Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 22 July 2016, Ilya Zverev wrote:
>
> Wait that doesn't seem right. You cannot violate guidelines because
> they are examples and explanations, not restrictions or a law. And
> then, when the guidelines say a dataset "may be" considered
> derivative, it doesn't say it is derivative (or otherwise). You
> cannot violate a text that says "may be", except by mathematically
> proving it is wrong either way.

The guidelines are interpretations of the practical meaning of the 
license and therefore you can do things with the OSM data that 'violate 
the guidelines' in the sense that they are something the guidelines say 
is not covered by the license.  If this interpretation is correct or 
not can be a matter of opinion of course.

> If I didn't care about the views of the community, I wouldn't
> continue this discussion. I want to either convince you or other
> people that it's okay to put proprietary data on top of the OSM data,
> or learn the reasons why this leads to a derivative database,
> requiring to open the proprietary part. In the latter case we at
> maps.me, of course, would need to simplify our data processing.

I did not say or imply you don't care about the views of the community, 
i just said that if you do something that according to your 
interpretation is covered by the license but contradicts the 
interpretation in the community guidlines that would communicate a lack 
of care for the views of the community.

> I guess that falls down to the definition of "intermingling". That's
> the word I don't understand in technical sense. Is any intermingling
> bad, or there is a good kind of intermingling? Neither in my example
> not anywhere else do I make a derivative database, as I believe. Does
> the process of intermingling lead to derivative database in any case?

OK - i try to be clearer:

If you use ODbL data in combination with proprietary data - no matter in 
what form this data comes in - these two data sets form either a 
collective database or a derivative database in terms of the ODbL.  If 
it can be regarded as a collective database depends on the question if 
the ODbL part of that combination and the proprietary part are 
independent databases.  As i have already explained your modified ODbL 
part (the hotels with some of them removed) is only intended and only 
useful in combination with the other, non-ODbL part and the combination 
does not work with the non-modified data which clearly disqualifies it 
from being independent and as a result the combination would be a 
derivative database.

And since you objected to use of these terms - yes, intent and 
usefulness are significant regarding the question of independence of 
the databases.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Ilya Zverev]

Sorry I'm not commenting everything, but just the parts I find important. (See 
below)

> 22 июля 2016 г., в 1:35, Christoph Hormann  написал(а):
> 
> But neither does it become collective.  And if you re-read my last 
> mail - i clearly made the argument based on the license itself that it 
> would be difficult to argue that your modified OSM hotel database with 
> select hotels removed is an independent database because it is 
> specifically intended to be used in combination with another 
> proprietary database and the derivation from the original data (removal 
> of features) only makes sense for use in this combination.  And 
> classification as a collective database requires the individual 
> databases to be independent.

I see you using the words "intended to be used" and "makes sense for use". They 
caught my eye because there was a discussion recently in a russian open data 
initiative group about requirements to state purposes for which open data is 
downloaded, which came to me as absurd. Because if a publisher chooses which 
intentions are right and which are wrong, that means the data is not open.

I was not bringing FUD earlier, I was trying to illustrate the consequences of 
bringing additional non-specific clauses to an open license. For me, your 
mentions of intended use seem like extra restrictions that weren't mentioned 
anywhere before.

> If you do something that violates the guidelines 
> (which i have not said you do) but trust it is OK by the letter of the 
> license (which i have not said it is) then you have to keep in mind 
> that by doing that you communicate that you don't care about the views 
> and the wishes of the community.

Wait that doesn't seem right. You cannot violate guidelines because they are 
examples and explanations, not restrictions or a law. And then, when the 
guidelines say a dataset "may be" considered derivative, it doesn't say it is 
derivative (or otherwise). You cannot violate a text that says "may be", except 
by mathematically proving it is wrong either way.

