thing I've always been anxious about, though, is that J Random Mapper checking 5 addresses from tesco.com isn't substantial, and K Random Mapper checking 5 random addresses isn't, and L Random Mapper... ...but when you get to every OSM-GB contributor checking five addresses, yes, it probably is. And we don't have any way of saying ok, we've taken enough from tesco.com. (I was about to say that I'd chosen a bad example with Tesco as they presumably want you to know where their stores are, but then, you'd have thought you could say the same of ATOC, and they're famously protective about letting people know where their trains are...) cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright issues of checking details on other websites
On 05/07/2011 11:26, Richard Fairhurst wrote: David Earl wrote: Even then, to infringe database copyright under UK law you would have to copy a substantial part of the database. Checking or obtaining a few names against such a list isn't database copyright infringement Oh, absolutely. The thing I've always been anxious about, though, is that J Random Mapper checking 5 addresses from tesco.com isn't substantial, and K Random Mapper checking 5 random addresses isn't, and L Random Mapper... Yes, that crossed my mind as well. But who would the copyright holder sue in those circumstances? To take a different example, the Royal Mail (still) claims database copyright over the PAF (postcode address file) database. Would crowd sourcing the address vs postcode data by each individual putting in their own data constitute database copyright infringement and if so who is the infringer? David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
- Original Message - From: Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK Michael Collinson mike@... writes: Ordnance Survey has explicitly considered any licensing conflict between their license and ODbL and has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0. As I understand it the objection was not so much whether the data can be distributed under the ODbL but whether the contributor terms (which under some reasonable interpretations allow OSMF to distribute under a different licence in future) are compatible. You have previously given your personal interpretation of the CTs, which is that a contributor need only assert that data is compatible with the *current* licence terms (and so might be incompatible with some putative future licence). Will there be official confirmation from OSMF backing up this interpretation? This was discussed at the LWG meeting 21 June [1], and draft wording was proposed. I assume that this will at some stage be formalised, maybe even at tonight's LWG meeting? Regards David [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_121dzjmk5c5pli=1 If not, is there a means for people to click 'I accept the CTs, subject to the interpretation posted on the talk-gb mailing list'? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright issues of checking details on other websites
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:58 AM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: To take a different example, the Royal Mail (still) claims database copyright over the PAF (postcode address file) database. Would crowd sourcing the address vs postcode data by each individual putting in their own data constitute database copyright infringement and if so who is the infringer? There used to be a postcode crowsourcing project here: http://www.freepostcodes.org.uk/ According to that site postcode data is available under an open licence. Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright issues of checking details on other websites
On 05/07/2011 12:28, Nick Austin wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:58 AM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: To take a different example, the Royal Mail (still) claims database copyright over the PAF (postcode address file) database. Would crowd sourcing the address vs postcode data by each individual putting in their own data constitute database copyright infringement and if so who is the infringer? There used to be a postcode crowsourcing project here: http://www.freepostcodes.org.uk/ According to that site postcode data is available under an open licence. Yes, I know. But that data doesn't include addresses, only geocodes for postcodes. The address vs postcode database is still jealously guarded by Royal Mail. But anyway, that wasn't the point, it's just an example. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Following my correspondence and a follow-up informal meeting by Henk Hoff, I am now pleased to announce that the licensing group of the Ordnance Survey has explicitly considered any licensing conflict between their license and ODbL and has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0. Mike, Did the response that you received from the Ordnance Survey make reference to which content license could be used? Have they given permission to use their content with *any* content license or do you think they overlooked the need to consider this detail? 80n ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: So presumably we also need confirmation from Ordnance Survey that they're happy for their content to be distributed under DbCL (or at least under the ODbL+DbCL combination). I think that's a red herring, isn't it? ODbL imposes additional requirements over and above DbCL. OSM is not distributing OS OpenData under DbCL alone, nor does it permit anyone else to do so (subject to the usual 'Substantial' test, which is of course Database Directive stuff and therefore governs OS's existing data distribution business anyway). What circumstances can you envisage in which OSM-distributed OS OpenData might not be subject to the provisions of ODbL? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6549490.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 5 July 2011 13:14, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I think that's a red herring, isn't it? ODbL imposes additional requirements over and above DbCL. OSM is not distributing OS OpenData under DbCL alone, nor does it permit anyone else to do so (subject to the usual 'Substantial' test, which is of course Database Directive stuff and therefore governs OS's existing data distribution business anyway). What circumstances can you envisage in which OSM-distributed OS OpenData might not be subject to the provisions of ODbL? My understanding is as follows: ODbL only covers the database and not it's individual contents. (The example given by OpenDataCommons is a database of photographs, where the database could be covered by ODbL and the photographs themselves by a suitable contents license -- which could be DbCL or CC-By or something else.) Without a separate license for the contents you're actually unable to distribute any of the contents of the database. (See the preamble in the legal text for ODbL, along with clauses 2.2a and 2.4.) OSM wants to distribute things under ODbL for the database and DbCL for the contents. This means that any submitted data needs to be compatible with both of those licences (or at least the two in combination). DbCL is essentially a copyright waiver on the individual contents, so downstream users only have to worry about complying with ODbL. You're right that it doesn't impose any additional requirements on downstream users. But it does grant them additional freedoms. So you therefore need additional rights to do so from any upstream suppliers. In the context of OSM, the fact that the contents will be under DbCL will enable users to make use insubstantial extracts without having to provide any attribution or share-alike or anything else. (Clause 6.2 of ODbL says that ODbL does not impose any restrictions on such extracts, so you're just left with DbCL to comply with.) Without the contents under DbCL -- for example if they were under CC-By (which is fairly close to the OS OpenData Terms), then you'd have to provide attribution even on insubstantial extracts. (Unless of course you tried to use fair use / fair dealing arguments, or claim geodata facts aren't copyrightable -- but I don't think we'd want to rely on these in all jurisdictions.) Because of this difference, I believe we would need permission from OS to distribute derivatives of their data under the specific ODbL+DbCL combination rather than just the ODbL part. It may be that we already have this and Mike just didn't mention it, or it may be that ODbL+DbCL is implicit in OS's agreeing to ODbL, but I think it's something that should be checked carefully. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: In the context of OSM, the fact that the contents will be under DbCL will enable users to make use insubstantial extracts without having to provide any attribution or share-alike or anything else. Again, as I said, insubstantial is statute law - both the EU Database Directive [1] and CDPA 1988 [2]. It applies as much to OS OpenData outside OSM+ODbL, as it does to OpenData within OSM+ODbL. I can copy and paste three lines from OS Locator here, without attribution, perfectly legally: :A1:398840:655008:398615:399058:654714:655322:null::Edward:Northumberland:Northumberland:NT95NE:NT95:Roads :A1:399382:650067:399091:399661:649884:650231:null::Shielfield:Northumberland:Northumberland:NT95SE:NT95:Roads :A1:398453:654118:397330:399045:651761:657053:null:BERWICK-UPON-TWEED:Elizabeth:Northumberland:Northumberland:NT95SE:NT95:Roads :) So it's not an issue. This freedom is already available to users of OS OpenData. There are therefore no circumstances in which OSM will be permitting use of OS OpenData without ODbL applying, over and above the freedoms which are available to users of OS OpenData regardless of OSM's involvement. There is no need to consider the effect of DbCL in isolation. cheers Richard [1] a person infringes database right in a database if, without the consent of the owner of the right, he extracts or re-utilises all or a substantial part of the contents of the database [2] References in this Part to the doing of an act restricted by the copyright in a work are to the doing of it (a) in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6549760.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: So presumably we also need confirmation from Ordnance Survey that they're happy for their content to be distributed under DbCL (or at least under the ODbL+DbCL combination). I think that's a red herring, isn't it? ODbL imposes additional requirements over and above DbCL. OSM is not distributing OS OpenData under DbCL alone, nor does it permit anyone else to do so (subject to the usual 'Substantial' test, which is of course Database Directive stuff and therefore governs OS's existing data distribution business anyway). ODbL licenses a database of content. The content of the database can carry any license of the author's choosing. Because the OS have not specified any other content license the assumption must be that their content is still licensed under the OS OpenData license. You cannot just presume otherwise. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: So if I understand what you're saying correctly, because there are already provisions in UK law (and possibly elsewhere) that allow you to make use of insubstantial parts of a work in any way you want without infringing any copyright or database rights, we don't have to worry about getting special permission to allow OSM users to do this under ODbL+CDbL. Exactly. :) I'm not sure those statue provisions are necessarily the same thing as the liberal content license under ODbL+CDbL, but it certainly goes some way towards it. (Although if the only insubstantial allowance in CPDA is under fair dealing It's not, fortunately - it's an express statement that only reproduction of the whole of a substantial part of a copyrighted work is covered. (I've recommended it on OSM lists before, but for those who haven't seen it, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/cdpact1988.pdf is an essential reference to any discussion of copyright in the UK. Download a copy and refer to it regularly, e.g. when you're having trouble sleeping. The bit in question here is II.16.3.a.) As you know, ODbL is enforced three ways: copyright, database right, contract. The express intention behind ODbL's insubstantial clarification clause (6.2) is to ensure that the contract pillar doesn't remove your existing rights under the other two pillars. Substantial is, of course, difficult to pin down and you rightly mention the community guidelines as part of this. But I think this is analogous to what we already do for attribution. osm.org/copyright currently reads: | Our CC-BY-SA licence requires you to “give the Original Author | credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilising”. | Individual OSM mappers do not request a credit over and above | that to “OpenStreetMap contributors”, but where data from a | national mapping agency or other major source has been included | in OpenStreetMap, it may be reasonable to credit them by | directly reproducing their credit or by linking to it on this page. We should probably do the same for the guidelines. These are the norms to which the OSM community works, but where data from a national mapping agency or other major source has been included in OpenStreetMap, you should be aware that they may have their own expectations of substantial extraction. This issue is certainly not as bad as I first thought, but I still think this is something that should be checked carefully, either by getting an explicit agreement from OS, or an OK from OSM's lawyers. Your call for your data, of course! But I think OS have demonstrated a huge amount of good faith on this, and it would be a shame to bother their staff further - particularly given that all public-sector staff are under the cosh at the moment. The law isn't black and white: it works with probabilities and intentions, and Mike and Henk's work has clearly illustrated OS's intention is that they're happy with OpenData being included in OSM. Because the law _isn't_ black and white, and because factual databases are (as a very rich case law history demonstrates) a particularly complex and still unsettled area, there are always going to be areas with slight divergences. That's natural. But personally I consider that this OS statement has put the case beyond reasonable doubt, and it would be terrific if - the Contributor Terms clarification permitting - you could agree for your data. Especially for those of us who like mapping Oxfordshire and the Severn Way (ok, I declare an interest. I won't actually be allowed to remap that bit of the Severn Way you did. Anna is still barely talking to me after the number of stinging nettles when she and I mapped the adjoining section ;) ). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6550116.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] wrote: Sent: 04 July 2011 2:03 PM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK Mike Collinson wrote: I would like to thank the Ordnance Survey for their kind consideration and the speed in which they were able to give a response. ...and thank you, Mike and Henk, for taking this on. +1 to that Cheers Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
