[OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

Hi All I've read through a bundle of licence emails, and there is one aspect that worries me, which hopefully someone can clarify. >From my understanding (and I dont speak legalese), under the CCBYSA license you can take OSM data, create a "derived work" and distribute it. But, you had to let peo

[OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

(extreme example?) A group of 8 year old kids spend a day in a local park mapping out locations where they find butterflies. They map this information using an OSM map and stick a copy on their local parks noticeboard. Surely they shouldn't be made to make this data available to OSM? Its

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, Jason Cunningham escribió: > 2. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases > "*Section 4.3 also requires that the notice include information regarding > where the user can obtain a copy of the Database or Derivative Database.*" Please read abou

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

2009/3/4 Jason Cunningham : > Hi All > > I've read through a bundle of licence emails, and there is one aspect that > worries me, which hopefully someone can clarify. > > From my understanding (and I dont speak legalese), under the CCBYSA license > you can take OSM data, create a "derived work" and

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

Jason, Good questions and I've just been through the ODbL 0.9 version to double check. Here's is my IANAL but clear interpretation: - If your work is a "derived work", and I believe your examples are not, AND you distribute it then you do have to offer it under the same license or compatible

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On 04/03/2009 17:16, Mike Collinson wrote: > Jason, > > Good questions [snip] > :: Your kids in the park did not make a derived database nor did they > use the OSM database. They put a separate unrelated layer on top on top > of a "Produced Work", i.e a printed map. They have no obligations.

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Earl wrote: > They used the map to pin the locations - the points did not come from > some other map. Therefore it is derived (this is precisely the problem > with pinning pictures on a Google or OSM map). So if they put the data > in a database (= spreadsheet

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

2009/3/4 Gustav Foseid : > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Earl > wrote: >> >> They used the map to pin the locations - the points did not come from >> some other map. Therefore it is derived (this is precisely the problem >> with pinning pictures on a Google or OSM map). So if they put the

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On 04/03/2009 18:06, Gustav Foseid wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Earl > wrote: > > They used the map to pin the locations - the points did not come from > some other map. Therefore it is derived (this is precisely the problem > with

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Dave Stubbs wrote: > If you were able to extract coordinates then this could be regarded as > reverse engineering the Produced Work, in which case it's covered by > 4.7 It is not done by "You" or on "Your behalf". So you cannot make a map and then start reverse en

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

Hi! I would like to bring this back to the original - and very important - question. I do create a derivative database and from that a produced work and publish it. So I must make that data available. How? 1. Do I need to make it available immediately or upon request? 2. Does it need to

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Dave Stubbs wrote: > Your 8 year old kids would be obliged to license their butterfly > data under the ODbL [1] and attribute OSM. > > [1] Ignoring potential bug in 0.9 draft its not a bug, its a feature ;-) cheers, matt _

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

Hi, Matt Amos wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Dave Stubbs wrote: >> Your 8 year old kids would be obliged to license their butterfly >> data under the ODbL [1] and attribute OSM. >> >> [1] Ignoring potential bug in 0.9 draft > > its not a bug, its a feature ;-) Well... a feature that w

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On 4 Mar 2009, at 07:00, Jason Cunningham wrote: > Hi All > > I've read through a bundle of licence emails, and there is one > aspect that worries me, which hopefully someone can clarify. > > From my understanding (and I dont speak legalese), under the CCBYSA > license you can take OSM data,

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On 4 Mar 2009, at 10:26, Dave Stubbs wrote: > 2009/3/4 Gustav Foseid : >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Earl > > >> wrote: >>> >>> They used the map to pin the locations - the points did not come >>> from >>> some other map. Therefore it is derived (this is precisely the >>> problem >

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On 4 Mar 2009, at 10:29, David Earl wrote: > On 04/03/2009 18:06, Gustav Foseid wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Earl >> > > wrote: >> >>They used the map to pin the locations - the points did not come >> from >>some other map. Therefo

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On 4 Mar 2009, at 15:56, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Matt Amos wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Dave Stubbs > > wrote: >>> Your 8 year old kids would be obliged to license their butterfly >>> data under the ODbL [1] and attribute OSM. >>> >>> [1] Ignoring potential bug in 0.9 draft >>

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On 4 Mar 2009, at 17:39, SteveC wrote: > You can come to my house and I will make you dinner and you can > inspect under my bed there is no satanic portal to the 3rd circle of > Hell. In fact you are all welcome. I will cook you my awesome (awsum) > organic, 100% Free Of Everything cracked pepper

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

Hi, SteveC wrote: > One of the things I didn't mention in my long post an that most of you > clearly don't understand is that a court takes *intent* in to account as > guidence in any license dispute. So like case law you can spend all the > time you like reading the letter of the license but i

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:29 AM, SteveC wrote: > > On 4 Mar 2009, at 10:26, Dave Stubbs wrote: > > > 2009/3/4 Gustav Foseid : > >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Earl >> > > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> They used the map to pin the locations - the points did not come > >>> from > >>> some other m

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

Peter Miller wrote: >Sent: 04 March 2009 5:04 PM >To: jamicu...@gmail.com >Cc: OSM >Subject: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data > > > * (extreme example?) A group of 8 year old kids spend a day in a >local park mapping out locations whe

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On 4 Mar 2009, at 23:44, 80n wrote: > > If you were able to extract coordinates then this could be > regarded as > > reverse engineering the Produced Work, in which case it's covered by > > 4.7 > > There's that "substantial" caveat again though. > > Very unlikely, derived individual coordinates

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On 4 Mar 2009, at 18:03, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > SteveC wrote: >> One of the things I didn't mention in my long post an that most of >> you clearly don't understand is that a court takes *intent* in to >> account as guidence in any license dispute. So like case law you >> can spend a

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

(lost track of who said this, but...) >> Very unlikely, derived individual coordinates are facts. I've asked >> multiple lawyers about this personally. >> > Are you saying that facts that are derived from a Produced Work are > not covered by the reverse engineering clause? >> >> If I derive the l

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On 5 Mar 2009, at 08:36, David Earl wrote: > (lost track of who said this, but...) >>> Very unlikely, derived individual coordinates are facts. I've asked >>> multiple lawyers about this personally. >>> >> Are you saying that facts that are derived from a Produced Work are >> not covered by the r

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 09:42:54AM -, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > One thing we should not loose sight of in this process is what OSM is > collecting, and thus the limit of what we might wish to see contributed > back. The locations of butterflies and endangered species are exampl

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 05:32:20PM -0800, SteveC wrote: > I think it would be a beautiful day if it was seen as bad form to use > 'IANAL' and everything like that was instead rephrased as 'lets ask a > lawyer and I wont give you my opinion' Ugh, so we’re not to question the lawyers now and jus