If I didn't care about the views of the community, I wouldn't continue this 
discussion. I want to either convince you or other people that it's okay to put 
proprietary data on top of the OSM data, or learn the reasons why this leads to 
a derivative database, requiring to open the proprietary part. In the latter 
case we at maps.me, of course, would need to simplify our data processing.

> 
>> Consider a simpler experiment. I remove nodes based on an obscure
>> algorithm. I then publish the rest of the database and a list of
>> removed nodes under an open license. Do I have to open the algorithm?
> 
> You never have to open any algorithms, publishing the methods used is 
> just a possible alternative to publishing the derivative database and 
> it can only be used if this method can be used by anyone to reconstruct 
> the derivative database from the original data (like when you use a 
> random number generator to remove random features).  But if you 
> intermingle ODbL and proprietary data into a derivative database 
> publishing only the algorithm used for that is meaningless since to 
> reproduce the results you need the proprietary data as well.

In the example I don't mention any proprietary data. I may be using a 
proprietary algorithm, using some proprietary number generator, but in the end 
I get these two datasets: the database and a list of what I removed. First you 
are saying I don't need to publish the algorithm, since it's just an 
alternative, but then you start mentioning a need to publish both the algorithm 
and all the third-party data it uses (which it may or may not have used, you 
don't know).

I guess that falls down to the definition of "intermingling". That's the word I 
don't understand in technical sense. Is any intermingling bad, or there is a 
good kind of intermingling? Neither in my example not anywhere else do I make a 
derivative database, as I believe. Does the process of intermingling lead to 
derivative database in any case?

IZ
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Johan C wrote:
> It's quite simple: as long as MAPS.ME operates in either the white or 
> the grey area of the license it's perfectly fine what they are doing.

Um, no, that's precisely what "grey area" _doesn't_ mean.

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-MAPS-ME-combining-OSM-data-and-non-OSM-data-tp5877650p5878934.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Johan C]

It's quite simple: as long as MAPS.ME operates in either the white or the
grey area of the license it's perfectly fine what they are doing.

Op 22 jul. 2016 12:04 p.m. schreef "Richard Fairhurst" :

> Ilya Zverev wrote:
> > Let's consider another use case. An application that shows OSM map,
> > and on top of it shows 1 mln of user points. A users has an option to
> > hide the OSM map underneath proprietary points, with a radius of 1
> > km. Does in that moment when a user clickes the options, the
> > combined map become derivative?
>
> The question then would be how ODbL treats a machine-generated result like
> that, where both independent datasets are transmitted to the device but the
> selection/arrangement of the "combined" result is done algorithmically
> on-device.
>
> That probably depends on your reading of the terms "Convey", "Use" and
> "Publicly" in ODbL; I confess to not being 100% sure how they would apply
> in
> such a case, and would be interested to hear others' opinions.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-MAPS-ME-combining-OSM-data-and-non-OSM-data-tp5877650p5878889.html
> Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ilya Zverev wrote:
> Let's consider another use case. An application that shows OSM map, 
> and on top of it shows 1 mln of user points. A users has an option to 
> hide the OSM map underneath proprietary points, with a radius of 1 
> km. Does in that moment when a user clickes the options, the 
> combined map become derivative?

The question then would be how ODbL treats a machine-generated result like
that, where both independent datasets are transmitted to the device but the
selection/arrangement of the "combined" result is done algorithmically
on-device.

That probably depends on your reading of the terms "Convey", "Use" and
"Publicly" in ODbL; I confess to not being 100% sure how they would apply in
such a case, and would be interested to hear others' opinions.

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-MAPS-ME-combining-OSM-data-and-non-OSM-data-tp5877650p5878889.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 22 July 2016, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> You are starting to derive the licensing terms from intentions, and
> not the actual process or usage. Which basically says, if the
> community accepts this way of judging: however you use our data, if
> we don't like what you do with it, you would have to stop. And that
> is definitely not a FOSS license, and not only maps.me would have to
> stop using OSM, because there would be a chance that any data user
> might suddenly find out that odbl favours the provider. It's like
> "this data must be used only for good and not evil": while fun,
> legally dangerous.

