Re: [Talk-us] SOTM-US geocoding/share-alike discussion

[Michal Migurski]

I'm not on legal-talk, so this mail is going out only to Talk-US. I'm happy to 
have it forwarded.

We had a license BoF organized primarily by Mapbox (Eric Gunderson and Alex 
Barth) with participation from Foursquare (David Blackman), on the topic of the 
license and its effect on geocoding data. Steve C, Henk Hoff, Paul Norman, 
Richard Fairhurst and many others attended. My understanding of Mapbox's issue, 
paraphrased, is that they have potential clients with lawyers scared of the 
ODbL and license status of latitude and longitudes returned from addresses 
geocoded against OSM.

As I understood it, the end result of the discussion was that the ODbL may or 
may not apply in this case and that Mapbox should submit some specific uses 
cases to the board to illustrate their specific concern so we can all stop 
blathering about whether the license is good or bad and move on to useful 
particulars.

In other words, what the 20120522 LWG meeting notes say.

-mike.

On Oct 21, 2012, at 1:58 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>   on talk-us there was a mention of Carl Frantzen's recent three-part
> article with SOTM-US coverage, 
> http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/openstreetmap-part-1-new-cartographers.php,
> and his mention of "OSM moving away from his open-source roots".
> 
> Apparently, this refers to some unfortunate statements at SOTM-US about
> share-alike being bad for business or something, and Frantzen mentions
> that a couple of businesses have set up an informal group to discuss
> which bits of our license they don't understand or want clarification
> on. As far as I know, nobody who knows anything about OSM seriously
> suggested that we "move away from open source", it was just a phrase
> unfortunately reported.
> 
> I am still rather surprised to hear about this as a side note of SOTM-US
> coverage instead of here on this list where license discussions should
> be at home. I would urge anyone who is unclear about anything with ODbL
> and/or who believes that any community norms we have must be refined, to
> discuss that here on this mailing list - whether it's for business or
> personal use.
> 
> Looking through past discussions in the archives of minutes of our
> Licensing Working Group, it seems clear to me that OSM data under ODbL
> is unlikely to ever be available for "no strings attached" geocoding; we
> won't ask for your customer database just because you geocode with OSM,
> but you will have to adhere to some rules nonetheless.
> 
> LWG has never actually made a decision on geocoding, and all mentions in
> their minutes carry big disclaimers ("This is a summary of our
> discussion and should NOT be construed as a formal statement of
> position"). Under that disclaimer, the 20120515 minutes contain the
> following:
> 
>> To be able to claim that the remainder of the record, (often
>> proprietary business information or personal information such as a
>> patient record) is not virally touched by geocoding against OSM ODbL
>> data needs a distinction to be demonstrated. This distinction needs
>> to be a clear and logical general rule or principle. It also needs to
>> be acceptable to the OSM community. At the moment, we feel this does
>> not exist.
> 
> In the same notes there's a discussion of a "like with like" principle
> which means that "Whatever is used in the (reverse)geocoding look-up is
> virally touched, but nothing else."
> 
> The 20120522 meeting notes contain a link to a concept paper
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Ag81OlT1TtnhYwVE-bBtL018SNoU_V-anG4wLdwMT4c
> 
> and explicitly say: "To improve it, and test the rationality of the
> ideas expressed, we need and welcome real-world cases of geocoding and
> reverse-geocoding."
> 
> So I guess anyone who wants to use OSM in a geocoding scenario should
> read that and submit their opinion, here or to LWG.
> 
> Personally, I've gone on record as an advocate of a non-share-alike (PD) 
> license for OSM but the project as a whole has decided to have a share-alike 
> license and I accept that; I don't think that "geocode as much as you want 
> without sharing any data" is possible with the ODbL data set.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 


michal migurski- m...@stamen.com
 415.558.1610




___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] SOTM-US geocoding/share-alike discussion

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Dale Puch  wrote:

> Perhaps some real world examples would help more people with understanding
> this.  What are some clear acceptable uses, unaccepted and what is still
> grey areas.  Perhaps there should be two answers for the grey area
> examples, legally, and OSM intent.
>

In the SOTM-US the National Parks presentation by Mamata Akella the issue
of using OSM data by the NPS touched on the issue. The National Parks
services data is PD. Using OSM data does not fit with their requirement to
release everything PD. It seems like a natural fit between their data, our
mapping it into OSM (along with the value we add) and their subsequent use
to produce highly desirable maps. I'd hate to see the NPS just take
Potlatch and modify it to fit their PD requirement. Yes, we can still get
the data, but it makes more sense if we can collaborate.

USGS apparently is doing a trial right now with a modified Potlatch to
restart their citizen mapping project. Again, the USGS is required to
release their data as PD.

Clifford
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] SOTM-US geocoding/share-alike discussion

[Dale Puch]

Perhaps some real world examples would help more people with understanding
this.  What are some clear acceptable uses, unaccepted and what is still
grey areas.  Perhaps there should be two answers for the grey area
examples, legally, and OSM intent.

Wasn't there something like this in the WIKI for the old SA lisense?