I have not argued in any such direction, it seems however with the above 
you are trying here to bring the usual FUD argument that the OSM 
community has to follow a lenient interpretation of the license - 
otherwise no one can use OSM data out of fear of violating the license, 
which is obviously nonsense.

So please once more: lets concentrate on this specific use case and the 
question how this fits into the rules of OSM data use.  I tried to 
follow your view and explained why i think this is ultimately 
non-consistent and would lead to a situation that is not consistent 
with various aspects of the license and the community guidelines.  I 
would expect you to argue those points and not the general 
righteousness of my approach.

> It seems to me, you are considering the Collective Database Guideline
> to be the law,

No but it tells you something about how the OSMF and the OSM community 
view the license.  If you do something that violates the guidelines 
(which i have not said you do) but trust it is OK by the letter of the 
license (which i have not said it is) then you have to keep in mind 
that by doing that you communicate that you don't care about the views 
and the wishes of the community.

Also note from a legal standpoint the community guidelines are not 
meaningless, especially if we are talking about uses that take place 
after a guideline has been published and the licensee is aware of the 
content of the guideline (which probably can be said to apply here).  
Licenses are contracts and at least here in Germany the basis of all 
contracts is agreement between the contact partners on something.  No 
agreement - no contract.  So if the OSMF as one contract partner in the 
license contract has clearly communicated publicly and beforehand 
through the community guidelines that from their side some use is 
definitely not part of the agreement that is a strong indicator on the 
nature and the limits of the license contract in any legal 
disagreement.

But note this is a layman's view of course and IANAL.

> [...] It defines what is a collective database, but
> does not define the contrary: if a data set is not covered by the
> guideline, it doesn't automatically become derivative.

But neither does it become collective.  And if you re-read my last 
mail - i clearly made the argument based on the license itself that it 
would be difficult to argue that your modified OSM hotel database with 
select hotels removed is an independent database because it is 
specifically intended to be used in combination with another 
proprietary database and the derivation from the original data (removal 
of features) only makes sense for use in this combination.  And 
classification as a collective database requires the individual 
databases to be independent.

> Consider a simpler experiment. I remove nodes based on an obscure
> algorithm. I then publish the rest of the database and a list of
> removed nodes under an open license. Do I have to open the algorithm?

You never have to open any algorithms, publishing the methods used is 
just a possible alternative to publishing the derivative database and 
it can only be used if this method can be used by anyone to reconstruct 
the derivative database from the original data (like when you use a 
random number generator to remove random features).  But if you 
intermingle ODbL and proprietary data into a derivative database 
publishing only the algorithm used for that is meaningless since to 
reproduce the results you need the proprietary data as well.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Paul Norman]

On 7/22/2016 12:28 AM, Ilya Zverev wrote:

Consider a simpler experiment. I remove nodes based on an obscure algorithm. I 
then publish the rest of the database and a list of removed nodes under an open 
license. Do I have to open the algorithm?


The database would be a derivative database and you would have to 
publish one of


a) the entire derivative database; or
b) A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database or the 
method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm), 
including any additional Contents


If you are publishing the database, this falls under a) and you don't 
need to do anything else. Someone could compare the databases, find out 
what you removed, and possibly run some analysis. If you don't want to 
publish the database (e.g. size reasons), then b) means you have to give 
enough information for someone to generate a).




___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Ilya Zverev]

You are starting to derive the licensing terms from intentions, and not the 
actual process or usage. Which basically says, if the community accepts this 
way of judging: however you use our data, if we don't like what you do with it, 
you would have to stop. And that is definitely not a FOSS license, and not only 
maps.me would have to stop using OSM, because there would be a chance that any 
data user might suddenly find out that odbl favours the provider. It's like 
"this data must be used only for good and not evil": while fun, legally 
dangerous.

It seems to me, you are considering the Collective Database Guideline to be the 
law, disregarding the actual ODbL and the words "may be" that follow the 
de-duplication use case. "Endorsed by the Board" is not equal to "Is a part of 
the license". "Primary feature" definition is not a part of ODbL, it was 
introduced to give better understanding of the guideline topic. It defines what 
is a collective database, but does not define the contrary: if a data set is 
not covered by the guideline, it doesn't automatically become derivative.

Consider a simpler experiment. I remove nodes based on an obscure algorithm. I 
then publish the rest of the database and a list of removed nodes under an open 
license. Do I have to open the algorithm?

IZ

> 10 июля 2016 г., в 1:23, Christoph Hormann  написал(а):
> 
> On Sunday 10 July 2016, Ilya Zverev wrote:
>> 
>> Let's consider another use case. An application that shows OSM map,
>> and on top of it shows 1 mln of user points. A users has an option to
>> hide the OSM map underneath proprietary points, with a radius of 1
>> km. Does in that moment when a user clickes the options, the combined
>> map become derivative? Because the application removes parts of OSM
>> map based on proprietary data, which means, by your implications,
>> that that creates an inseparable references.
> 
> I would keep it on the level of combining proprietary data and OSM data 
> for the same feature type because this is what you do and this is also 
> what is best documented in the guidelines and related discussion.
> 
> As i see it you acknowledge that there is such a combination of 
> different data sets but since you have a reverse case in comparison to 
> the examples given in the guidelines they do not apply and you somehow 
> read the license itself to support your use case.
> 
> I think this is an interesting viewpoint although i see little chance of 
> this becoming a widely accepted interpretation.  It depends on the idea 
> that when generating your produced work or publicly using the two data 
> sets in combination you have a Collective Database and no Derivative 
> Database.  This is going to be really hard to argue since you just 
> modified one of the databases you combine for the obvious purpose of 
> using it in combination.  Removing hotel POIs from OSM only makes sense 
> if you use it in combination with your other data set - the 
> de-duplicated OSM part of your alleged Collective Database is therefore 
> clearly not an independent database.
> 
> If you think through this scenario somewhat further it would essentially 
> mean share-alike to be ineffective in de-duplication cases.  Since 
> de-duplication is generally only possible in cases where both data sets 
> have a roughly comparable quality level (though not necessary the same 
> level of completeness) it will hardly ever matter from a practical 
> viewpoint which data set you remove duplicates from.  So if one 
> direction was possible without share-alike the guidelines would 
> essentially be irrelevant because they'd only distinguish between those 
> cases where you have to de-duplicate in one direction and those where 
> you can combine data sets freely without share-alike.
> 
> -- 
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
> 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 10 July 2016, Ilya Zverev wrote:
>
> Let's consider another use case. An application that shows OSM map,
> and on top of it shows 1 mln of user points. A users has an option to
> hide the OSM map underneath proprietary points, with a radius of 1
> km. Does in that moment when a user clickes the options, the combined
> map become derivative? Because the application removes parts of OSM
> map based on proprietary data, which means, by your implications,
> that that creates an inseparable references.

I would keep it on the level of combining proprietary data and OSM data 
for the same feature type because this is what you do and this is also 
what is best documented in the guidelines and related discussion.

As i see it you acknowledge that there is such a combination of 
different data sets but since you have a reverse case in comparison to 
the examples given in the guidelines they do not apply and you somehow 
read the license itself to support your use case.

I think this is an interesting viewpoint although i see little chance of 
this becoming a widely accepted interpretation.  It depends on the idea 
that when generating your produced work or publicly using the two data 
sets in combination you have a Collective Database and no Derivative 
Database.  This is going to be really hard to argue since you just 
modified one of the databases you combine for the obvious purpose of 
using it in combination.  Removing hotel POIs from OSM only makes sense 
if you use it in combination with your other data set - the 
de-duplicated OSM part of your alleged Collective Database is therefore 
clearly not an independent database.