Dale

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
>on talk-us there was a mention of Carl Frantzen's recent three-part
> article with SOTM-US coverage, http://idealab.**
> talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/**openstreetmap-part-1-new-**
> cartographers.php
> ,
> and his mention of "OSM moving away from his open-source roots".
>
> Apparently, this refers to some unfortunate statements at SOTM-US about
> share-alike being bad for business or something, and Frantzen mentions
> that a couple of businesses have set up an informal group to discuss
> which bits of our license they don't understand or want clarification
> on. As far as I know, nobody who knows anything about OSM seriously
> suggested that we "move away from open source", it was just a phrase
> unfortunately reported.
>
> I am still rather surprised to hear about this as a side note of SOTM-US
> coverage instead of here on this list where license discussions should
> be at home. I would urge anyone who is unclear about anything with ODbL
> and/or who believes that any community norms we have must be refined, to
> discuss that here on this mailing list - whether it's for business or
> personal use.
>
> Looking through past discussions in the archives of minutes of our
> Licensing Working Group, it seems clear to me that OSM data under ODbL
> is unlikely to ever be available for "no strings attached" geocoding; we
> won't ask for your customer database just because you geocode with OSM,
> but you will have to adhere to some rules nonetheless.
>
> LWG has never actually made a decision on geocoding, and all mentions in
> their minutes carry big disclaimers ("This is a summary of our
> discussion and should NOT be construed as a formal statement of
> position"). Under that disclaimer, the 20120515 minutes contain the
> following:
>
>  To be able to claim that the remainder of the record, (often
>> proprietary business information or personal information such as a
>> patient record) is not virally touched by geocoding against OSM ODbL
>> data needs a distinction to be demonstrated. This distinction needs
>> to be a clear and logical general rule or principle. It also needs to
>> be acceptable to the OSM community. At the moment, we feel this does
>> not exist.
>>
>
> In the same notes there's a discussion of a "like with like" principle
> which means that "Whatever is used in the (reverse)geocoding look-up is
> virally touched, but nothing else."
>
> The 20120522 meeting notes contain a link to a concept paper
>
> https://docs.google.com/**document/pub?id=**1Ag81OlT1TtnhYwVE-bBtL018SNoU_
> **V-anG4wLdwMT4c
>
> and explicitly say: "To improve it, and test the rationality of the
> ideas expressed, we need and welcome real-world cases of geocoding and
> reverse-geocoding."
>
> So I guess anyone who wants to use OSM in a geocoding scenario should
> read that and submit their opinion, here or to LWG.
>
> Personally, I've gone on record as an advocate of a non-share-alike (PD)
> license for OSM but the project as a whole has decided to have a
> share-alike license and I accept that; I don't think that "geocode as much
> as you want without sharing any data" is possible with the ODbL data set.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> __**_
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
Dale Puch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] SOTM-US geocoding/share-alike discussion

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

   on talk-us there was a mention of Carl Frantzen's recent three-part
article with SOTM-US coverage, 
http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/openstreetmap-part-1-new-cartographers.php,

and his mention of "OSM moving away from his open-source roots".

Apparently, this refers to some unfortunate statements at SOTM-US about
share-alike being bad for business or something, and Frantzen mentions
that a couple of businesses have set up an informal group to discuss
which bits of our license they don't understand or want clarification
on. As far as I know, nobody who knows anything about OSM seriously
suggested that we "move away from open source", it was just a phrase
unfortunately reported.

I am still rather surprised to hear about this as a side note of SOTM-US
coverage instead of here on this list where license discussions should
be at home. I would urge anyone who is unclear about anything with ODbL
and/or who believes that any community norms we have must be refined, to
discuss that here on this mailing list - whether it's for business or
personal use.

Looking through past discussions in the archives of minutes of our
Licensing Working Group, it seems clear to me that OSM data under ODbL
is unlikely to ever be available for "no strings attached" geocoding; we
won't ask for your customer database just because you geocode with OSM,
but you will have to adhere to some rules nonetheless.

LWG has never actually made a decision on geocoding, and all mentions in
their minutes carry big disclaimers ("This is a summary of our
discussion and should NOT be construed as a formal statement of
position"). Under that disclaimer, the 20120515 minutes contain the
following:


To be able to claim that the remainder of the record, (often
proprietary business information or personal information such as a
patient record) is not virally touched by geocoding against OSM ODbL
data needs a distinction to be demonstrated. This distinction needs
to be a clear and logical general rule or principle. It also needs to
be acceptable to the OSM community. At the moment, we feel this does
not exist.


In the same notes there's a discussion of a "like with like" principle
which means that "Whatever is used in the (reverse)geocoding look-up is
virally touched, but nothing else."

The 20120522 meeting notes contain a link to a concept paper

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Ag81OlT1TtnhYwVE-bBtL018SNoU_V-anG4wLdwMT4c

and explicitly say: "To improve it, and test the rationality of the
ideas expressed, we need and welcome real-world cases of geocoding and
reverse-geocoding."

So I guess anyone who wants to use OSM in a geocoding scenario should
read that and submit their opinion, here or to LWG.

Personally, I've gone on record as an advocate of a non-share-alike (PD) 
license for OSM but the project as a whole has decided to have a 
share-alike license and I accept that; I don't think that "geocode as 
much as you want without sharing any data" is possible with the ODbL 
data set.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us