If you think through this scenario somewhat further it would essentially 
mean share-alike to be ineffective in de-duplication cases.  Since 
de-duplication is generally only possible in cases where both data sets 
have a roughly comparable quality level (though not necessary the same 
level of completeness) it will hardly ever matter from a practical 
viewpoint which data set you remove duplicates from.  So if one 
direction was possible without share-alike the guidelines would 
essentially be irrelevant because they'd only distinguish between those 
cases where you have to de-duplicate in one direction and those where 
you can combine data sets freely without share-alike.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Ilya Zverev]

Christoph Hormann wrote:

From my perspective it is as Simon put it:


In summary both guidelines in this use scenario boil down to
prohibiting de-duplication (of any kind).


Now you can of course disagree with that assessment but so far you have
not brought up any convincing argument for that.  Just because your
exact use case is not mentioned in the Horizontal Layers guideline does
not mean it does not apply in analogy.  It does not matter if you use
proprietary data to add features missing in OSM data or if you use OSM
data to add features missing in proprietary data - the license as i
read it is symmetric in that matter.


From my perspective, Simon mentioned the guidelines, argued that they 
refer to the case in maps.me, while they state the reverse case (with 
removing duplicates from OSM), and then finishing with the summary you 
quote. I agree that one of the examples in the Collective Database 
Guidelines does not specify a method of de-deduplication, though, for 
example, prioir text allows for databases to be considered separate when 
"the non-OSM and OSM datasets do not reference each other". And they don't.


As I see it, we have two independent databases. Complying with ODbL 
4.6.b we provide "A file containing all of the alterations made to the 
Database".


Let's consider another use case. An application that shows OSM map, and 
on top of it shows 1 mln of user points. A users has an option to hide 
the OSM map underneath proprietary points, with a radius of 1 km. Does 
in that moment when a user clickes the options, the combined map become 
derivative? Because the application removes parts of OSM map based on 
proprietary data, which means, by your implications, that that creates 
an inseparable references.


Now, let's use in this example not the whole OSM dataset, but only 
hotels from it. And the proprietary data is also hotels. What changes?


IZ

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 09 July 2016, Ilya Zverev wrote:
>
> Christoph, please read my last post again: we use all of the
> booking.com data, not just hotels that are missing. We are not
> altering the proprietary data in any way. Just removing some data
> from OSM, and that portion of the data is published, obviously under
> the ODbL.

I read what you wrote and i think i understand pretty well what you do.

From my perspective it is as Simon put it:

> In summary both guidelines in this use scenario boil down to
> prohibiting de-duplication (of any kind).

Now you can of course disagree with that assessment but so far you have 
not brought up any convincing argument for that.  Just because your 
exact use case is not mentioned in the Horizontal Layers guideline does 
not mean it does not apply in analogy.  It does not matter if you use 
proprietary data to add features missing in OSM data or if you use OSM 
data to add features missing in proprietary data - the license as i 
read it is symmetric in that matter. 

What i was trying to do is point out ways how you could continue doing 
what you do (i.e. show both data from booking.com and from OSM in a 
single application).

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Ilya Zverev]

Christoph Hormann wrote:

I would also suggest to keep in mind that in principle this is exactly
the kind of case share-alike was created for - the OSM database is
missing some hotels and some other database contains them and the
intention is that you need to make available that other data or the
merger of the two data sets for inclusion in OSM if you want to use
them in combination.

If your use of the booking.com data is not about hotels missing from OSM
but only about the additional info booking.com provides (link to
booking page and other metadata for example) the new collective
database guideline gives you another option: you can match this
metadata with the OSM POIs and use them together without share-alike.
You however must not show any hotels that are not in OSM then or make
their coordinates available under compatible license.


Christoph, please read my last post again: we use all of the booking.com 
data, not just hotels that are missing. We are not altering the 
proprietary data in any way. Just removing some data from OSM, and that 
portion of the data is published, obviously under the ODbL.


IZ

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 09 July 2016, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> I think this is a fairly clear case for the Horizontal Layers
> guideline 

To avoid ambiguity: I of course meant a case where the guideline says 
share-alike applies.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 08 July 2016, Ilya Zverev wrote:
>
> If the LWG decides we are violating the license (and explains how,
> maybe producing another guidelines), we will remove all OSM hotels
> from our data. But for now I don't see how it's different from
> removing just some of the hotels.

I think this is a fairly clear case for the Horizontal Layers guideline 
and Simon also made a statement in that direction.  Of course as always 
this is a matter of interpretation.

I would also suggest to keep in mind that in principle this is exactly 
the kind of case share-alike was created for - the OSM database is 
missing some hotels and some other database contains them and the 
intention is that you need to make available that other data or the 
merger of the two data sets for inclusion in OSM if you want to use 
them in combination.

If your use of the booking.com data is not about hotels missing from OSM 
but only about the additional info booking.com provides (link to 
booking page and other metadata for example) the new collective 
database guideline gives you another option: you can match this 
metadata with the OSM POIs and use them together without share-alike.  
You however must not show any hotels that are not in OSM then or make 
their coordinates available under compatible license.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Andrew Harvey]

On 8 July 2016 at 23:47, Simon Poole  wrote:
> Both the Horizontal Layer and the Collective Database guidelines address
> a specific de-duplication issue (in respect to the above use case): if
> you take your proprietary dataset and  remove all POIs from the OSM
> dataset that exist in your data, the OSM dataset remains, naturally,
> ODbL licensed and your proprietary dataset remains proprietary (with
> some information leak via the OSM data). If you do the de-duplication
> the other way around you would be potentially be damaging the
> proprietary status of your data so you wouldn't try that to start with.
>
> You could now distribute the two datasets in a combined fashion and
> argue that each of them is an individual database and as a result the
> combined dataset is a Collective Database, both guidelines rule that out
> (again that does not imply that a judge applying the ODbL to such a case
> would come to the same conclusion).
>
> In summary both guidelines in this use scenario boil down to prohibiting
> de-duplication (of any kind).

On 9 July 2016 at 00:10, Ilya Zverev  wrote:
> Thanks for raising the issue. We at maps.me tried to follow the license: 
> basically we are combining the OSM data without certain nodes (see the list 
> of ids at http://direct.mapswithme.com/direct/latest/skipped_nodes.lst ) and 
> a proprietary data set for hotels. Since we do not use any OSM information, 
> like names or coordinates, for these hotels, I assumed the result could be 
> considered a collective database.
>
> Now, the matching process does indeed compare coordinates of hotels in both 
> datasets, and filters out nodes in the OSM data. The list of nodes is 
> published, so anyone can reproduce the open part of the data from a planet 
> dump. Again, the proprietary data is in no way affected by the OSM data (it 
> is added in its entirety, not a single object is omitted or altered using OSM 
> data). So the last item in the guidelines ("all hotels not found in the 
> OpenStreetMap data layers") does not apply.
>
> If the LWG decides we are violating the license (and explains how, maybe 
> producing another guidelines), we will remove all OSM hotels from our data. 
> But for now I don't see how it's different from removing just some of the 
> hotels.

Thanks for the explanation from both of you, so in this specific case
it appears from what you've both said is that maps.me has taken a
"proprietary dataset and removed all POIs from the OSM dataset that
exist in your data, the OSM dataset remains, naturally, ODbL licensed
and your proprietary dataset remains proprietary (with some
information leak via the OSM data)."

I don't follow if this is permitted or not, either it is because "each
of them is an individual database and as a result the combined dataset
is a Collective Database" but then you say " both guidelines in this
use scenario boil down to prohibiting de-duplication (of any kind)."
Sorry I don't follow which one it is, that the de-duplication that
maps.me is doing is permitted under the license or isn't.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Ilya Zverev]

Thanks for raising the issue. We at maps.me tried to follow the license: 
basically we are combining the OSM data without certain nodes (see the list of 
ids at http://direct.mapswithme.com/direct/latest/skipped_nodes.lst ) and a 
proprietary data set for hotels. Since we do not use any OSM information, like 
names or coordinates, for these hotels, I assumed the result could be 
considered a collective database.

Now, the matching process does indeed compare coordinates of hotels in both 
datasets, and filters out nodes in the OSM data. The list of nodes is 
published, so anyone can reproduce the open part of the data from a planet 
dump. Again, the proprietary data is in no way affected by the OSM data (it is 
added in its entirety, not a single object is omitted or altered using OSM 
data). So the last item in the guidelines ("all hotels not found in the 
OpenStreetMap data layers") does not apply.

If the LWG decides we are violating the license (and explains how, maybe 
producing another guidelines), we will remove all OSM hotels from our data. But 
for now I don't see how it's different from removing just some of the hotels.

IZ

Andrew Harvey wrote:
> According to [1] if someone combines non-horizontal layers together,
> the results must be shared under the ODBL.
> 
>> From my investigation it appears that the MAPS.ME app [2] is combining
> OSM hotels with non-OSM hotels.
> 
> https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-1.png is a screenshot from the
> app. Hotel A appears in the app,
> but as far as I can tell was never in OSM but rather one of the hotels
> they've added to their app from Booking.com. Hotel B is from OSM.
> 
> This is the area https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-33.87758/151.20447
> 
> There are other examples of this too like this hotel
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/196622136 which in the app shows up
> next to their supplemented data like this
> https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-2.png
> 
> Am I correct that in order to be complaint with the license MAPS.ME
> either need to make this data available under the ODBL or remove all
> OSM hotels from their app?
> 
> [1] 
> http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline#Examples_of_where_you_DO_need_to_share_your_non-OpenStreetMap_data
> [2] version 6.2.2-Google Data version: 160621


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Simon Poole]

Am 08.07.2016 um 14:52 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
> According to [1] if someone combines non-horizontal layers together,
> the results must be shared under the ODBL.
No.

First a general remark:

A data consumer that is not complying with the ODbL always has two
options to comply with the licence:

- stop doing whatever is infringing the licence terms
- make the non-OSM data available as required by the licence.


>
> From my investigation it appears that the MAPS.ME app [2] is combining
> OSM hotels with non-OSM hotels.
>
> https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-1.png is a screenshot from the
> app. Hotel A appears in the app,
> but as far as I can tell was never in OSM but rather one of the hotels
> they've added to their app from Booking.com. Hotel B is from OSM.
>
> This is the area https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-33.87758/151.20447
>
> There are other examples of this too like this hotel
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/196622136 which in the app shows up
> next to their supplemented data like this
> https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-2.png
>
> Am I correct that in order to be complaint with the license MAPS.ME
> either need to make this data available under the ODBL or remove all
> OSM hotels from their app?

Not being compatible with any of the guidelines is not the same as not
complying with the licence (as I just exhaustively explained wrt the
Collective Database guideline).

On to the case at hand:

It is obviously completely OK from an ODbL pov to create a collective
database from two sets of POIs, one from OSM, one from a 3rd party if
they have no further dependencies and interaction.

Both the Horizontal Layer and the Collective Database guidelines address
a specific de-duplication issue (in respect to the above use case): if
you take your proprietary dataset and  remove all POIs from the OSM
dataset that exist in your data, the OSM dataset remains, naturally,
ODbL licensed and your proprietary dataset remains proprietary (with
some information leak via the OSM data). If you do the de-duplication
the other way around you would be potentially be damaging the
proprietary status of your data so you wouldn't try that to start with.

You could now distribute the two datasets in a combined fashion and
argue that each of them is an individual database and as a result the
combined dataset is a Collective Database, both guidelines rule that out
(again that does not imply that a judge applying the ODbL to such a case
would come to the same conclusion).

In summary both guidelines in this use scenario boil down to prohibiting
de-duplication (of any kind).

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Peter]

But what if this is just a layer above the OSM data technically?

Regards
Peter

On 08.07.2016 15:15, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> Maps.me made an announcement in the last update that they are using
> Booking.com data to show hotels and allow reserving hotel rooms from
> within the app. I doubt Booking.com released their data with a
> permissive license.
>
> Janko Mihelić
>
> pet, 8. srp 2016. u 14:54 Andrew Harvey  > napisao je:
>
> According to [1] if someone combines non-horizontal layers together,
> the results must be shared under the ODBL.
>
> From my investigation it appears that the MAPS.ME 
> app [2] is combining
> OSM hotels with non-OSM hotels.
>
> https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-1.png is a screenshot from the
> app. Hotel A appears in the app,
> but as far as I can tell was never in OSM but rather one of the hotels
> they've added to their app from Booking.com. Hotel B is from OSM.
>
> This is the area
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-33.87758/151.20447
>
> There are other examples of this too like this hotel
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/196622136 which in the app shows up
> next to their supplemented data like this
> https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-2.png
>
> Am I correct that in order to be complaint with the license
> MAPS.ME 
> either need to make this data available under the ODBL or remove all
> OSM hotels from their app?
>
> [1]
> 
> http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline#Examples_of_where_you_DO_need_to_share_your_non-OpenStreetMap_data
> [2] version 6.2.2-Google Data version: 160621
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Janko Mihelić]

Maps.me made an announcement in the last update that they are using
Booking.com data to show hotels and allow reserving hotel rooms from within
the app. I doubt Booking.com released their data with a permissive license.

Janko Mihelić

pet, 8. srp 2016. u 14:54 Andrew Harvey  napisao
je:

> According to [1] if someone combines non-horizontal layers together,
> the results must be shared under the ODBL.
>
> From my investigation it appears that the MAPS.ME app [2] is combining
> OSM hotels with non-OSM hotels.
>
> https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-1.png is a screenshot from the
> app. Hotel A appears in the app,
> but as far as I can tell was never in OSM but rather one of the hotels
> they've added to their app from Booking.com. Hotel B is from OSM.
>
> This is the area https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-33.87758/151.20447
>
> There are other examples of this too like this hotel
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/196622136 which in the app shows up
> next to their supplemented data like this
> https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-2.png
>
> Am I correct that in order to be complaint with the license MAPS.ME
> either need to make this data available under the ODBL or remove all
> OSM hotels from their app?
>
> [1]
> http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline#Examples_of_where_you_DO_need_to_share_your_non-OpenStreetMap_data
> [2] version 6.2.2-Google Data version: 160621
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] MAPS.ME combining OSM data and non-OSM data?

[Andrew Harvey]

According to [1] if someone combines non-horizontal layers together,
the results must be shared under the ODBL.

From my investigation it appears that the MAPS.ME app [2] is combining
OSM hotels with non-OSM hotels.

https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-1.png is a screenshot from the
app. Hotel A appears in the app,
but as far as I can tell was never in OSM but rather one of the hotels
they've added to their app from Booking.com. Hotel B is from OSM.

This is the area https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-33.87758/151.20447

There are other examples of this too like this hotel
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/196622136 which in the app shows up
next to their supplemented data like this
https://tianjara.net/hosted/maps.me-2.png

Am I correct that in order to be complaint with the license MAPS.ME
either need to make this data available under the ODBL or remove all
OSM hotels from their app?

[1] 
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline#Examples_of_where_you_DO_need_to_share_your_non-OpenStreetMap_data
[2] version 6.2.2-Google Data version: 160621

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk