Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How do I join the meeting tonight?

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Edward, please use this BBB link: https://osmvideo.cloud68.co/user/gui-ztm-dqh

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:23 AM Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk
 wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Dec 10, 2020, 18:32 by bainton@gmail.com:
>
> though can't see how to set up Push to Talk
>
> big blue cog => audio input tab (selected by default) -> Transmission panel
>
> Change dropdown from "voice activity" to "Push to talk"
>
> Seems that it should work
>
> The wiki has a HOT server listed, but LWG isn't part of HOT? (See below sig)
>
> It is a bit confusing, but yes - HOT server, OSMF group,
> License Working Group (LWG) channel
>
> Disclaimer: I am not experienced and it is possibly that something may be 
> wrong
> in my text.
>
> If you join we can test whatever it works.
> ___
> 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-talk] [Osmf-talk] Fwd: Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

First, let me say that I do know Frederik personally, I have had
pleasant dinners with him and hope to do so again post-pandemic. He
has apologised for his poor choice of words, and I accept his apology.

The volume of attacks and hostile tone against Celine in reaction to
the document she shared demonstrates exactly why OSM is not a
welcoming community for the majority of women. For myself, I find the
listservs to be the least welcoming part of the community. These
comments are not enough to prevent me from mapping and participating,
but they are discouraging and demotivating.

A lot of people on this list are conflating systems of discrimination
and inequality with hostile intent. Systems are not personal and are
not about intent. Discrimination and inequality can be structural, and
can and do take place without intent, sometimes by accident, sometimes
due to structural inequities not within the immediate control of the
actor(s) examining the issue.

To make a non-technical analogy, if you step on someone's foot by
accident, you still stepped on their foot, and their foot still hurts.
Apologising helps, but it would be better if you didn't step on their
foot in the future. If one group has shoes and another group does not,
the group without shoes is more likely to be on the end of painful
steps. How do you solve such a systematic problem? One option would be
to give everyone shoes. Another would be for those with shoes to step
more carefully. Right now, society demands that those without shoes do
the work of dodging everyone else's steps, documenting a list of times
they've been stepped on, and explaining why getting stepped on hurts.

Underrepresentation of women and gender minorities, racial
underrepresentation, geographic underrepresentation, these are all
symptoms. If OSM did not systematically exclude these groups, these
groups would not be underrepresented. Such a problem is not unique to
OSM, nor is it easy to solve. Step 1 is to recognize the problem. A
vocal contingent of the community is not willing to do that. I believe
this contingent is vocal but not a majority of OSM, but
overrepresented on the listservs. I would encourage those who are
watching this firestorm to consider that the listservs are a very poor
representation of the OSM community and the views of its members. I
would also strongly encourage those watching to vote in the OSMF Board
elections.

Kathleen


On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:25 AM  wrote:
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> as usual when it comes to this kind of complex topics I have the feeling that 
> people tend to writing about only that part which is interesting to them, 
> throw that piece into the arena and in the end there is a lot of confusion, 
> misunderstanding and no constructive way out.
>
> For this reason let me try to tackle things separately to get a clearer 
> picture.
>
> 1. The message by Frederik: The starting point for the whole debate, so we 
> should be aligned about its interpretation. It seems obvious to me, and not 
> only after further clarification by the author, that Trump's quote in NO WAY 
> reflects Frederik's mindset. Anybody suggesting this should be disqualified 
> from further debate as it completely lacks objective basis. One could then 
> argue that he could have backed the same argument, the same message with a 
> different quote, a different wording. That is right and it implies the 
> following: Whatever you say, no matter how valid your point is, no matter 
> what the context of the wording is and even if you are only quoting: don't 
> use words with a sexual connotation because the sole mention of it will 
> offend some people. If that's what it takes to make those people feel more 
> comfortable I am fine with it. To avoid misunderstandings based on cultural 
> differences regarding what is allowed I consequently encourage to create a 
> list of "undesirable wordings" so everybody knows what is acceptable or not.
>
> What really strikes me is that if Frederik had used a similar quote, e.g. "I 
> could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t 
> lose any voters", nothing of all this would have happened. This reminds me of 
> the censorship logic apparently used in US movies: You can show how people 
> kill, torture, severe limbs - but don't you dare show a nipple because that 
> could offend.
>
> Bottomline: We are not discussing a general offensive attitude nor an 
> individual offensive message, we are discussing the pure wording of a message.
>
> 2. The topic of Fredrik's message
>
> A real pity this is taking a backseat, especially because it is somehow 
> linked to what many people are apparently fighting for: Diversity, Open 
> Community, Inclusion etc.
>
> I´ll try to keep it short as it is worth a big debate on its own: This is 
> about Facebook. Their business model is based on the opposite of everything 
> this community should stand for. They represent the antagonism of a free, 
> self-determined, 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How do I join the meeting tonight?

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi Edward,
OSMF and its working groups have traditionally used the HOT server.
Mumble is not a Web application.
However, we are looking at moving to BBB. A BBB link for this meeting
has not been circulated yet, so please use Mumble for the time being.
Best,
Kathleen

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 9:36 AM Edward Bainton  wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I was hoping to audit the meeting tonight, with a view to possibly 
> volunteering. I now have Mumble installed (though can't see how to set up 
> Push to Talk)
>
> How do I find the group call and join it? Is there some kind of web address 
> or something to be input somewhere?
>
> The wiki has a HOT server listed, but LWG isn't part of HOT? (See below sig)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edward
>
> When the program starts you will be asked to connect to a server click the 
> Add New button and enter in the information for the HOT server:
>
> Label: This is just a name for the server for yourself, enter: HOT
> Address: The actual address of the server, enter: talk.hotosm.org
> Port: The port that the server uses, leave this at the default value of: 64738
> Username: A username to identify yourself on the server, please pick one to 
> use.
>
> This Mumble server is intended for use by the OpenStreetMap community only.
>
> ___
> 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-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

> Many females do not map using their own name but will use a male sounding 
> name to avoid problems.

John, are you seriously citing this as evidence that there is not
pervasive misogyny in the OSM community?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Given that the attribution is exactly as requested on the website, I would
imagine any issues with below 993 layout pixels is an oversight or a bug. A
friendly email would suffice, but it certainly does not merit a letter from
OSMF. You are free to send the email yourself.

OSM does not contain residential quality of land. Even assuming there
exists a Derivative Database with nontrivial transforms, that would only
cover the shapes of the polygons. Actually quality scores would be not be
subject to sharealike, per the Collective Database Guideline.


On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 3:16 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> sent from a phone
>
> > On 27. Oct 2020, at 22:15, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > Again, not conducting a comprehensive survey here, but if 95% of the
> polygons match OSM polygons, then even if there is technically a derivative
> database, then I think this simply isn't worth our time to investigate.
>
>
> in any case they are using a significant amount of OpenStreetMap data
> and must attribute. They are actively hiding map attribution for all
> screens with less than 993 layout pixels width (i.e. all phones and
> most tablets):
>
> https://www.wohnlagenkarte.de/css/e888f00.css
>
> @media (max-width: 992px) {
> .leaflet-control-attribution {
> display: none;
> }
> }
>
> This alone merits a letter from OSMF. I have been lucky finding a
> mention of osm hidden in the fourth paragraph of "über
> Wohnlagenkarte", but it does not link to osm and which has no mention
> of copyright or the ODbL.
>
> The transforms they are applying to OSM data do not seem trivial to
> me. Can someone explain to me why we are not interested in the data
> about the residential quality of the land?
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Tom,
I think the description is rather unclear as to what the polygons are made
of. Lars-Daniel's original description made it down like they were OSM
polygons combined with each other, or otherwise simplified of details. A
quick glance at the website seemed to confirm this.
OTOH, his second email says "the edges of many polygons go across areas,
where no OSM elements could have been used as a reference." That does make
me wonder whether the polygons were actually created from OSM data, with
3rd party data added or not. Looking at the website again, I see a few
examples where a polygon does not match the road network, but do appear to
match other polygons OSM (assuming that some OSM polygons have been
combined or simplified).
(Another possibility is that the polygons do not originate from OSM data,
but were snapped to the OSM road network for visualization purposes only. I
don't think there's enough information to know.)
Again, not conducting a comprehensive survey here, but if 95% of the
polygons match OSM polygons, then even if there is technically a derivative
database, then I think this simply isn't worth our time to investigate.
Best,
Kathleen


On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 2:02 AM Tom Hummel via legal-talk <
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi Lars-Daniel, Kathleen,
>
> > The process doesn't seem to be trivial, since the edges of many polygons
> go across areas, where no OSM elements could have been used as a reference.
> So OSM dataset has either been changed or augmented using 3rd party
> reference (knowledge, imagery, data etc.) to create the product. Those
> changes are share-alike by ODbL.
>
> The Trivial-Transf.-Guideline asks a trivial transformation to be
> judged from a non-technical point of view. The quality of the
> transformation itself should be non-trivial.
>
> You explained, how the edges of some polygons go along edges that may
> be very difficult to obtain, as they can’t be found within OSM. While
> Kathleen seems to assume that they are directly and easily derived from
> OSM data. Is that right?
>
> OTOH that doesn’t seem important under the TTG. The TTG asks us to
> estimate the modification or addition itself. You seem to be certain,
> the modifications are only possible by combination of 3rd party data
> and OSM data. From that perspective, they don’t seem very trivial to me.
> Kathleen?
>
> Thanks
>
> Tom
>
> ___
> 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] OdbL: Section 4.6, Does data/methods have to be released on public Produced Work?

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi Lars-Daniel,
Even assuming the polygons are from a Derivative Database, I don't see a
reason for the data to be released under
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline
Why would the polygons, which appear to be simply algorithmically combined
OSM data, be of interest?
Best,
Kathleen

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 8:34 AM Lars-Daniel Weber via legal-talk <
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> https://www.wohnlagenkarte.de/ displays location quality of residential
> areas. Those residential areas haven been produced using OSM data; the
> polygon area results from at least three surrounding paths and streets.
>
> Since the polygons are derived from OSM data and released in public, I've
> asked the owner to release the database OR the method to create the
> database according to ODbL v1.0, section 4.6 - of course without the values
> of location quality. He denied. He doesn't see a reason to release the
> data, which the Produced Work is based on.
>
> In my opinion, they've created a Derivative Database using their polygons
> and they're publishing a Produced Work (the tiles) in public. So section
> 4.6 applies here - doesn't it?
>
> Sincerely,
> Lars-Daniel
>
>
> ___
> 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] FW: Questions about a produced work with OSM data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

> 1.   As far as I can tell from the copyright statement and use cases
> this is a produced work and SIL International, Map Maker, Ltd. And
> worldgeodatasets.com will retain their copyright for their parts of the
> produced work(overall map design, language polygons, admin boundaries and
> places), and OSM will retain their copyright for their parts of the
> produced work(roads, rivers, lakes and forests). This is because the rest
> of the other data wasn’t derived from any of the OSM data. Also the OSM
> data doesn’t interact with the other data as it doesn’t follow the same
> lines as the other data. That is especially clear where admin boundary
> lines and coincident language boundary lines do not exactly match OSM river
> lines. I also chose to generalize the admin boundary lines and language
> boundary lines a bit for artistic purposes based on the scale at a province
> level. Does this seem correct in this case? I’ve included a draft province
> map for reference to make it clear how I’m using the different layers. The
> main thing I’m wanting to make sure of is that SIL and
> worldgeodatasets.com will retain their copyrights for the language
> polygons and places in the country and not be required to be freely
> distributed under any of the OSM copyright terms or policies.
>
> This sounds fine and consistent with the
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Collective_Database_Guideline_Guideline

>  2.Is the following attribution correct specifically for the OSM
> data that I will use? Note that the publication will be in Portuguese. So
> I’ve translated everything that I felt pertinent into Portuguese. Is that
> appropriate, or are there parts of it or all of the OSM attribution that
> should or need to be in English?  I’ve been planning on putting this
> attribution on each of the 17 province maps and a country overview map. Is
> that necessary to put the attribution on each map, or do I only need to
> include it in the front matter of the atlas, as the plan is to have all the
> maps together in the publication? Perhaps there is a more descriptive OSM
> attribution that could be included in the front matter, and a more simple
> or streamlined attribution on the individual maps? At first I had down ©
> OpenStreetMap contribuidores CC-BY-SA  (2020), however my colleague
> suggested CC-BY-SA would be better to be replaced by the newer license
> ODbL. And I’m not actually sure I need to include CC-BY-SA or ODbL as I’m
> not using tiles, just selections of OSM shapefiles. Overall  I just want to
> make sure I’m correctly attributing the OSM layers. Also, a colleague
> specifically asked if the copyright symbol needs to be included in the
> attribution for OSM data or if it could be taken out as he says data can’t
> be copyrighted.
>
>
>
> © 2020 SIL International®, Todos os direitos reservados;
>
> *Limites administrativos:* Limites e Lugares Mundiais pela ESRI (2019) e
> Map Maker, Ltd. (2007);
>
> Limites municipais, Angola, 2007 Map Maker, Ltd. Disponível em:
> http://purl.stanford.edu/td535nm8341;
>
> *Estradas, rios, lagos e florestas*: © OpenStreetMap contribuidores ODbL
> (2020);
>
> *Llugares:* Inclui geodados do worldgeodatasets.com (2020).
>

Translation is appropriate. Given the nature of your publication, I would
suggest a more descriptive OSM attribution (with the URL to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright printed out) in the front matter,
and simplified info on (or under, such as a caption) the maps themselves.
You do not need CC-BY-SA, that is outdated (even the tiles are no longer
CC-BY-SA as of July, though not all of the translations of the copyright
page have been updated, please feel free to help). The extent of copyright
protection for data varies country to country, so we still recommend it.
I don't speak Portuguese, but your attribution block looks correct and
appropriate to me (based on Google translate), but I would add the URL to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright so people can find out detailed
license information easily.

>
>
> 3.   I’m planning on having the OSM shapefiles available upon
> request. Since the publication will be in printed form as an atlas, I’m
> thinking of including my personal e-mail or perhaps and/or the e-mail of
> the Angolan government representative or department in the front matter of
> the atlas as the way to contact me and/or them and request the OSM
> shapefiles. Is that OK? If I have the time to update open street map itself
> with my edits, or at least the edits I feel add value and are more detailed
> or more accurate and then refer people to updated OSM shapefiles for the
> country would that suffice for providing the data without having to also
> send the shapefiles I’m using for the map as they are? I’m not sure
> replacing all of my edits would be the best idea as in some places I edited
> for simplicity and included long stretches of road based on satellite
> imagery which were continuous 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Import licensing waiver

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Given that this is a US county agency, I take it they view the data as
public domain. That's a pretty common view for government entities in the
US.



On Fri, Oct 9, 2020, 1:14 PM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> But license is still needed, right?
>
> Or is it OK to interpret "Agency has no objections"
> as "sounds like CC0" (I would not do this but maybe...)?
>
>
> Oct 9, 2020, 20:40 by legal-talk@openstreetmap.org:
>
> Yes, it's fine. That is simply a disclaimer, not a limitation on use.
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 11:14 AM  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have been in contact with the Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning
> Agency (SOCPA), an Onondaga County NY agency, about the licensing of a
> building footprint layer they have. My intention was to import this
> layer after further review by the OSM community and myself. After
> contacting the agency head about a possible waiver for OSM use ( along
> the lines of
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Getting_permission#Letter_Template_1
> ), I received this response:
>
> The Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency has no objections to
> geodata derived in part from the "Onondaga County Building Footprints"
> layer being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata
> database and displayed publicly on the map.  By using the data,
> however, the OpenStreetMap project agrees that Onondaga County makes no
> claim as to the usefulness, accuracy or completeness of the county's
> building footprint file, and the county will not be held responsible
> for any omissions or inaccuracies. This data is provided as is and
> there is no guarantee that it is suitable for any particular purpose.
> Your use of the data is at your own risk.
>
> Is this licensing favorable for use by the OSM community?
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Import licensing waiver

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Yes, it's fine. That is simply a disclaimer, not a limitation on use.

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 11:14 AM  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have been in contact with the Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning
> Agency (SOCPA), an Onondaga County NY agency, about the licensing of a
> building footprint layer they have. My intention was to import this
> layer after further review by the OSM community and myself. After
> contacting the agency head about a possible waiver for OSM use ( along
> the lines of
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Getting_permission#Letter_Template_1
> ), I received this response:
>
> The Syracuse-Onondaga County Planning Agency has no objections to
> geodata derived in part from the "Onondaga County Building Footprints"
> layer being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata
> database and displayed publicly on the map.  By using the data,
> however, the OpenStreetMap project agrees that Onondaga County makes no
> claim as to the usefulness, accuracy or completeness of the county's
> building footprint file, and the county will not be held responsible
> for any omissions or inaccuracies. This data is provided as is and
> there is no guarantee that it is suitable for any particular purpose.
> Your use of the data is at your own risk.
>
> Is this licensing favorable for use by the OSM community?
>
>
>
> ___
> 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-talk] Tagging health facilities offering COVID testing

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Where I am, there is wide variety in what days/hours such sites are
available, whether they are free or have a cost, whether you need an
appointment, and how temporary they are. Some are only around for a few
weeks, and I would expect them to last maximum 1 yr. Further, the use is
very limited since international travel is way down (and you should not be
traveling if you suspect you may have covid!) Thus I do not think they are
good candidates for mapping into OSM. A separate layer overlaid on OSM on a
dedicated website seems better.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 7:52 AM Antonin Delpeuch (lists) <
li...@antonin.delpeuch.eu> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am wondering if and how it would be appropriate to map COVID testing
> facilities. I have seen various national maps but given that they are
> especially useful during international travel, I think it would be very
> useful to have them in OSM.
>
> I have seen the use of "healthcare:speciality=covid-19", for instance on
> this node:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7368671692
>
> But according to TagInfo there are only two uses of that tag value.
> Surely other people must have been tagging this by now, but how?
>
> Note that I am primarily interested in mapping the places where samples
> are collected, not the laboratories where the samples are actually
> analyzed. I think the former is more interesting for the general public.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can I use this photo

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

In that context, I think 'others can use your content' is intended to refer
to users of the website may use it in the context of the website. But I
agree that it is vague and poorly drafted language (and thus I wouldn't
rely on it).
Linking is okay.

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 10:27 AM Edward Bainton 
wrote:

> Thanks: I thought maybe 'others can use your content' meant we could.
>
> I'll keep hunting, but no CC photos of that patch of water that I've found
> so far.
>
> Any problem with linking to it only, in the meantime?
>
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 17:53, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> No, that's just standard language that says Australia247.info can use the
>> photo, it says nothing about what OSM wiki or anyone can do. You would need
>> to get permission from the user. I suggest looking for a CC licensed photo.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:45 PM Edward Bainton 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi legal beagles.
>>>
>>> I have found a photo
>>> <https://cdn.australia247.info/assets/uploads/b7fa27b619deac1ef15f476171bb844a_-queensland-somerset-regional-hazeldean-nrma-lake-somerset-holiday-parkhtml.jpg>
>>> that I'd like to include in the wiki.
>>>
>>> It appears to be user content contributed to this page
>>> <https://australia247.info/explore/queensland/somerset_regional/hazeldean/nrma_lake_somerset_holiday_park.html>
>>> on the australia247.info site under the terms
>>> <https://australia247.info/terms> below.
>>>
>>> If the site confirms that it is 'user content' can I use that photo in
>>> the wiki, with appropriate attribution and source info?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Edward / eteb3
>>>
>>> USER CONTENT
>>>
>>> The Service allows you to post content, including comments, photos, and
>>> other materials. Anything that you post or otherwise make available on our
>>> website is referred to as "user content." You are solely responsible for
>>> the user content you post on the Service. If you post your content on
>>> Australia247.info, it still belongs to you but *we can show it to
>>> people and others can use your content.*
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Can I use this photo

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

No, that's just standard language that says Australia247.info can use the
photo, it says nothing about what OSM wiki or anyone can do. You would need
to get permission from the user. I suggest looking for a CC licensed photo.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 11:45 PM Edward Bainton 
wrote:

> Hi legal beagles.
>
> I have found a photo
> 
> that I'd like to include in the wiki.
>
> It appears to be user content contributed to this page
> 
> on the australia247.info site under the terms
>  below.
>
> If the site confirms that it is 'user content' can I use that photo in the
> wiki, with appropriate attribution and source info?
>
> Thanks
>
> Edward / eteb3
>
> USER CONTENT
>
> The Service allows you to post content, including comments, photos, and
> other materials. Anything that you post or otherwise make available on our
> website is referred to as "user content." You are solely responsible for
> the user content you post on the Service. If you post your content on
> Australia247.info, it still belongs to you but *we can show it to people
> and others can use your content.*
> ___
> 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] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 3:30 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Do., 24. Sept. 2020 um 12:05 Uhr schrieb Tom Hughes :
>
>> On 24/09/2020 10:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> > it contains changesets, notes, etc. but not diary posts or changeset
>> > comments (correct me if I’m wrong).
>>
>> You're wrong:
>>
>> https://planet.openstreetmap.org/planet/discussions-latest.osm.bz2
>
>
>
> thank you Tom, thought they must be somewhere but couldn't find them at a
> glance.
> Can still not find the diaries, this seems to imply diaries are not
> covered by the CT (but by the ToU), because they are not part of the
> geodatabase, while changeset comments are (i.e. are published with ODbL
> license)?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>

This is my view.
-Kathleen
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

> What I meant by legal assessment is that I would like to know what OSMF's
> layers
> think of this. I would assume that the OSMF has some sort of legal
> department,
> like the people who have drafted some of the fundamental legal documents
> (like
> Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, Contributor Terms, ODbL etc) regulating
> some
> aspects of OSMF's operations.
>
> OSMF does not have a legal department. OSMF has the Legal/Licensing
Working Group. I am on that working group. If you want the opinion of the
entire group, you are welcome to request it, and it will perhaps be taken
up on the agenda.



> So, it is absolutely feasible that the Contributor Terms may lack
> something.
> Legal documents, laws, and regulations are not perfect. Nothing is. And,
> it is
> nothing to be ashamed of if anyone spots a loophole or gap in a legal
> document
> or regulation. It is an opportunity for improvement. The Contributor Terms
> have
> been drafted when OpenStreetMap was developing and was accepting not much
> more
> than map data contributions. So, it was sufficient to handle geo-database
> contributions only. Since then, OpenStreetMap has grown, new functionality
> and
> tools have been added. Perhaps OpenStreetMap's progress has outpaced its
> legal
> framework? Or maybe the legal framework did not keep up with
> OpenStreetMap's
> progress? I do not know. What I do know, is that “Content” is limited in
> scope
> to geo-database contributions in the Contributor Terms.
>
> I read "geo-database contributions" as including changeset comments &
discussions and map notes, because they are tied to the map features. I do
not think geo-database contributions include blog posts.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

>
>
> why not remove “geo-database of the”? If someone added the geo-database,
> maybe they wanted to exclude other databases or parts of the project? Are
> there terms for diary posts? Are diary posts distributed under the ODbL?
>
> Well, updating the Contributor Terms would be an enormous project to be
carried out only if absolutely necessary (though I would not be in
principle opposed to the phrasing you suggest, if we were starting from
scratch).
But no, I don't think these terms are for the diary posts, and I don't
think the diary posts are distributed under ODbL, and I'm not aware of OSMF
redistributing them. I would say that diary posts are covered by
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#VII._Additional_terms
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

 GITNE,
I don't know what distinction you are drawing between opinion and legal
assessment. I cannot give you legal advice as I am not your lawyer, but my
legal opinion, based on the terms of the Contributor Agreement, is that
changeset comments are part of OSM's geo-database. Note that the terms say:
"OSMF agrees that it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a
database and only under the terms of one or more of the following
licences:.." So if changeset comments did not count as part of the
geo-database, OSM would not have rights to use them, which would be
contrary to the purposes of the Contributor Terms.
-Kathleen

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 5:34 AM Eugene Alvin Villar 
wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 6:19 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
>> For those unfamiliar with it, the OSM US' Slack instance has a
>> "feed-changeset-comments" channel which shows new changeset discussion
>> comments shortly after they are added.  There are lots of other ways of
>> getting at that data as well of course - including on osm.org itself.
>>
>
> To provide some context, this Slack channel is simply forwarding the
> contents of an Atom feed generated by Pascal Neis here:
> http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions?c=United States
>
> IANAL, but from an intellectual property point of view, I think Pascal
> creating RSS/Atom feeds of changeset comments per country falls under fair
> use/fair dealing. And there is a whole ecosystem of tools that process and
> consume RSS/Atom feeds, one of which is an integration in Slack was setup
> by someone so that comments on changesets in the United States are more
> visible to the people who are in the OSM US Slack.
>
> ~Eugene
> ___
> 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] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi GITNE,
Can you also specify what you think the problem is? I get the feeling that
you have an objection to changeset comments being posted in Slack. I'm
assuming such comments appear in the OSMUS slack group which is popular
with mappers. Why do you think this is a bad thing?
(To be clear, I think your premise is wrong and that the definition of
"Contents" in the Contributor Terms clearly includes changeset comments.)
-Kathleen


On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 5:19 PM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:43 PM GITNE  wrote:
>
>> Hello OSMF Legal Team,
>>
>> due to a quite troubling revelation by @SomeoneElse that changeset
>> comments are
>> automatically republished by the third party private company Slack, I
>> would
>> appreciate if you could share your legal assessment of this situation.
>> More
>> specifically, what is the copyright status of changeset comments and
>> which OSMF
>> document or agreement covers changeset comments?
>>
>
> Can you be more specific? Where is the data being republished?
>
> Best,
> Clifford
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> 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-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Assuming that we're taking about a physical object, I don't see how the
importer would have any obligations to do anything under copyright law,
database law, or contact law. That question preempts any ODbL analysis.



On Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 11:53 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 11. Sep 2020, at 20:46, Kathleen Lu  wrote:
>
> If you put the attribution in Polish for a map meant for display in
> Poland, and then later the map is moved to London (say, to a museum),
> that's also fine because attribution was reasonable given the context.
>
>
>
> it would be fine from the map maker‘s perspective, but not for the people
> that bring the map to London:
>
> 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work
> does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a
> Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work
> reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses,
> interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that
> Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the
> Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under
> this License.
>
>
>
> you could easily fix this by adding attribution in a locally standard
> language.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

"Reasonable" means that if you put the attribution in a language that most
people would expect, then it's fine, including at an airport in Poland. If
you put the attribution in Polish for a map meant for display in Poland,
and then later the map is moved to London (say, to a museum), that's also
fine because attribution was reasonable given the context.
If you are making a map for London and you start off by making it in
Polish, that would be really weird, but in the OSM context, since
"OpenStreetMap" is a name that doesn't change depending on the language,
it's still sufficient, since "OpenStreetMap" by itself is sufficient. (If
an organization like "Department of Geology" was the source of an ODbL
database, your language choice might have more of a bearing on
reasonableness depending on viewing context.)


On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:34 AM Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> 11 Sep 2020, 18:18 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 11. Sep 2020, at 13:21, Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
> talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> For example on my laser cut map I used
> "Dane z OpenStreetMap na licencji ODBL"
> as it will be used in way where Polish
> would be clearly expected to be
> understood
>
>
>
> will this limit the places where you can exhibit the work to Poland?
>
> Or more specifically to places where all people can be
> assumed to be able to understand
> Polish.
>
> It should be easy to find places in
> Poland where many do not understand
> Polish at all (airports for start).
>
> In this case it is a gift for a friend so it
> should be fine, I think.
>
> It would be interesting who would
> be in violation if that plywood piece would
> be displayed publicly in place where this
> assumption would not hold true.
>
> I am quite curious about answers but
> not enough to spend £€¥ on a lawyer.
>
> Or would it be sufficient attribution also for a display in e.g. London?
>
> Probably no, but I am not a lawyer,
> and also not someone able to answer
> is meaning clear for English-only speaker.
>
> So I am not certain but I assume that answer is "no".
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

[0] https://www.alltrails.com/ (in the search box enter the name of a
trail, park, or city to see their map.)

> It looks like AllTrails now correctly attributes OpenStreetMap.  Those of
> you more familiar with the licensing might want to chime in and let me know
> if simply stating "(c) OpenStreetMap" instead of "(c) OpenStreetMap
> Contributors" is adequate (also, keep in mind that only some of their map
> data comes from OSM).  If it is adequate, I will send Ron a note thanking
> him, and starting the conversation between him and the DWG about AllTrails
> directing data issues directly to the DWG.
>
> Yes, it's fine
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] local copyright law on government data and OSM license

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Thanks for the context Eugene.

On the other hand, if an OSM mapper *derives* new data from such a dataset
> (for example, generating a representative point for each polygon, maybe at
> the centroid, or maybe at at the "admin centre" if the polygon represents
> settlements and the mapper used their best judgement and research to place
> such points), then this new dataset is no longer the same as the government
> dataset. If the OSM mapper added the new derived data to OSM, then one
> could perhaps argue that prior approval from the government agency is no
> longer needed because the very act of mapping in OSM is not "for
> exploitation of such work for profit". And furthermore, end users of OSM
> would also perhaps not need to seek "prior approval" as well since they are
> not exploiting the original government dataset but rather a derived dataset
> (ex., points), and which cannot be used to reverse engineer the original
> government dataset (ex., polygons).
>
> This interpretation would seem to be consistent with the answer provided
on the National Mapping authority's website:
Can I edit and use the NAMRIA maps for business? Article III of NAMRIA
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) states that "the second party shall use the
digital data acquired from NAMRIA only for its own authorized purpose and
not for commercial purpose. If digital is sold to other parties, the Second
Party shall pay the full cost of the digital data and its royalties". This
applies only to digital maps (scanned/vector) purchased from NAMRIA.

If it is not the data itself but rather derived from it, then there are no
restrictions.

-Kathleen



> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:57 AM Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> A few thoughts:
>>
>> I'd want to talk to a Philippine lawyer, because frankly, these two
>> sentences seem to contradict each other:
>> *No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the
>> Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office
>> wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such
>> work for profit*
>>
>> What would be the consequences of not getting permission? A violation of
>> the government's non-copyright rights? Rights of what? I didn't think the
>> Philippines had database rights, but there could well be some other
>> non-copyright law.
>>
>> Looking online, I found this on the National Mapping authority's website:
>> Can I edit and use the NAMRIA maps for business? Article III of NAMRIA
>> Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) states that "the second party shall use the
>> digital data acquired from NAMRIA only for its own authorized purpose and
>> not for commercial purpose. If digital is sold to other parties, the Second
>> Party shall pay the full cost of the digital data and its royalties". This
>> applies only to digital maps (scanned/vector) purchased from NAMRIA.
>> http://www.namria.gov.ph/faq.aspx
>>
>> So one question I would have is whether the data source in question is
>> digital data acquired from NAMRIA?
>>
>> I also found this list
>> http://www.geoportal.gov.ph/resources/PGPDataInventorywithSW
>> which seems to indicate that at least some government geodata has no
>> restrictions on it. With respect to at least those datasets, it would seem
>> that *explicit permission with respect to OSM* is unnecessary. I didn't see
>> a source for the letters mentioned in this list, but it's possible that
>> some of the data restrictions would not be a problem for OSM, but they'd
>> have to be examined on a letter by letter basis.
>>
>> Best,
>> -Kathleen
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 6:17 PM Erwin Olario  wrote:
>>
>>> Recently, some edits in the country came to the  attention of the
>>> community and have been found to be derived from government data.
>>> Volunteers in the community, after advising the DWG of the process and
>>> action plan, are undertaking the rollback of affected edits.
>>>
>>> In our community, the current practice follows the general
>>> recommendation, that  no (Philippine government) data should be added into
>>> OpenStreetMap, unless explicit permission has been obtained from the
>>> originating agency/office/owners that the data will be added in OSM, under
>>> ODbL.
>>>
>>> The relevant local law on government data, states Republic Act 8293
>>> <https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1997/06/06/republic-act-no-8293/>,
>>> section 176:
>>> "*Works of the Government. ‑ 176.1. No copyright shall subsi

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] local copyright law on government data and OSM license

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

A few thoughts:

I'd want to talk to a Philippine lawyer, because frankly, these two
sentences seem to contradict each other:
*No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the
Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office
wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such
work for profit*

What would be the consequences of not getting permission? A violation of
the government's non-copyright rights? Rights of what? I didn't think the
Philippines had database rights, but there could well be some other
non-copyright law.

Looking online, I found this on the National Mapping authority's website:
Can I edit and use the NAMRIA maps for business? Article III of NAMRIA
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) states that "the second party shall use the
digital data acquired from NAMRIA only for its own authorized purpose and
not for commercial purpose. If digital is sold to other parties, the Second
Party shall pay the full cost of the digital data and its royalties". This
applies only to digital maps (scanned/vector) purchased from NAMRIA.
http://www.namria.gov.ph/faq.aspx

So one question I would have is whether the data source in question is
digital data acquired from NAMRIA?

I also found this list
http://www.geoportal.gov.ph/resources/PGPDataInventorywithSW which
seems to indicate that at least some government geodata has no restrictions
on it. With respect to at least those datasets, it would seem that
*explicit permission with respect to OSM* is unnecessary. I didn't see a
source for the letters mentioned in this list, but it's possible that some
of the data restrictions would not be a problem for OSM, but they'd have to
be examined on a letter by letter basis.

Best,
-Kathleen


On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 6:17 PM Erwin Olario  wrote:

> Recently, some edits in the country came to the  attention of the
> community and have been found to be derived from government data.
> Volunteers in the community, after advising the DWG of the process and
> action plan, are undertaking the rollback of affected edits.
>
> In our community, the current practice follows the general recommendation,
> that  no (Philippine government) data should be added into OpenStreetMap,
> unless explicit permission has been obtained from the originating
> agency/office/owners that the data will be added in OSM, under ODbL.
>
> The relevant local law on government data, states Republic Act 8293
> ,
> section 176:
> "*Works of the Government. ‑ 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any
> work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the
> government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary
> for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among
> other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior
> approval or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of
> statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons,
> addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of
> justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in
> meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first par., P.D. No. 49)"*
>
> In the discussions by contributors, there are some who expressed favor a
> more liberal interpretation of this section of the law, that government
> data is ineligible to copyright, hence no permission is necessary from the
> government. And if the end-user has commercial plans for said data, it is
> up to them to apply for said permission from the relevant government
> agencies.
>
> However, this government permission requirement appears to oppose the OSM
> license, wherein OSM data users are only required to attribute, and not
> seek any additional permissions. Hence, our promoted practice of seeking
> the informed consent of data owners.
>
> While the interpretation of the law is not a question of popularity,
> there's no doubt that a more liberal interpretation is desirable for our
> community but I'm wondering if somebody from the licensing WG can provide
> us specific guidance whether a liberal interpretation of this law is
> aligned with the OSM license.
>
> /Erwin
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> » email: erwin@ *n**gnu**it**y**.xyz*
>  | gov...@gmail.com
> » mobile: https://t.me/GOwin
> » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93
> D56B
> ___
> 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] OSM compatibility of licenses which restrict modification

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

At least in English,
"not reuse the Information in a way that suggests that it is official or
that Licensor approves your use of the Information;
take all reasonable steps to ensure that the uses permitted above do not
mislead others and that the Information itself is not misrepresented."
reads as a trademark clause, which has always been okay and compatible.
-Kathleen

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:42 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 14. Jul 2020, at 15:28, Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe they assume that it is covered
> > anyway by moral rights?
> >
> > But ODBL waives moral rights if allowed
> > by law,
> > it attempts to block asserting such claims,
> > and so on.
> >
> > Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer etc
>
>
> neither am I, just wondering up to which level contradictions and
> uncertainties in licensing terms are still ok for OpenStreetMap and when
> it’s too much.
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> 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] Legal questions about using OSM

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

My personal take (not official guidance):

Question 1:
If I store calculated results based on OSM data in a database table
(without the actual OSM data itself), such as the number of specific
POIs, travel times, travel distances and so on - the database is then a
collective database, a derivative database, a "produced work", or none of
them?

For a count of the number of specific POIs in an area, travel times between
two points, or travel distances between two points, I would say "none of
them", because these types of calculated data points would not actually
contain any data from the OSM database, and thus not be covered by
copyright or database rights law, the rights that ODbL licenses.

Question 2:
Does the calculation of the above described results complies with the
statement: "you geocoded your data"?

No. Geocoding and Geocoding Results have specific meanings, as indicated in
the Geocoding Guidelines.

Question 3:
If I reference other data with the data from this result database, do I
have to put the referenced data under the ODBL license? For the case
that the answer to Question 1 would be collective or a "produced work"?
In case of derivative, I guess the database must be under ODBL...

Your reasoning is correct, but of course, since my answer to 1 is "none of
them", the answer to this question would be "no"



On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 6:42 AM "Birger Schütte" via legal-talk <
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hello to all!
>
> I would like to apologize for asking again, but unfortunately the answer
> did not help me.
> I realize that the use cases are not the ultimate recommendation.
> Therefore I had additionally relied on the
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines.
> I am examining the use of OSM in various tools - this is where these
> questions came up.
> And therefore it would be important for me to understand from when on
> which kind of use of the data leads to the cases mentioned in the questions
> (collective, derivative and so on).
> I have even interviewed a lawyer, but so far with rather little success.
> :-(
>
> So here are my 3 most important still open questions again:
> Question 1:
> If I store calculated results based on OSM data in a database table
> (without the actual OSM data itself), such as the number of specific
> POIs, travel times, travel distances and so on - the database is then a
> collective database, a derivative database, a "produced work", or none of
> them?
>
> Question 2:
> Does the calculation of the above described results complies with the
> statement: "you geocoded your data"?
>
> Question 3:
> If I reference other data with the data from this result database, do I
> have to put the referenced data under the ODBL license? For the case
> that the answer to Question 1 would be collective or a "produced work"?
> In case of derivative, I guess the database must be under ODBL...
>
> Since I haven't had any luck deriving answers to my questions from the
> Community_Guidelines so far, I hope it wouldn't be too much trouble if I
> could possibly get answers to every single question?
> Many thanks for every effort in advance!
>
> Kindly Regards
> Birger
>
> Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 11:14:14 +0200
> From: Simon Poole 
> To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Legal questions about using OSM
> Message-ID: <9c917920-39c1-03c0-59a4-d0f47fc0e...@poole.ch>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> You are unnecessarily making your life hard. There is a big red warning
> at the top of the "Use Cases" page, simply take it seriously (the
> content of that page was written in 2012 a rather long time ago and
> before any of the guidelines existed). The current relevant guidelines
> are available from
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines
>
> In your specific case, as it seems you are not actually geocoding your
> data (that would be extracting address or location information from OSM
> with 3rd party data), that would be the Produced Work and Collective
> Database guidelines.
>
> Simon
> ___
> 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-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:14 AM Alexandre Oliveira 
wrote:

> > Mapbox also has a whitelabling option for customers to remove the logo
> from Mapbox tiles. But again, we're talking about the tile service. It
> would be quite reasonable for OSM to add a logo to the OSM tiles and make
> keeping that logo on there a condition of using OSM tiles.
> > Mapbox employees have contributed to OSM for years. That data belongs to
> Mapbox but is shared with the world through OSM and ODbL. Attribution for
> that doesn't appear on-map unless the user is also using Mapbox tiles.
>
> So, if I understood it correctly, you're implying that it's totally
> fine to hide data source attribution several clicks away or not
> attributing at all? And that the attribution on the corners of the map
> are only feasible if you're using OSM's tiles?
>
> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources
does not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first
to the copyright page, then the contributors page). If that's not
acceptable under ODbL for a map that has multiple data sources, then OSM
would be violating others' ODbL licenses.


> What I don't understand is the positioning of corporate users of OSM.
> Sure, Mapbox has a business model that depends on attribution and even
> then you're obliged to follow their terms of use and policies if you
> choose their service. How is that different from OSM? Both provide the
> same services, you can choose both Mapbox and OSM for tiles or data,
> and even then, you are required to follow their licenses and
> terms/policies.
>

The key difference is between using a service (such as tiles hosted by a
company, such as Mapbox), and using open data that originated with but *is
not hosted* by an entity. I agree that if someone were to use OSM tiles
hosted by OSM, then attribution should be visible in the corner at all
times.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

You and Alexandre are correct that Google does not (usually) allow you to
use their data off of their platform. According to Google's Terms, you
usually cannot use just the data and not the tile server. Google does,
however, make exceptions for paying customers.

Mapbox also has a whitelabling option for customers to remove the logo from
Mapbox tiles. But again, we're talking about the tile service. It would be
quite reasonable for OSM to add a logo to the OSM tiles and make keeping
that logo on there a condition of using OSM tiles.
Separately, it *is* possible to use certain Mapbox data without using
Mapbox tiles. Mapbox employees have contributed to OSM for years. That data
belongs to Mapbox but is shared with the world through OSM and ODbL.
Attribution for that doesn't appear on-map unless the user is also using
Mapbox tiles.

The key difference between data and tiles is that one can use hundreds of
data sources in one map, but only one or a handful of service providers for
tiles, geocoding, etc. Both user expectations and reasonableness depend on
context.

-Kathleen

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:01 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Mi., 29. Apr. 2020 um 04:05 Uhr schrieb Kathleen Lu <
> kathleen...@mapbox.com>:
>
>> I absolutely agree that looking at industry standard seems a good
>> indication of what is reasonable.
>> ...After researching this question, I found no commercial data provider
>> that required data attribution as prominently as the FAQ suggests. Industry
>> standard would suggest a *much* less strict interpretation of what is
>> "reasonable" under the ODbL.
>>
>
>
>
> I do have an example that comes to mind: imagine you use Google Geocoding.
> This obligates you to use the results in the Google ecosystem, and this has
> the requirement to display a Google logo on the map.
> Another example would maybe be mapbox? If you use data they have
> transformed, you will have to put a mapbox logo on the screen.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

I absolutely agree that looking at industry standard seems a good
indication of what is reasonable.
If someone is hitting OSM's tile server, then that would be the industry
equivalent of using Google or HERE's API, for which they typically require
on-map logo attribution.
For using *data* from someone's geodatabase, on the other hand, the
standard attribution for webmaps varies widely from on-map to after several
menu choices; and the standard attribution on mobile is 5-6 clicks from the
UI.
Check out HERE's webmap: https://mobile.here.com/?x=ep. It takes 3 clicks
to get to this page: https://mobile.here.com/about/notices. And another 4
clicks to get to this page:
https://legal.here.com/en-gb/terms/general-content-supplier-terms-and-notices
After researching this question, I found no commercial data provider that
required data attribution as prominently as the FAQ suggests. Industry
standard would suggest a *much* less strict interpretation of what is
"reasonable" under the ODbL.
-Kathleen

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 5:28 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 28. Apr 2020, at 23:34, Kathleen Lu via talk 
> wrote:
>
> The FAQ is not the license. The license is the ODbL. The ODbL says
> absolutely nothing about whether attribution should be on a map or not.
> Read it here: https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/index.html
>
>
>
> I am not a lawyer, but wouldn’t it seem logical to look what others are
> doing, when we must establish what this means: „ You must include a
> notice associated with
> the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses,
> views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced
> Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database,...“
>
> It says „reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views,...aware“,
> any. To me this reads as if it has to be put very prominently, it has to be
> thrown into everyone’s face so that they become aware. Looking at the
> industry standard seems a good indication to find out what is “reasonable”,
> would you agree?
>
> Cheers Martin
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

> the header of the code, that's the place where the attribution is expected.
>
> roughly equivalent to some corner in the displayed map, that's what the
> license says, right?
>

I do not think these two things are at all equivalent. OSM is a database,
so the equivalent attribution notice to the header in code would be a text
file that accompanies the database. The UI of an application that uses a
database is the equivalent of the UI of an application that uses code.

the point which surprises me (and IIUC Skyler), is that you state
> something in the license, then you seem not to particularly care if it's
> respected, or not.
>

The FAQ is not the license. The license is the ODbL. The ODbL says
absolutely nothing about whether attribution should be on a map or not.
Read it here: https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/index.html
The FAQ is an interpretation of the ODbL that some people in the OSMF wrote
up many years ago, and some of that interpretation is from before the
license change. It is not clear that everything in the FAQ is a correct
interpretation of the ODbL. Regarding issues other than attribution, the
OSMF has updated it's license interpretations several times over the years.
It has been debated, but not decided, whether the FAQ interpretations on
attribution should be updated.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

I find this view quite surprising coming from a software engineer.
I know no major open source license that requires attribution *in the UI
that the user sees without clicking on anything*.
Every example of open source license attribution I have seen is after
several clicks, e.g. Menu->About->Legal Notices->Software
When asked if OSM attribution is the same as open source attribution, my
answer has always been "no, OSM attribution is much stricter."
-Kathleen

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 6:57 AM Mario Frasca  wrote:

> for what it matters, I completely subscribe Skyler's position.
>
> I'm a software engineer, and I produce GPL and AGPL software (not LGPL),
> but I do not have the power to enforce anything, I just hope that people
> will be considerate.
>
> it's surprising that the lax attitude comes from a committee having all
> necessary power.
>
> MF
>
> On 27/04/2020 22:43, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
> > As a new contributor, and a software engineer, it is surprising to learn
> that there is such a lax attitude towards lack of attribution. Every open
> source software license I can think of has attribution as a central tenet.
> People spend their free time on this stuff, and they do it because they
> care about it. There are people who get pretty upset when they find others
> using their hard work for their own gain without so much as a footnote
> (which is really all the guidelines appear to be asking for).
> >
> > Attribution matters. It lets people know what the project is and that it
> positively impacted their lives. And equally importantly, it bestows a
> modicum of respect and gratitude to the volunteers who spend their free
> time making the project what it is.
> >
> > --
> > Skyler
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] It's time to manage libraries properly in OSM

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

 My local University is the same way. Students and faculty automatically
get access, but community and alumni can get access by paying fees.

Is access=members an option?

It implies that you have to become a member according to some criteria, but
that membership is possible for a large swath of people.


On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 8:34 AM Christian Rogel <
christian.ro...@club-internet.fr> wrote:

> Le 21 avr. 2020 à 03:26, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Currently we can already mark if the library is open to the public on not
> (access=yes means open to the general public), but it's unclear how say a
> school library or library restricted to attendees of an educational
> facility like a university should be tagged (is it access=private since
> only those people attending the institution have been given permission?
>
> access=customers?
>
>
>
> Libraries rarely get « customers ». In most of the public libraries, your
> are free to enter, to grab any material ans to sit down for hours. No need
> to suscribe for these services.
>
>
> Besides, the libraries of the French universities are providng their
> services to any person paying the fees, same as the students.
>
>
>
>
>
> As the type of services and the social role are rich and complex, un
> unusual number of subtags is required :
>
>
>1. pubic targeted
>2. intellectual content (collections)
>3. material types (books, manuscripts, records, artworks, maps…)
>4. lending / no lending / mobile ending
>5. administrative status (municipal, school, county, ngo, state,
>university, corporate…)
>
>
>
>
> Christian Rogel
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Per the contributor agreement, the copyright remains with the contributors
(to the extent their individual contributions were copyrightable), to
license their rights to OSMF with a right to sublicense, but the database
rights belong to OSMF, because OSMF is the only entity that "collected" the
database.
The correct attribution legally speaking is just to OpenStreetMap, no ©
symbol. That's because OSMF is sublicensing any copyright rights and
licensing any database rights together under the ODbL,.The © is also
leftover from CC-BY-SA days.

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 7:49 AM Mario Frasca  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> maybe I'm not reading too attentively, but what I understand is that the
> contract is about licensing, while the copyright on what the contract calls
> 'Your Contents' stays mine.
>
> that is what I thought when I wrote:
>
> if you say that "© OpenStreetMap" is the same as "© OpenStreetMap
> contributors", I'm fine.
>
> I have the impression you are confusing copyright ownership with licensing
> and authorization to sub-licensing.
>
> Legally, the copyright actually belongs to the Foundation (and individual
> contributors retain their copyright, but grant usage and distribution
> rights to the OSMF).
>
> somehow I keep finding your parenthesized explanations confusing.  if
> you're right in your out-of-parentheses statement, I would probably
> reconsider my position as contributor.
>
> MF
> On 17/04/2020 09:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2020 um 15:37 Uhr schrieb Mario Frasca :
>
>> but if you argue that OpenStreetMap is owned by OpenStreetMapFoundation
>> and that "© OpenStreetMap" means "© OpenStreetMapFoundation", then I'd
>> rather stick to the current situation, where it's very clear that the
>> copyright belongs to contributors, be it as individuals or as a community.
>
>
>
> I tried to look at the legal situation (morally, I agree that
> OpenStreetMap is more about the community than OpenStreetMapFoundation,
> indeed that's an unmentioned reason why I suggested OpenStreetMap and not
> the foundation to be credited also in an updated version.
>
> Legally, the copyright actually belongs to the Foundation (and individual
> contributors retain their copyright, but grant usage and distribution
> rights to the OSMF). It is written in the contract you have signed with the
> OSMF (contributor terms). If you download data from OpenStreetMap, your
> licensor is the OSMF. You have authorized the OSMF to distribute the
> content on their behalf, and to pursue copyright infringements.
>
> "You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
> perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by
> copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the
> Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights
> explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of
> endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to
> sub-license the work through multiple tiers of sub-licensees and to sue for
> any copyright violation directly connected with OSMF's rights under these
> terms. To the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright
> conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert against OSMF or its
> licensees any moral rights that You may have in the Contents."
>
> There are also some conditions of course, "OSMF agrees that it may only
> use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the
> terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database
> and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or
> such other free and open licence as may from time to time be chosen by a
> vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of
> active contributors."
>
> And of course in 5 you have mutually agreed, that "except as set forth
> herein, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contents."
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms
>
> The excerpts are copied from the current version 1.2.4.
> There isn't much information (or I didn't find it) to which specific
> version one has agreed, nor is the text of former versions publicly
> visible, but AFAIK OSMF has internally a trace of who has agreed to which
> version, and of course people will have their own copies on their pc.
> I don't recall agreeing to any updated versions of the Contributor Terms
> after 2012, and I guess nobody has, you always agreed to the current
> version when you signed up (or at the license change in 2012), so your
> contract with the OSMF may be slightly different.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using OSM data to create our own OSRM API inhouse

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

I would point you to
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline
in particular the last example.
(Other official guidelines are at
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines - please
note that text at wiki.openstreetmap.org, vs osmfoundation.org, is
unofficial)


On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:56 AM Shahnur Islam 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We've recently started experimenting with the OSRM api to see if it was a
> viable solution create distance and time matrices to use for our own
> Travelling Sales person algorithm we built.
> We're a logistics company so the data we generate will not be used
> publicly, but before we start using it commercially our procurement team
> wanted to make sure had all the licensing in place.
>
> I've had a look here
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases#Use_Cases_regarding_the_extraction_of_data_from_OSM_for_various_purposes
>  but
> couldn't see where this falls and whats required.
>
> So I guess my main questions are .
>
>1. Are we allowed to use it for our purpose?
>2. If so, what licensing do we need to put it in place?
>
> Thanks,
> Shan
> ___
> 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] Adding OSM-ids to an external database and publish in CC-BY

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

I don't think you even need to get into
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Metadata_Layers_-_Guideline
or the substantial question.
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Horizontal_Map_Layers_-_Guideline
and
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Collective_Database_Guideline_Guideline
make clear that you can use a particular OSM type (here, OSM-ids) as a
collective database with other data types of non-OSM origin without
triggering share-alike. It would be nonsensical for OSM-ids to come from a
source other than OSM (hence, all OSM-ids are from OSM and are ODbL), so in
this scenario it is easy to maintain conceptual separation of the ODbL and
non-ODbL databases in the "collective".
Since they're labeled "OSM-ids" even attribution is fairly easily covered.
Surely there is a readme explaining what this metadata type is, just for
use purposes.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:32 AM Tom Lee via legal-talk <
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> This seems similar to the problem discussed here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Metadata_Layers_-_Guideline
>
> The doctrine proposed by Richard Fairhurst (and discussed on that page)
> strikes me as reasonable. It's hard for me to see how OSM IDs could qualify
> as a substantial part of the database when used in isolation, in this
> manner. They're algorithmically generated and, by themselves, contain no
> information about the world that OSM describes.
>
> In a broader sense, it seems like it would be very counterproductive for
> an open project to embrace policies that make it difficult for people to
> even *refer* to useful parts of it, which is what a hyperlink amounts to.
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 1:57 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In Italy we have been discussing this situation: a member of the
>> community wants to add links to OSM objects into a list of specific shops
>> (those that are open during the covid-19 pandemia).
>>
>> The list will be published here: https://www.covid19italia.help/opendata/
>> with an CC-BY-4.0 license.
>>
>> The links will be of the kind
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1834818
>>
>> Question is, will it be possible to publish such a list, containing
>> OSM-ids (or links to OSM objects) with a CC-BY-4.0 license?
>>
>> Thank you for your replies.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Martin
>> ___
>> 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-talk] The benefits of cross-linking OSM and Wikidata

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Right. Since the definition of "active contributor" includes "has
maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds
to a request to vote within 3 weeks", then people who do not vote do not
count as active.
A 2/3 majority voting in favor is not an easy threshold by any means, but I
don't think it would be any more difficult for OSMF to *conduct* the vote
than it is to conduct the board election.


On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:01 AM Maarten Deen  wrote:

> On 2020-03-05 15:39, Rory McCann wrote:
> > On 05/03/2020 15:25, Sören Reinecke via talk wrote:
> >> couldn't we do a vote about that? Would it be possible for the OSMF to
> >> maintain and coordinate such a voting.
> >
> > Yes, we _could_.
> >
> > It would require a 2/3 majority of “active [OSM] contributors”,
>
> "and responds to a request to vote within 3 weeks"
>
> > is (intentionally) a large number (about 250,000 at the time of
> > writing).
>
> Which will limit that number of 250.000 substantially, and will in fact
> limit that number to the number of votes you receive.
> If 4 people respond and 3 vote in favor, than that counts as a 2/3
> majority as put forward in item 3 of the license.
>
> Regards,
> Maarten
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Digital environmentalism

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

I would not say this is true. Google maps has routing for walking, cycling,
and public transit, and their public transit information is probably more
complete than OSM's.

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:25 AM Philip Barnes  wrote:

> OSM includes walking and cycling infrastructure thus promoting and
> enabling  sustainable travel options.
>
> Gmaps is primarily a road map.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On Tuesday, 25 February 2020, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> > There are many reasons to use OSM over Google Maps but
> > "environmentally friendly" seems to not be one of them.
> >
> > One may try some very indirect things, like that Google Maps
> > is primarily a place to display ads, therefore pushing consumerism,
> > therefore environmentally unfriendly but...
> >
> > Maybe "OSM data is reusable, Google maps data is proprietary and
> > other need to recreate it wasting resources" can be argued to
> > be environment-related.
> >
> > Maybe "OSM data can be used for various purposes, including
> > environment protection" can be argued.
> >
> >
> > Feb 25, 2020, 09:28 by ge...@customercarewords.com:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > I will be giving a series of talks this year at An Event Apart (>
> https://aneventapart.com/> ). The talk title is “World Wide Waste,” and
> will examine the impact digital is having on the environment and proposes
> ways digital can be more environmentally friendly. I’d like to propose
> OpenStreetMap as a more environmentally friendly option than Google Maps.
> Can anyone help me with good arguments?
> > >
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > >
> > > Gerry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > >
> > > Gerry McGovern +353 87 238 6136 > ge...@customercarewords.com>
>  @gerrymcgovern  www.customercarewords.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my Sailfish device
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL Advice — POIs and private / personal data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi Robin,
Have you had a chance to review the Community Guidelines?
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines
In particular, I would think that the Horizontal Layers Guideline
("Examples of where you DO NOT need to share your non-OpenStreetMap data:
You use OpenStreetMap as a base topographical map for orientation and then
plot your own unrelated data over the top. An simple example of this might
be scientific or highly specialist data such as bird migration paths, tree
species distribution or geological outcrops."), Collective Database
Guidelines ("You collect restaurant names and associated phone numbers.
This data is linked to OSM data by references that associate the OSM
restaurant names to your phone numbers so that your restaurant phone
numbers will appear on an OSM-based map. All the restaurant phone numbers
for the regional cut are provided by you (i.e., the restaurant phone
numbers include no OSM data). Your phone numbers are not subject to
share-alike."), and Geocoding Guideline (particularly
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#Adding_location_names_to_photos)
would be of interest/help to you.
-Kathleen

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 1:19 PM Robin Hawkes  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm hoping to get some help to better understand how the ODbL licence
> applies with my use of OSM data. I understand that the discussion here is
> not official — nor a replacement for proper legal advice — however I'm
> hoping you can provide some guidance so I can come to my own conclusion as
> to my obligations.
>
> I'm working on an application for photographers to plan trips, discover
> new locations and save "collections" of markers as inspiration for future
> trips. The application is public (requiring registration and login) and
> most of what users create within this application will be mostly private
> and only view-able by themselves, though some may be shared with other
> users of the application.
>
> Here is a breakdown of relevant functionality:
>
>- The basemap for this is vector tiles from Mapbox (so OSM)
>- A user is able to use the basemap as visual reference and manually
>click on the map and place their own markers under a variety of types (eg.
>place I want to take a photo at, place I want to park my car, waterfall
>that I want to visit)
>   - The coordinates for manually-placed markers will come from the
>   mouse position, not from any OSM feature metadata underneath the mouse 
> at
>   the time
>   - Manually-placed markers may have metadata added by the user to
>   help them organise (eg. a title, an icon, etc) and will be persisted to 
> a
>   database
>- Separately, users will be able to search for OSM POIs near a
>location and add some of them manually to a personal "collection"
>   - The POI search area will be on a relatively local basis (eg.
>   smaller than a national park)
>   - POI search will be limited to very specific features (parking,
>   toilets, viewpoints, waterfalls, etc) — let's say somewhere between 20 
> and
>   40 feature types
>   - POIs will either come from the vector tiles directly, or from a
>   geocoding API (not yet decided)
>   - A user can click on a POI and add it to a personal collection,
>   which will persist the coordinates and POI name and type in a database 
> as a
>   one-time, one-way operation (nothing else is stored in the database from
>   OSM, not even the node ID) — the node coordinates are the only data of
>   interest
>   - A user can then view their saved POIs on the map (coordinates,
>   name and type) and have the ability to change the position, name or 
> type if
>   they wish due to personal preference (eg. I saved a viewpoint POI from 
> OSM
>   but I later change it to a "place I want to take a photo" marker and 
> rename
>   it to "Cool view of mountain")
>
> I've not yet decided if I want to keep the user-created markers and the
> 'collected' OSM POI-sourced markers on separate map layers and separate
> database tables, but it's possible if it helps reduce ODbL compliance
> complexity.
>
> Ultimately, each collection that a user creates will consist of relatively
> few markers (<200 at the top end, probably more like <30 on average),
> mostly manually added by the user (not from POIs), and will be private to
> that user, unless they decide to make it view-able by other users of the
> application. A user can create multiple collections of markers but
> collections are isolated from each other and they can only view one
> collection at a time on the map.
>
> Regarding ODbL:
>
>- With the first example (manually clicking map to add markers); am I
>creating a derivative database, or a collective database? Or neither?
>   - I've been reading up on the definitions and it's confusing
>- Likewise for the second example (storing coordinates manually 

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New data source

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi Cj,
Easiest method would be for you to update
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors with this information.
(But please do note the import guidelines if you are thinking about
importing)
Best,
Kathleen

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 5:26 AM Cj Malone  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I recently saw that some bus stop names are out of date in my area. I
> updated the one I saw (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/533814248/history)
>
> But the local bus operator offers this data under Open Government
> License Version 3.0. (https://www.islandbuses.info/open-data)
>
> As far as I understand it OGL can be used in OSM, but needs
> attribution. Is this correct? How can OSM add the attribution so I can
> start using this dataset?
>
> Once someone verifies that I can use this dataset I intend to correct
> any OSM names, add fixme tags to any this I don't think exist any more.
> And possibly add naptan:AtcoCode=x to nodes that don't have it in OSM
> but do in the Southern Vectis dataset. And add "SouthernVectis" to the
> source tag which would usually mean, source=naptan_import ->
> source=naptan_import;SouthernVectis.
>
> Thanks
> Cj
>
>
> ___
> 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-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Nuno I searched your attachment for the word "Snap" and it is nowhere to be
found.

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 10:55 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> Hi Mateusz,
>
>
> They don't. Here's all my email exchange with them from October 2018, yes
> *2018*. it's more than enough with evidence and time to be fixed.
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/110XubCe0kd2HNtbqXS7U_vr44xyieaSt/view?usp=sharing
>
>
> On 24/12/2019 07:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Have they responded with anything
> (except automatic reply) ?
>
> Is there an assigned issue id?
>
>
> 23 Dec 2019, 21:32 by nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com:
>
> I sent this situation to Mapbox 10 months ago.
>
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, 17:00 joost schouppe, 
> wrote:
>
>
> As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via Mapbox), Snapchat
> that is using OSM without attribution requirements (funnily there's plenty
> of space for a reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text).
> They probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to comply over a
> year ago, nor have agreed with the license in every aspect of it when
> stated using OSM data, nor read Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on
> these repeated offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing lists,
> nor that they had a employee that ran for OSMF board.
>
> https://map.snapchat.com/
>
> Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is going on for over a
> year with these two companies that are corporate members of OSMF and should
> be the first ones to give examples. Enough with excuses.
>
>
> The Snapchat case is a pretty clear example of how not to do things. If
> there's space for Mapbox, there's space for OpenStreetMap. But I don't
> think Snapchat has anything to do with Facebook.
>
> Phil, I hope you contacted them directly and not through Facebook.
>
> ___
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

This is an interesting question. I'm not sure what exactly one feature is.
But I would find it very hard to claim that a single way, even a complex
one, was "substantial" by itself. Remember that it's a "substantial
part...of the contents of a database" (in this case OSM), and one way would
be a very very small part of OSM.
But I think this is why the guideline defined mostly "insubstantial"
instead of substantial, because defining substantial is much more
difficult, context dependent, and would depend on case law (of which there
is very little)

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 4:13 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 20. Dec 2019, at 00:16, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > This is not what the Substantial Guideline says. It says that fewer than
> 100 features is "not Substantial". It also gives as an example "More that
> 100 Features only if the extraction is non-systematic and clearly based on
> your own qualitative criteria for example an extract of all the the
> locations of restaurants you have visited for a personal map to share with
> friends or use the locations of a selection of historic buildings as an
> adjunct in a book you are writing, we would regard that as non Substantial."
>
>
> If I recall correctly there is no definition what a feature is. Nobody has
> yet commented how they would interpret this for a border: is it about the
> border way or about the individual border points from which the border is
> made of?
>
> 100 features may be a reasonable limit for point features, but for complex
> ways and relations, already very few (maybe even a single one) may be
> substantial?
>
> Kathleen, I would be interested in your thoughts what a feature is in the
> context of ways.
>
> Cheers Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

the guideline is about individual results, not about aggregations, for
> which the share alike provisions persist. From my interpretation this also
> implies that the attribution requirements persist for individual results,
> because otherwise it would not be clear that you cannot aggregate them. Do
> you agree?
>

No, the guideline was explicitly about both individual results and
aggregations. Individual results are insubstantial, so no ODbL obligations
attach at all (attribution is one of the ODbL obligations). A collection of
results is not a Derivative Database *unless* the collection is used as a
general geodatabase (basically, if you tried to reverse engineer OSM by
mass geocoding). That means that in normal circumstances, for a collection
of results (an aggregation), the sharealike provisions *do not* persist.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

>
> “substantial” does not mean it has to be a certain percentage of the whole
> db, you can see this from the substantial guideline, which has fixed limits
> that are not growing with the db. “substantial” means it’s more than one or
> two features (OpenStreetMap-Foundation has declared they see a total of 100
> features as substantial, although it is not completely clear what a feature
> is, for example you could go to an extreme point of view and see the whole
> border of Germany as a single feature (I am not) while a more credible
> interpretation would see every border point as a feature, so that the
> border of Germany would be thousands of features).
>
> This is not what the Substantial Guideline says. It says that fewer than
100 features is "not Substantial". It also gives as an example "More that
100 Features only if the extraction is non-systematic and clearly based on
your own qualitative criteria for example an extract of all the the
locations of restaurants you have visited for a personal map to share with
friends or use the locations of a selection of historic buildings as an
adjunct in a book you are writing, we would regard that as non
Substantial." BTW, a list of flats/houses for sale in the current time
period is not too far off from these examples.
And that is for extracting the entirety of each feature. The Geocoding
Guideline states: "Furthermore, if only names are provided in Geocoding
Results from OSM -- in particular, latitude/longitude information from OSM
is not included in the Geocoding Results -- a collection of such results is
not a substantial extract." There's no 100 feature limit at all for
geocoding.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

it will contain a lot of postcode information from the original
> OpenStreetMap database, in adapted/translated form.


This doesn't seem correct to me. In the final set, each point will only
tell you yes/no whether it was in a particular postcode. That's not very
much info at all.

>
> To create an accurate postcode polygon from point features you will need a
> lot of them, so probably already a handful of them would be considered
> substantial.
>

 This logic seems backwards. Since it would require a lot of point features
in order to recreate the polygon (and thus something that looks similar to
the original OSM database), it should require a *lot* of points to be
considered substantial.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

But what that says is not just "create a new database" but one "that
contains the whole or a substantial part of the original OSM database." His
new database will contain very little if any of the original OSM database.

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 2:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 16. Dec 2019, at 22:09, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> That's what the guidelines are for!
> We can't cover every possible example because there are too many, but as I
> already said, I think your usecase is covered by the Geocoding Guideline.
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline
>
>
>
> I also believe it is covered by this guideline, but it seems his use would
> trigger share alike according to this guideline:
>
> 2. the Geocoding Results are not used to create a new database that
> contains the whole or a substantial part of the original OSM database
>
>
>
> because he wants to create a new database.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

> It is kind of unfortunate, because OSM as far as I am informed, wouldn't
> be interested in the specific dataset (of real estate prices) anyway.
>
> If it's not the type of data that OSM would be interested in, then why
doesn't it fall under the Collective Database Guideline?
the non-OSM data adds a particular type of geometry or data for a primary
feature that was not already present within a regional cut, and the added
feature data includes no OSM data;
Wasn't a major reason for that guideline to permit nonsharealike usecases
where the data potentially subject to sharealike would not be useful to OSM
anyway?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

That's what the guidelines are for!
We can't cover every possible example because there are too many, but as I
already said, I think your usecase is covered by the Geocoding Guideline.
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline


> Why doesn't the OSMF write about fundamental stuff then? I think,
> ST_Intersects() is one of the main tools in GIS world. Why don't
> give a clear statement on this?
>
> Since the ODbL has never changed, it's fixed. So there could be
> something like an FAQ or matrix to look up what triggers share-alike
> and what not?
>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Nuno -
I do not see how Matthias's usecase qualifies as "AND you have *added to or
enhanced our data*" since the houses and flat and their prices are *not*
added to OSM houses or flats, but if this FAQ answer is misleading, we
should rewrite this FAQ answer to more accurate reflect ODbL.

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:45 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> well
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#The_OpenStreetMap_Geodata_Licence
>
> Secondly, you *"Share Alike"*. If you do not make any changes to
> OpenStreetMap data, then you are unlikely to have a "Share Alike"
> obligation. But, if you *publicly distribute something that you have made*
> from our data, such as a *map or another database*, AND you have *added
> to or enhanced our data*, then we want you to make those additions
> publicly available. We obviously prefer it if you added the data straight
> back to our database, but you do not have to, *as long as the public can
> easily get a copy of what you have done.* If you do not publicly
> distribute anything, then you do not have to share anything.
>
>
> Às 19:34 de 13/12/2019, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk escreveu:
>
> Nuno - I think you are operating under the mistaken assumption that a
> CC-BY-SA license would mean that uses such as Mattias's would require
> sharealike.
>
> Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Derivative Work:
> *"Derivative Work"* means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and
> other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
> dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording,
> art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the
> Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that
> constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for
> the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is
> a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work
> in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a
> Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.
>
> Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Collective Work:
> *"Collective Work"* means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology
> or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form,
> along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and
> independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A
> work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative
> Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
>
> As you can see from these examples (which focus on creative derivatives,
> since facts are not even copyrightable in the US and there is no US
> database protection law), a "derivative work" needs quite a bit of the
> original to qualify. The meaning of a "derivative work" was always much
> narrower than what a colloquial understanding of what "derived" might be,
> and the change in license did not change that.
>
> -Kathleen
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:11 AM Nuno Caldeira <
> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> these new Liberal interpretation of ODbL are funny. to bad it's not
>> documented what we wanted when we changed license. seems to be full of
>> lies
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License
>>
>> *"This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but the
>> “bad guys” may be able to use it anyway." *
>>
>> *" We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our current
>> progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see more below) but
>> have it written explicitly for data."*
>>
>> *"Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”." *
>>
>> *"But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
>> commercial interests?*
>>
>>- *You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
>>Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the Foundation to
>>publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a free and open 
>> license.*
>>
>>
>>- *The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and
>>release it under a commercial license.*
>>
>>
>>- *If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
>>license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the existing data
>>can be made and released by a different body.*
>>
>>
>>- *If a change is made to another free and open license, it is a

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi Christoph,
I think that there is a premise to your list that I do not quite agree
with. ODbL says:

3.1 Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, the Licensor
grants to You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, terminable (but
only under Section 9) license to Use the Database for the duration of
any applicable copyright and Database Rights. These rights explicitly
include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. To
the extent possible in the relevant jurisdiction, these rights may be
exercised in all media and formats whether now known or created in the
future.

So the rights granted are *all* database and copyright rights, subject to
certain conditions that apply to Produced Works and Derivative Databases.
There are rights that are completely not covered by ODbL are trademark and
patent rights, which would be #6.
But that also means there is a category #7 you have not listed, where the
database and/or copyright rights *are* conveyed by ODbL and no limitations
on the exercise of those rights is placed on the user.
So as far as usecases like Matthias's which we are discussing, my opinion
is that it is #5, but if it is not, it could be #7. But it could not be #6.



On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:54 AM Christoph Hormann 
wrote:

> On Friday 13 December 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> >
> > I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under
> > the ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative
> > Database" definition.
>
> My reading of the ODbL has always been that something is either
>
> 1) the original Database (or substantial parts of it)
> 2) a Derivative Database
> 3) a Collective Database
> 4) a Produced Work
>
> or if something is neither of these it would be either
>
> 5) something that is not protected by law at all so free to use
> independent of the license terms (like insubstantial extracts of data).
> 6) something the ODbL does not grant any rights for and therefore cannot
> be legally used by the user based on the ODbL.
>
> So my question would always be if someone considers certain things not
> to be a Derivative Database which of the five other above cases applies
> instead.
>
> I would kind of assume that for case (5) there are probably already some
> court rulings available for to what extent EU database protection
> applies to set operations of different databases since this is nothing
> specific to spatial databases but also is relevant for many other types
> of data.
>
> As i already wrote in
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-November/083535.html
>
> existing OSMF community guidelines suggest spatial operations like
> ST_Difference() and ST_Intersection() yield Derivative Databases that
> are subject to 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] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Nuno - I think you are operating under the mistaken assumption that a
CC-BY-SA license would mean that uses such as Mattias's would require
sharealike.

Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Derivative Work:
*"Derivative Work"* means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and
other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording,
art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which the
Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted, except that a work that
constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for
the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is
a musical composition or sound recording, the synchronization of the Work
in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered a
Derivative Work for the purpose of this License.

Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Collective Work:
*"Collective Work"* means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or
encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along
with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent
works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole. A work that
constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as
defined below) for the purposes of this License.

As you can see from these examples (which focus on creative derivatives,
since facts are not even copyrightable in the US and there is no US
database protection law), a "derivative work" needs quite a bit of the
original to qualify. The meaning of a "derivative work" was always much
narrower than what a colloquial understanding of what "derived" might be,
and the change in license did not change that.

-Kathleen



On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:11 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> these new Liberal interpretation of ODbL are funny. to bad it's not
> documented what we wanted when we changed license. seems to be full of lies
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License
>
> *"This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but the “bad
> guys” may be able to use it anyway." *
>
> *" We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our current
> progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see more below) but
> have it written explicitly for data."*
>
> *"Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”." *
>
> *"But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
> commercial interests?*
>
>- *You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
>Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the Foundation to
>publish the data for others to use and ONLY under a free and open license.*
>
>
>- *The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and release
>it under a commercial license.*
>
>
>- *If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
>license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the existing data
>can be made and released by a different body.*
>
>
>- *If a change is made to another free and open license, it is active
>contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation."*
>
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 18:56 Frederik Ramm,  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
>> > “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and
>> > includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any
>> > other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
>> > Contents.
>>
>> Interesting. I knew the ODbL text but I have always glossed over this
>> definition, assuming that "well you know what derived means".
>>
>> I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some assumptions I had
>> made. It would mean that, for example, a database that contains a count
>> of all pubs in each municipality, or a database that contains the
>> average travel time from a building in a city to the nearest hospital,
>> or a heatmap of ice cream parlours, would not fall under the ODbL
>> because these, while derived from OSM, do not actually contain a copy of
>> anything in OSM (and neither could they possibly be used to reassemble
>> OSM).
>>
>> I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall under the
>> ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative Database"
>> definition.
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
&

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi Frederik,

Here's why I disagree. The meaning of "derived" in a colloquial sense and
the definition of "Derivative Database" are not the same.
While colloquially, it may be fair to interpret "derived" as "made from" or
"could not have been made without", that is not the legal definition of
"Derivative Database".

>From ODbL:
“Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and
includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any
other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or
Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new
Database.

So a Derivative Database must include a "translation, adaptation,
arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a
Substantial part of the
Contents." In other words, it has to include in the new database at least a
substantial part of what was in the previous database.
The inference of "with pubs" would not be, in my mind, a "translation,
adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the
Database or of a Substantial part of the
Contents" because it is too minor of an inference.
I view Mattias's usecase as *using* OSM, not *making a Derivative Database
from OSM*.
I would also say that, looking back at the EU Database Directive, I do not
see a case for breach of the restricted rights, particularly the right of
"translation, adaptation, arrangement and any other alteration."

With respect to Mateusz's more extreme example, this is also very
specifically covered in the Geocoding Guidelines: "A collection of
Geocoding Results will be considered a systematic attempt to aggregate data
if it is used as a general purpose geodatabase, regardless of how the
original aggregation was accomplished."

In other worse, if, as in Mateusz's hypothetical, you attempt to abuse the
system to reverse engineer a database that is equivalent to OSM, you make a
Derivative Database. But Mattias has been very clear that is not what he's
doing. He just wants to display the subparts of a list of points he already
has on a different layer than the other subparts.

-Kathleen


On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 12:49 AM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Kathleen,
>
> On 12.12.19 23:40, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
> > No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data.
>
> Are you sure about this? Let me give an example:
>
> > If I understand your usecase correctly, Matthais, you are essentially
> > checking your list against OSM boundaries. If something is both on your
> > list and within the OSM boundary, then you say 'yes, this goes on the
> > secondary list.' Then you want to publish your secondary list. There is
> > no OSM data in the secondary list so it is not a Derivative Database.
>
> Let us assume I have a list of all streets in Germany with their
> geometry, from a non-OSM source.
>
> I want to divide these into two groups: streets that have at least one
> pub, and streets that have no pub.
>
> Using OSM information about the location of pubs, I count the number of
> pubs along each street, allowing me to make the desired separation.
>
> I end up with a database of "streets that have at least one pub". This
> database does not include OSM data.
>
> In my eyes, though, it is still *derived* from OSM data. It is the
> result of an algorithmic process that has made use of OSM data; if you
> will, the OSM data residue is in the name/description of my new
> database: "roads with pubs". It is derived from OSM; it could not have
> been made without OSM.
>
> Do you disagree?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> 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] use OSM data to select proprietary data

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

No, ODbL does not apply to any database that does not include OSM data.
There are two reasons.

First, this example is analogous to the FAQ here:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Can_I_use_OSM_data_and_OpenStreetMap-derived_maps_to_verify_my_own_data_without_triggering_share-alike.3F
Can I use OSM data and OpenStreetMap-derived maps to verify my own data
without triggering share-alike?

Yes, provided that you are only comparing and do not copy any OpenStreetMap
data. If you make any changes to your data after making the comparison, you
should be able to reasonably demonstrate that any such change was made
either from your own physical observation or comes from a non-OpenStreetMap
source accessed directly by you. I.e you can compare but not take!

   - Example 1: You notice that a street is called one name on your map and
   another in OpenStreetMap. You should visit the street and check the name,
   then you are free to put that name in your data as it is your own
   observation.


   - Example 2: You notice that a boundary is different in your data and
   OpenStreetMap. You should check back to original authoritative sources and
   make any correction required.


When someone does example #1 above, they compare OSM data and nonOSM data
and make a list of streets to check in the real world. Neither the nonOSM
data nor the list of streets needs to be licensed under ODbL. You may
*compare* freely.
If I understand your usecase correctly, Matthais, you are essentially
checking your list against OSM boundaries. If something is both on your
list and within the OSM boundary, then you say 'yes, this goes on the
secondary list.' Then you want to publish your secondary list. There is no
OSM data in the secondary list so it is not a Derivative Database.

Second, see the Geocoding Guidelines, which Martin also pointed out -
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Guideline
Your example is akin to using OSM polygons for certain areas to geocode.
You already have the lat/long for your points (houses and flats), so what
you are getting from OSM is equivalent to the name of the area you are
filtering against (e.g., all these points are in neighborhood X).
The Geocoding Guidelines specifically state "if only names are provided in
Geocoding Results from OSM -- in particular, latitude/longitude information
from OSM is not included in the Geocoding Results -- *a collection of such
results is not a substantial extract*."
Thus, no ODbL obligations attach.

-Kathleen






On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 11:55 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> does contain derivate however,which means license applies
>
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, 19:46 ,  wrote:
>
>> > we are here to create more open data, not to feed proprietary data than
>> is lock under their TOS.
>>
>> I want to apologize for my misunderstanding: my final product does not
>> contain any OpenStreetMap data.
>>
>> ___
>> 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-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

IMO (not yet stating the official opinion of the LWG since the LWG has not
had time convene and discuss), the predicted roads are not a Derivative
Database and Facebook can apply whatever license it wants to them
(including MIT).

It is not a case of “raw data dervived from aerial imagery, plus OSM data”,
it is a case of “raw data dervived from aerial imagery, *minus* OSM data”.
That makes a key difference, as others have pointed out, the law protects
copying or extracting a substantial part of a protected database. Simply
using a database does not make something a Derivative Database. (And the
ODbL does not prohibit things the law allows.)

Christoph mentioned an example from the Horizontal Map Layers Guideline:
"You add a non-OpenStreetMap cemetery layer that is defined as 'all
cemeteries not found in the OpenStreetMap data layers'."
The key context here is *add*, as in, add to an OSM database. In this
Facebook example, when Facebook releases its detected roads, those are
*not* added to an OSM database.
He also mentioned tan example from the Collective Database Guideline which
expresses the same sentiment in clearer language:
"You have a proprietary list of restaurants for a country. You would like
to complement your list with the corresponding data from OpenStreetMap
removing any duplicate objects in the process. The resulting, combined
database would not be covered by this guideline and you would, if the
dataset is publicly used, have to consider that your proprietary data may
be subject to the ODbL share-alike terms."
The "resulting, combined database" is the one that would not be considered
a Collective Database. Nothing in the Guidelines suggests that the
*uncombined* data could be a Derivative Database.

(As a side note, Martin, the Geocoding Guidelines do *not* say that
Geocoding Results are Produced Works: "Individual Geocoding Results are
insubstantial database extracts:"... "If Geocoding Results are used to
create a new database that contains the whole or a substantial part of the
contents of the OSM database, this new database would be considered a
Derivative Database")

-Kathleen

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:37 PM Yuri Astrakhan 
wrote:

> Stevea, I think this discussion mixes two topics, as Martin pointed out:
> * I want to be credited for my work (i.e. you couldn't have done it
> without me, just say so)
> * I want to control what you do with the results of my work (i.e. you must
> not kill baby seals using the map I created)
>
> The first one is mostly a social construct, and most of the time we are ok
> if someone just says "came from OSM" - because then we know others will
> want to find out more, and join the project, growing the community, and
> essentially giving back to what you believe in. E.g. if i donate $5 to the
> grow a tree (Arbor Day) foundation, my money is mostly useless unless you
> also donate to them.
>
> The second is different. It's a legal weapon, something we can use when
> our sole existence is at stake. We will have to spend money and time
> defending it. When OSM started, some people didn't want Google to benefit
> from the volunteer efforts without giving back (see point #1). So they went
> into all sorts of legal mambo jumbo to prevent such unholy use.  They were
> successful - Google hasn't used the data directly.  It would be very hard
> to say if this did more damage than good to the OSM project itself (rather
> than if we used CC0 license), but it has been done.
>
> Yet, forcing public domain data to be distributed under a more restrictive
> license just because we want to be nitpicky about the letter of the license
> achieves neither of the above goals.  Rather, it scares users away.  I
> seriously doubt of the validity of this legal theory, but even if it is
> correct, it is not in OSMs best interest to pursue such restriction. It
> does not gain us anything, and causes a lot of collateral PR damage in the
> process.
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 6:29 PM stevea  wrote:
>
>> I don't know.  I've expressed my opinion(s) on the matter, and believe
>> the LWG should chime in with "an" (the?) answer.
>>
>> SteveA
>> California
>>
>> > On Nov 14, 2019, at 3:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
>> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > sent from a phone
>> >
>> >> On 15. Nov 2019, at 00:19, stevea  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> But the "ultimate test" of "can the new work be made without OSM
>> data?" remains a good one, in my opinion, because then, the author can be
>> told, "well, then, go do so, please, otherwise offer us attribution of some
>> sort" (whether legally required, or not).
>> >
>> >
>> > if you distribute a dataset and say: all roads but not those in
>> OpenStreetMap, isn’t this already attribution? The question is whether
>> you’d want to force them to distribute under ODbL rather than MIT (and
>> maybe what the downstream users have to attribute).
>> >
>> > Cheers Martin
>>
>> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> 

Re: [OSM-talk] Addressing SIG

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

For your usecase, Tom, perhaps Street-Complete would work for you if you
turned on all the building-related quests and turned off the other quests?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.westnordost.streetcomplete=en_US

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 11:33 AM Tom Russell 
wrote:

> Am Mi., 6. Nov. 2019 um 09:17 Uhr schrieb Oleksiy Muzalyev <
> oleksiy.muzal...@bluewin.ch>:
>
> On the main osm.org site one can right-click on a building and select
> "Show address" or "Add a note here" . What if a new type of a note is
> introduced, a structured address note?
>
>
>
> This is something I’ve been thinking about recently, with a slightly
> broader interest in building data more generally.
>
>
>
> As part of an academic project (https://colouring.london/) looking at
> buildings in London in the UK, we’re thinking about how to collect various
> building data attributes. We’re not currently using OpenStreetMap data for
> our buildings, however I would be interested to look into ways of linking
> to, working with, or building on OSM in the future.
>
>
>
> It might be interesting to create a lighter, more restricted user
> interface for editing the map, for example following the idea of an
> “Address” structured note, or to collect other data about buildings (number
> of storeys, commercial use). Or I could imagine a system that doesn’t edit
> OSM directly but creates a “review queue” of linked data which could feed
> into the main database as mappers work through it.
>
>
>
> All early ideas - in any case, I’ll be interested to follow an Addressing
> SIG.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Tom
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Nuno, this isn't about what the license allows, it's about the law. You
can't re-write the law. What the law allows it would allow even if there
was no license at all.
And I would also note that, frankly, the EU is the outlier in this respect
in having database protections at all (and I would not say that even EU
database protections would prohibit as small an excerpt as a screenshot,
though "substantial" is undefined in the Directive). The majority of the
world does not have database protections, so if any analogy is fair, it's a
bit of the reverse, with the EU being a "database haven".

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:37 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 17:29 Kathleen Lu,  wrote:
>
>> I'm curious as to the reason for your doubts, Nuno. Are you aware of case
>> law to the contrary?
>>
>
> I'm just surprised we adopted a license that seems to be useless in USA,
> according to corporate interpretation of the license even if it's for
> commercial purposes. Seems like we have a public domain license after all.
> Thank god these companies are not Corporate members of OSMF, don't need to
> give a good example and neither provide worldwide services.
> Reminds me of cruise ship registrations or tax heavens. Seem we also have
> license heavens.
>
>>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

I concur with KaiRo that screenshots are likely fair uses under US law (and
IAAL). They are small excerpts of the larger work (the map, or if you are
comparing to the database, even less is copied), the underlying work is
factual, the purpose is to provide an example and there is a good argument
the screenshot is noncommercial, and there is no impact on the market for
the original.

Even before you get to a fair use analysis, I would note that with a
screenshot, there would also be the question of whether the screenshot
contained enough copyrightable subject matter from OSM to be considered
more than *de minimus*. Remember that the US does not have protections for
databases, outside of thin copyright protection for the selection and
arrangement of the database as a whole.

I would also note that I do not think a *screenshot* from a map created
from a geodatabase would be considered "derivative work" under US copyright
law (note that "derivative work" is a defined statutory term, so I'm not
talking about the definition in ODbL). Rather, it would appear to be a
small excerpt.

I'm curious as to the reason for your doubts, Nuno. Are you aware of case
law to the contrary?




On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:13 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> highly doubt that a derivated work from a database that has a notice
> (attribution) required, which was then chopped to be considered under fair
> use. Especially when this is repeated thousand of times.
>
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 13:56 Robert Kaiser,  wrote:
>
>> Simon Poole schrieb:
>> > It is however important to realize that their are limits to copyright
>> > and that for example lots of the "non-attribution" in the states is
>> > likely permissible fair use under US laws. It would still be good form
>> > to provide attribution, but it isn't something we can enforce and
>> > getting upset about such use is really just a tremendous waste of time.
>>
>> That "fair use" argument is actually pretty interesting and something
>> that people often may not think about. IANAL, but I would guess, for
>> example, that taking a screenshot of your app or website, which includes
>> a map and also does include attribution, and then crop it and cut away
>> the attribution incidentally, and use the result as a promotional image
>> on social media, may be a case where it would be considered "fair use"
>> and therefore attribution claims may never be successful due to this
>> exception from copyright law. The specific case is just a guess, but
>> things like that should be taken into account when we go out and demand
>> attribution on every little tidbit of OSM-based imagery we see floating
>> around...
>>
>> KaiRo
>>
>> ___
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensability of an employee's work

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Jurisdiction dependant, but here are two general concepts which I think are
relevant:

As the statute you quoted specifies, when copyright will belong to the
employer, it tends to depend on if the copyrightable work was made within
the scope of the employee's job. (If you're a software programmer, it would
be difficult for your employer to claim ownership a romance novel you
write, but easier to claim ownership of code you write.)

When an employee signs a contract, whether that contract is binding on the
employer depends on whether the employee had authorization to sign on
behalf of the employer, and sometimes whether it *seems* like to a
reasonably objective person dealing with the employee whether the employee
had authorization.

These two principles would be in tension with each other in the case of an
employer who claimed, on the one hand, that their employee's job was to
edit OSM, but on the other hand, the employee did not have authorization to
sign the Contributor Agreement, which would have been required for them to
do their job.

Thus, while it would be easy for an employer to claim ownership of such
edits, I think it would be difficult for that same employer to also claim
the Contributor Agreement does not apply.

-Kathleen


On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 3:04 PM Simon Poole  wrote:

> The question is rather complicated and if at all can really only be
> approached on a per jurisdiction base as both employment regulation and
> certain aspects of intellectual property law differ widely by territory.
>
> So the 1st thing to clarify would be where this is taking place and which
> law is relevant.
>
> Simon
>
> Am 18. Oktober 2019 19:41:59 MESZ schrieb Edward Bainton <
> bainton@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Quick question arising from a 'lobbying' conversation:
>>
>> *If an employee edits the map in the course of their employment, has the
>> work been adequately licensed to OSM/the big wide Open?*
>>
>> According to UK Copyright Act 1988,
>> s. 11 (2) Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work [F1
>> ,
>> or a film,] is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his
>> employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any
>> agreement to the contrary.
>>
>> Can the employee be regarded, as far as OSM is concerned, as having
>> authority to license the work? Or rather, which is what I take to be the
>> more important question, if the employer became unhappy with OSM using
>> their employee's edits, would her remedy be against OSM, or against her
>> employee?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
> --
> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail
> gesendet.
> ___
> 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-talk] Facebook map frequency of updates?

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Dave, I believe someone from the Facebook engineering team gave a
presentation at the recent SotMs on this:
https://2019.stateofthemap.org/sessions/3WQKAX/ &
https://2019.stateofthemap.us/program/sun/keepin-it-fresh-and-good-continuous-ingestion-of-osm-data-at-facebook.html
- the videos are up.
If I recall correctly, Facebook started with a planet dump something like 2
years ago, then struggled to update, and have only in the last half year
started catching up, but they are not caught up in all areas yet. I believe
their aim was to finish catching up in 2020. Watch the videos for details,
as I may be misremembering something.
-Kathleen

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:13 AM Dave F via talk 
wrote:

> Hi
>
> An owner of an art centre in the UK has contacted me to ask why the 10
> month old edits to the centre's building haven't appeared in Facebook.
> Looking around it appears the render FB are using is more than 12 months
> old. Is this delay standard for FB. Disappointing if it is as it shows
> OSM in a bad light. One of the USPs is it's frequent turn around.
>
> Is anybody in contact with FB's hierarchy or have a contact (UK maybe)?
>
> DaveF
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible licensed dataset

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

The additional guidelines are OSM-specific:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 4:58 PM Lars-Daniel Weber 
wrote:

> Sorry, this was a typo. Of course I mean houses in both cases:
>
> Let's say you're creating a map of Western, taking houses from OSM in
> Germany and houses from proprietary data from all other countries, since
> OSM is incomplete here. Isn't this a mixture on the same layer?
>
> Also, when starting from a Planet file, there are no regional cuts.
>
> Are those guidelines additional rules to the ODbL? I thought, ODbL is a
> generic databank license and not OSM specific.
>
>
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 14. Oktober 2019 um 19:57 Uhr
> *Von:* "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk" 
> *An:* "Licensing and other legal discussions." <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>
> *Cc:* "Kathleen Lu" 
> *Betreff:* Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible
> licensed dataset
> The reference to countries come from the Regional Cuts Guideline (and then
> the later Collective Database Guideline), in case that was not clear.
> I don't see how roads and houses (do you mean building footprints?) would
> be "mixture on the same layer" or why the layer matters since they're
> different data types...
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:33 AM Lars-Daniel Weber <
> lars-daniel.we...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> From: "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk" 
>> > Lars-Daniel already said that they are kept in separate columns and not
>> > de-duplicated. There is no requirement that, in order to function as a
>> > Collective Database, data types may not be used together to create a
>> > Produced Work. To the contrary, the guidance is that the most axiomatic
>> > Produced Work, a global map, may be created from multiple Collective
>> > Databases consisting of different data types and/or different countries.
>>
>> Hmm... but doesn't this violate "Horizontal Layers" Guideline?
>>
>> Let's say you're creating a map of Western, taking roads from OSM in
>> Germany and houses from proprietary data from all other countries, since
>> OSM is incomplete here. Isn't this a mixture on the same layer?
>>
>> I think, there's no difference in this guideline between small and large
>> scale.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

I don't think the analogy is quite right.
The Geocoding Guidelines say:

Geocoding Results can be latitude/longitude pairs (as typical in forward
Geocoding Results), and/or full or partial addresses and/or point of
interest names (as typical in reverse Geocoding Results).
Latitude/longitude pairs may come from a “Direct Hit” -- in which case the
data returned will exactly match the data of a feature in the geo-database
used for geocoding -- or it may be an “Indirect Hit”, in which case the
data is inferred or derived from other features, but does not directly
match any feature in the database. The most common type of indirect hits
are interpolated addresses.

For example: Suppose a Geocoding user queries “120 Main St, Anytown, Big
State, USA” and there is a node in the geo-database for that address. A
Geocoding Result consisting of the lat/lon of that node would be a Direct
Hit. However, suppose instead the database contains nodes for 150 Main St
and 110 Main St, but not 120 Main Street. A Geocoder might return a point
in between in between the two known nodes as an estimate of the requested
location. This point (an interpolated result) would be an Indirect Hit.

In the section you quoted, it says "Geocoding Results are an insubstantial
extract **or** contain no OSM data" (emphasis added). So *sometimes*
there's no OSM data, but that's when the results are interpolated. Other
times, individual Geocoding Results (and in certain circumstances as
described in detail in the guidelines, certain types of collections of
Geocoding Results) are insubstantial.

I don't think tracing from a physical printout is the same as
interpolating. It's more like a really basic trivial transformation.

But like I said, based on the usecase you described, I agree I think all
you need to do attribute, just based on different reasoning.

-Kathleen


On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 7:59 AM Lars-Daniel Weber 
wrote:
>
> According to community guideline for "Geocoding", I'm not using original
OSM data in my new map at all. Since I've drawn lines from paper drawn on
an Produced Work of OSM data, I don't have any of the original OSM elements
in my final dataset, which are in the OSM dataset.
>
> So, I just need to credit OpenStreetMap as decribed in Section 4.3 of the
ODbL, since it's a Produced Work.
>
>
> > Users of a navigation application send an address search query to a
> > cloud-based Geocoder. The Geocoder has access to two separate map
> > databases, one of which contains solely OSM data. The other database
> > contains non-OSM data. If the address is accurately found in the OSM
> > database, the location is sent back to the navigation application. If
> > the address is not found in the OSM database, then the other database is
> > searched, and that result is returned. (The same example applies when
> > the third party database is searched before the OSM database or when
> > they are searched concurrently.) The OSM-based Geocoding Results are an
> > insubstantial extract or contain no OSM data and thus do not trigger
> > share-alike obligations and can be stored together with the
> > non-OSM-based Geocoding Results with no impact on the non-OSM-based
> > Geocoding results, so long as the aggregated collection of results does
> > not contain the whole or a substantial part of the OSM database. The
> > cloud-based Geocoder is, however, required to credit OpenStreetMap as
> > described in Section 4.3 of the ODbL.
>
> Gesendet: Montag, 07. Oktober 2019 um 20:05 Uhr
> Von: "Kathleen Lu" 
> An: "Licensing and other legal discussions." 
> Cc: "Lars-Daniel Weber" 
> Betreff: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles
> > Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of
>>
>> > simplified OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL.
>>
>> Actually, it's like 40% OSM borders (hard borders, like roads, rivers,
topography and administrative stuff) and 60% own borders, which don't
appear in OSM. BUt those borders wouldn't make OSM any better, since
they're specific for the current task.
>>
>
> My view would be the OSM borders are ODbL. Just because it's one
shapefile doesn't mean all of the data in the shapefile has to be under one
license. If the other borders are not border types that are in OSM that you
have traced, ODbL does not implicate them per the Collective Database
Guideline.
>
>>
>> > Now, it sounds like you're not tracing very much, so it's possible that
>> > you have traced fewer than 100 features in which case your tracing is
>> > insubstantial
>> >
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
>>
>> Actually, I've traced more than 100 features, but the "extractio

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] conflicting statements in Community Guidelines

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Recall that under the geocoding guidelines, it is not considered a
substantial extra if "only names, addresses, and/or latitude/longitude
information are included in the Geocoding Results," "the collection is not
a systematic attempt to aggregate all or substantially all Primary Features
of a given type (as defined in the Collective Database Guideline) within a
geographic area city-sized or larger." This is not the same as
"restaurants" since there are additional features that can be included with
a restaurant (though some restaurants will only be name/address/latlong).
(Also, I would not conclude that 4000 restaurants is clearly insubstantial
under database protection law, I think that's an open question. I have not
seen definitive case law as to whether "substantial" is measured by
percentage or absolute number.)
Also "A collection of Geocoding Results will be considered a systematic
attempt to aggregate data if it is used as a general purpose geodatabase,
regardless of how the original aggregation was accomplished." so the
intended usecase of the collection would matter as well.
Recall that you can *always* store together, as mere storage is not a
public use that would trigger any ODbL obligations anyway. What you do with
the data once you put it together *and* how to put it together both impact
potential obligations under ODbL.
It is not a conflict with the Collective Database Guideline or the
Horizontal Map Layers guideline because those describe situations where two
databases are considered Collective Databases regardless of the intended
usecase or the tags involved, whereas the Geocoding Guideline specifics
tags, usecases, and extraction parameters that would not be considered
Substantial.
-Kathleen


On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:09 AM Lars-Daniel Weber 
wrote:

> Hi again,
>
> sorry for creating another topic, it's somehow related, but somehow
> different.
>
> Community Guideline "Horizontal Map Layers" doesn't allow to cherry-pick
> features within the same layer from a proprietary dataset to complete
> missing data in OSM without triggering share-alike.
>
> Community Guideline "Geocoding" allows cherry-picking as quoted here:
>
> > The OSM-based Geocoding Results are an insubstantial extract or
> > contain no OSM data and thus do not trigger share-alike obligations
> > and can be stored together with the non-OSM-based Geocoding Results
> > with no impact on the non-OSM-based Geocoding results, so long as the
> > aggregated collection of results does not contain the whole or a
> > substantial part of the OSM database. The cloud-based Geocoder is,
> > however, required to credit OpenStreetMap as described in Section 4.3
> > of the ODbL.
>
> Let's say, you're picking 5,000 restaurants, which is clearly a
> insubstantial part of all restaurants in planet file. For 4,000 items,
> you'll get coordinates from the proprietary dataset, for the other 1,000
> items you can pick coordinates from OSM. It won't trigger share alike, it's
> insubstantial and can be stored together.
>
> Isn't that a violation of "Horizontal Map Layers", since it's on the same
> layer?
>
> Confused,
> Lars-Daniel
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible licensed dataset

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

The reference to countries come from the Regional Cuts Guideline (and then
the later Collective Database Guideline), in case that was not clear.
I don't see how roads and houses (do you mean building footprints?) would
be "mixture on the same layer" or why the layer matters since they're
different data types...

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 8:33 AM Lars-Daniel Weber 
wrote:

> From: "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk" 
> > Lars-Daniel already said that they are kept in separate columns and not
> > de-duplicated. There is no requirement that, in order to function as a
> > Collective Database, data types may not be used together to create a
> > Produced Work. To the contrary, the guidance is that the most axiomatic
> > Produced Work, a global map, may be created from multiple Collective
> > Databases consisting of different data types and/or different countries.
>
> Hmm... but doesn't this violate "Horizontal Layers" Guideline?
>
> Let's say you're creating a map of Western, taking roads from OSM in
> Germany and houses from proprietary data from all other countries, since
> OSM is incomplete here. Isn't this a mixture on the same layer?
>
> I think, there's no difference in this guideline between small and large
> scale.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible licensed dataset

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Cost is a relevant factor in database protection law, which is one of the
>> rights covered by the licence. First, a database is not protected unless
>> there has been "substantial investment" in its making.
>>
>
>
>
> "substantial investment" is not the same as monetary cost. The human time
> that is needed to collect and arrange the data is also an investment.
>
> Of course they are not equivalent, and human time is another type of
investment. However, cost still remains a relevant factor of consideration.


>
>>
>> All that said, I am still of the opinion that it is not necessary to find
>> the exact line here, because the original use Lars-Daniel proposed was one
>> of a collective database so long as the two sets of ZIP properties were
>> kept in separate columns, which he appeared quite comfortable with.
>>
>
>
>
> are kept in separate columns and are not used in combination/both to
> create a produced work?
>
> Lars-Daniel already said that they are kept in separate columns and not
de-duplicated. There is no requirement that, in order to function as a
Collective Database, data types may not be used together to create a
Produced Work. To the contrary, the guidance is that the most axiomatic
Produced Work, a global map, may be created from multiple Collective
Databases consisting of different data types and/or different countries.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible licensed dataset

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

> Extracting than 100 elements (non repeatable) from the databse accounts

> > for substantial.
>

The licence doesn't say this at all.
The ODbL defines substantial as:
“Substantial” – Means substantial in terms of quantity or quality or a
combination of both. The repeated and systematic Extraction or
Re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the Contents may amount to the
Extraction or Re-utilisation of a Substantial part of the Contents.
The interpretation that OSMF has put forward is that it is NOT substantial
if an extraction has:
 -   Less than 100 Features.
 - More that 100 Features only if the extraction is non-systematic and
clearly based on your own qualitative criteria for example an extract of
all the the locations of restaurants you have visited for a personal map to
share with friends or use the locations of a selection of historic
buildings as an adjunct in a book you are writing, we would regard that as
non Substantial. The systematic extraction of all eating places within an
area or at all castles within an area would be considered to be systematic.
 - The features relating to an area of up to 1,000 inhabitants which can be
a small densely populated area such as a European village or can be a large
sparsely-populated area for example a section of the Australian bush with
few Features.

This does NOT mean than if your extraction ticks up to 101 features, it's
definitively substantial (this wouldn't make any sense under copyright law
either). Rather it means that it's out of the scope of what the OSMF has
given its view on.

Cost is a relevant factor in database protection law, which is one of the
rights covered by the licence. First, a database is not protected unless
there has been "substantial investment" in its making. Second, while users
are prohibited from extracting substantial parts of the database without
permission (aka a licence), users are affirmatively allowed by the law to
extract insubstantial parts (and the database owner actually cannot prevent
it). The precise amount that is considered "substantial" is not defined.
Rather "A lawful user of a database which is made available to the public
in whatever manner may not perform acts which conflict with normal
exploitation of the database or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate
interests of the maker of the database." Considerations of cost would be a
factor for a court to consider in determining this.

As for copyright law, I disagree with Tom's statement that "Copyright law
does come into effect much earlier than database protection." Copyright law
typically protects 1) the contents of a database *if* they are individually
copyrightable, a difficult proposition with geodata, and 2) the arrangement
and selection of a database, particularly creative choices. It would appear
entirely possible, especially when we're dealing with a database of facts,
for an extraction to be substantial but copy nothing copyrightable.
Imagine, for example, the *random* extraction of 25% of the contents of a
database.

All that said, I am still of the opinion that it is not necessary to find
the exact line here, because the original use Lars-Daniel proposed was one
of a collective database so long as the two sets of ZIP properties were
kept in separate columns, which he appeared quite comfortable with.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible licensed dataset

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 11:16 AM Lars-Daniel Weber 
wrote:

> From: "Kathleen Lu via legal-talk" 
> > In my view, if you are keeping the two zip codes in different columns
> > and not removing duplicates, then essentially what you have is one
> > property that is "OSM ZIP" and one property that is "proprietary ZIP",
> > and they are two different properties that are not used to improve each
> > other, so it is a collective database per
> >
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Collective_Database_Guideline_Guideline
>
> Okay, thanks for clarification. Then the specific column is under ODbL and
> the other columns can be proprietary.
> But I need to tell others, not to compare both ZIPs datasets and get "the
> best of both worlds", right?
>
> Exactly


> > (However, I am doubtful that the ZIPs would be considered
> > nonsubstantial, since that definition is not based on how many columns
> > of OSM is used.)
>
> Ah okay, there's the 100 features directive in OSM, which I didn't know
> about.
>
> The 100 features is *one way* (that is relatively easy to understand) but
not the only way for an extraction to be insubstantial. However, that said,
I would be doubtful that, for example, an extraction of all ZIPs in OSM
could be insubstantial. Where the line is has not been conclusively
established.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] map drawn based on OSM tiles

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

> Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of

> > simplified OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL.
>
> Actually, it's like 40% OSM borders (hard borders, like roads, rivers,
> topography and administrative stuff) and 60% own borders, which don't
> appear in OSM. BUt those borders wouldn't make OSM any better, since
> they're specific for the current task.
>
> My view would be the OSM borders are ODbL. Just because it's one shapefile
doesn't mean all of the data in the shapefile has to be under one license.
If the other borders are not border types that are in OSM that you have
traced, ODbL does not implicate them per the Collective Database Guideline.


> > Now, it sounds like you're not tracing very much, so it's possible that
> > you have traced fewer than 100 features in which case your tracing is
> > insubstantial
> >
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
>
> Actually, I've traced more than 100 features, but the "extraction is
> non-systematic and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria" - okay,
> not on my one, but on the one who draw the overlay with the pen.
>
> It's possible that your extraction is insubstantial, though I can't say
definitively. But I don't think that you need a definitive answer on
whether it's insubstantial, since if your usecase is as a filter to select
POIs, then you can do that whether the borders make up a substantial
extract or not, and you are willing to provide attribution anyway, so you
do not need to conclusively avoid ODbL.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ZIP codes from OSM in non-compatible licensed dataset

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

In my view, if you are keeping the two zip codes in different columns and
not removing duplicates, then essentially what you have is one property
that is "OSM ZIP" and one property that is "proprietary ZIP", and they are
two different properties that are not used to improve each other, so it is
a collective database per
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Collective_Database_Guideline_Guideline
(However, I am doubtful that the ZIPs would be considered nonsubstantial,
since that definition is not based on how many columns of OSM is used.)

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 6:09 AM Lars-Daniel Weber 
wrote:

> Dear users,
>
> I'm often intersecting geodata with a license, which is in a
> non-ODbL-compatible license, with OSM data to enrich this data. Normally,
> I'm doing this for internal (private) use only, but I want to publish such
> a dataset now.
>
> For example, I'm getting postal ZIP codes from OSM and add these to other
> POI data. I'm keeping the original ZIP codes from the source and the ZIP
> codes from OSM and I'm not completing the ZIP codes by each other - they
> don't interact, I'm not removing duplicates and they're in two different
> columns. Of course, ZIP codes don't seem to be a substantial part, but the
> data is related by each other, since I've intersected (joined) both
> datasets.
>
> Is the joined result a "Collective Database" or a "Produced Work", since
> it only contains a non-substantial part (only one string column) from OSM?
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Lars-Daniel
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] map drawn based on OSM tiles

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

In my mind, the tile license (CC-BY-SA) sits on top of the database
license, as the license to a produced work by the OSMF. So if what is
extracted is solely what was in the database, then the extraction is not
material that the tile license covered (the tile license cannot actually
change the license of the data, which is ODbL, as that would be
impermissible under ODbL). This is the same principle, that if you use a
CC-BY song in a music video that is licensed as CC-BY-SA, and then someone
comes along and rips the song from the music video, the song is still
CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA.
Thus, assuming the shapefiles are essentially the equivalent of simplified
OSM border shapefiles, the shapefiles are covered by ODbL.
Now, it sounds like you're not tracing very much, so it's possible that you
have traced fewer than 100 features in which case your tracing is
insubstantial
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 8:08 AM Lars-Daniel Weber 
wrote:

> From: "Simon Poole" 
> > I'm not ruling out the first interpretation either and potentially both
> > licenses would have to apply in full (which isn't possible without
> > conflict).
>
> I would like to clarify once again that I really do want to attribute OSM.
> But it's damn difficult for me to find out under which license my work
> falls.
> I know lots of people, loading OSM tiles in QGIS and draw stuff on it. So
> I'm pretty confused that there aren't any guidelines discussed.
>
> > But if the shape files are simply used for display purposes as a
> > tendency I would find that they are still being used as a produced work
> > as per
> >
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Produced_Work_-_Guideline
> > Which from the ODbL pov requires attribution and a pointer back to the
> > data source, which you can provide without being in conflict with CC
> > BY-SA terms that you would have to adhere to.
>
> No, the shapefile will be used for further geoprocessing: selection of
> POI, which are non-free, but fall into the border I've digitized upon the
> OSM background map.
>
> Would you recommend
> 1. to use another datasource as background map or
> 2. draw all borders on an OSM extract once again?
>
> Since neither the drawing, nor my digitalization uses OSM data, I'm really
> asking myself if it's not a trivial act at all?
> Wouldn't "Drawn on OSM tiles in CC-BY-SA 2.0, based on OSM data in ODbL"
> be enough as attribution?
>
> ___
> 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-talk] Reports of FB problems to FB rather than to OSM (was: Attribution guideline status update)

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Andy - what I meant was the hypothetical that Nuno suggested would be
terrible. *If* the Facebook button created a note in OSM, then OSM *would*
be inundated with 1000s of notes re nonactionable Facebook complaints. The
fact that there are several hundred already *without* a button on
Facebook's website auto-creating notes every time someone made a report
seems to support my theory.


On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:14 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 10/09/2019 17:40, Kathleen Lu via talk wrote:
> > Not that I've heard (I don't think that was ever the case), but 1000s
> > of notes about FB on OSM sounds terrible to me - they would only add
> > noise for mappers who check notes for things to fix, and some editors
> > show notes in the interface. My understanding is that FB *is* fixing
> > whatever errors get reported to them, so isn't it better for them to
> > do all that work?
> >
> Quite a lot of the "Facebook" tickets that the DWG currently get are of
> the form "I tried to contact Facebook, nothing happened, so I'm
> contacting you".  I therefore wouldn't assume that FB is fixing
> everything that is reported to them (or even that everything reported to
> them is actually a problem; I mentioned before that quite a few or the
> DMCA tickets that the DWG sees aren't really actionable).
>
> OSM notes are a different issue.  Of the OSM notes mentioning Facebook:
>
> https://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/notes/search?q=facebook=0
>
> quite a lot are of the "please add company X" variety (some spam, some
> not), but there are also quite a few "Facebook's map of X is wrong"
> too.  I don't know how many there are of these in total as OSM's notes
> API just returns the first 100 matching.  My "finger in the air" guess
> (based on how far back in time 100 notes goes) is that there are ~300 or
> so still open rather than "1000s".
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Not that I've heard (I don't think that was ever the case), but 1000s of
notes about FB on OSM sounds terrible to me - they would only add noise for
mappers who check notes for things to fix, and some editors show notes in
the interface. My understanding is that FB *is* fixing whatever errors get
reported to them, so isn't it better for them to do all that work?

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 11:44 PM Rihards  wrote:

> On 10.09.19 03:12, Kathleen Lu via osmf-talk wrote:
> >
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018_11_15#Facebook_update
>
> A good example of "always assume the best intents" :)
>
> Kathleen, please note that this is about reports going to DWG - that is
> indeed inappropriate.
> Have we seen FB reports going into OSM notes, and negative effects from
> that?
>
> > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:47 PM Nuno Caldeira
> > mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > I was not aware of that. Is that information public or been
> > published somewhere? Also what does it do? notes for OpenStreetMap
> > or the so called "Facebook maps"?
> >
> > Às 19:33 de 09/09/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 12:10 PM Nuno Caldeira
> >>  >> <mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Today i was check the maps on their website and noticed they
> >> have a report button, which i thought would create a note on
> >> OSM. Oh i was wrong, no note on OSM, wonder where that report
> >> will go to.
> >>
> >>
> >> ??? Nuno, you do realize that DWG complained to Facebook about too
> >> many reports from Facebook users going to OSM and DWG, and asked
> >> Facebook for cooperation in re-directing those? (which as I
> >> understand was accomplished)
> >> It would be terrible for the report button to create a note on
> OSM.--
>  Rihards
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018_11_15#Facebook_update



On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:47 PM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> I was not aware of that. Is that information public or been published
> somewhere? Also what does it do? notes for OpenStreetMap or the so called
> "Facebook maps"?
> Às 19:33 de 09/09/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 12:10 PM Nuno Caldeira <
> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Today i was check the maps on their website and noticed they have a
>> report button, which i thought would create a note on OSM. Oh i was wrong,
>> no note on OSM, wonder where that report will go to.
>>
>
> ??? Nuno, you do realize that DWG complained to Facebook about too many
> reports from Facebook users going to OSM and DWG, and asked Facebook for
> cooperation in re-directing those? (which as I understand was accomplished)
> It would be terrible for the report button to create a note on OSM.
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 12:10 PM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> Today i was check the maps on their website and noticed they have a report
> button, which i thought would create a note on OSM. Oh i was wrong, no note
> on OSM, wonder where that report will go to.
>

??? Nuno, you do realize that DWG complained to Facebook about too many
reports from Facebook users going to OSM and DWG, and asked Facebook for
cooperation in re-directing those? (which as I understand was accomplished)
It would be terrible for the report button to create a note on OSM.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Houston, TX, open data policy license compliance

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Ah, apologies, Jan, I was too hasty in my assessment. If you click on the
CC-BY link, you will see that only the "School District" dataset is CC-BY.
If you do inquire, I would first ask if the dataset you are interested in
is in the public domain, as that is possible under US law, and would be
most fitting for the description of open data in
http://www.houstontx.gov/adminpolicies/8-7.html as "freely used, shared and
built-on by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose."
And to Simon's point about third-party rights, while there are no
guarantees, the policy does mention "Exempt Data" as including data to
which there are contractual limitations, so it appears that the city at
least made some effort to exclude third-party data from open data.
-Kathleen

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 2:42 PM Kathleen Lu  wrote:

> Hi Jan,
> Specifically, here's is an example of the Geographic Boundaries page that
> indicates a CC-BY license:
> http://data.houstontx.gov/group/geographic-boundaries
> On the left side, at the bottom of the list of information. I would
> surmise that this applies to all the geographic boundary datasets, but you
> can ask them for clarification.
> Best,
> Kathleen
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 4:43 AM Simon Poole  wrote:
>
>> While the policy is undoutably good, it does not follow that all data
>> published actually conforms to it (for example third party rights in
>> existing data could be an issue).
>>
>> In any case on data.houstontx.gov the licence is specified for 7
>> datasets, so I assume the intent is to do that for all over time (you
>> should ask).
>>
>> The related problem is that you will need to obtain a waiver for CC BY
>> material as CC BY is in many ways more restrictive than the ODbL (see
>> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/).
>>
>> Simon
>> Am 13.08.2019 um 08:24 schrieb JS:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> The city of Houston has published several open data sets at
>> data.houstontx.gov and cohgis-mycity.opendata.arcgis.com/. While the
>> data sets and open data websites do not contain any licensing-related text,
>> there's a general open data policy at
>> http://www.houstontx.gov/adminpolicies/8-7.html.
>>
>> Am I right to assume that this policy, in particular the definition of
>> "open data" at No 6, is sufficiently clear so as to use the data without
>> further permission?
>>
>> Thanks for your opinions!
>>
>> Best,
>> Jan
>> --
>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
>>
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing 
>> listlegal-talk@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] Houston, TX, open data policy license compliance

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi Jan,
Specifically, here's is an example of the Geographic Boundaries page that
indicates a CC-BY license:
http://data.houstontx.gov/group/geographic-boundaries
On the left side, at the bottom of the list of information. I would surmise
that this applies to all the geographic boundary datasets, but you can ask
them for clarification.
Best,
Kathleen

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 4:43 AM Simon Poole  wrote:

> While the policy is undoutably good, it does not follow that all data
> published actually conforms to it (for example third party rights in
> existing data could be an issue).
>
> In any case on data.houstontx.gov the licence is specified for 7
> datasets, so I assume the intent is to do that for all over time (you
> should ask).
>
> The related problem is that you will need to obtain a waiver for CC BY
> material as CC BY is in many ways more restrictive than the ODbL (see
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/).
>
> Simon
> Am 13.08.2019 um 08:24 schrieb JS:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> The city of Houston has published several open data sets at
> data.houstontx.gov and cohgis-mycity.opendata.arcgis.com/. While the data
> sets and open data websites do not contain any licensing-related text,
> there's a general open data policy at
> http://www.houstontx.gov/adminpolicies/8-7.html.
>
> Am I right to assume that this policy, in particular the definition of
> "open data" at No 6, is sufficiently clear so as to use the data without
> further permission?
>
> Thanks for your opinions!
>
> Best,
> Jan
> --
> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing 
> listlegal-talk@openstreetmap.orghttps://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-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

>
> > And to Martin's point, which would you consider more important, the
> overlay of rare information, the gas stations, or the basemap? Or is the
> overlay only more important than the basemap if the overlay comes from OSM?
>
>
> In a basemap/overlay data constellation, I would generally consider the
> overlay more important (it’s the reason the map was published), but of
> course this doesn’t mean you would not have to attribute the basemap as
> well, if it were a requirement of the map.
>

As far as I know, no one is talking about no attribution at all, but rather
attribution after a click
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

 https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/ is a very interesting example. On my
screen, the attribution clearly stretches longer than the width of the map.
Is your opinion then that they should attribute similar to your European
Commission example of "correct" attribution
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html,
where some of the attribution is visible immediately, and the rest after
clicking?

And to Martin's point, which would you consider more important, the overlay
of rare information, the gas stations, or the basemap? Or is the overlay
only more important than the basemap if the overlay comes from OSM?

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 10:33 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> For another perspective, imagine someone making a world map with 85%
> OpenStreetMap data and 15% XY inc. data, if someone looks on a part of this
> map which is fed by these 15% XY data, you would not want to have it
> incorrectly attributed to OpenStreetMap (although we are generally the
> principal data provider).
>
> Well, the example i gave previously https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/
> is a good example of what you are saying. What do you do to fix it? Mapbox
> will say nothing or "believe this is the common, VOST won't say anything.
> Meanwhile 99.9% of that map is OSM a the gas station status update is
> provided by Waze. Sounds fair doesn't it?
>
>
> I believe the 50% rule is ok, if it refers to the displayed objects on the
> screen (although this can also be arbitrary, since you can always split a
> way, or interpolate nodes to get more of them).
> Imagine a map which chooses a different data provider per country. For
> zoomed in maps (you only see data from one provider) you would want this
> one provider prominently attributed. If you attribute to someone else more
> prominently and show the actual data provider only in „others“, you will
> inevitably create a wrong impression about the source, and if it’s us who
> miss out on visible attribution, we should care.
>
> Good that you mention this. On my email from 10th of October 2018 to
> facebook and Mapbox (both stopped replying), i pointed out these examples
> which have zero issues about having multiple sources being attributed
> visibly and not hiding them:
>
> Microsoft - Uses HERE and OSM and attributes both visibly on the footer
> https://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2=48.187141%2C%2016.349561=48.187141%2C16.349561=48.18694871145921~16.349901334904583=18=1
> 
>
> ARCGIS Web - Uses OSM and ESRI data, credits both
> https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fae788aa91e54244b161b59725dcbb2a
>
> European Commission  - credits OSM and other sources
> http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html
> and
> http://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/copernicus-emergency-management-service#zoom=2=23.42974=16.28085=00B0T
>
> Sadly, some say this is hard to implement. The above sites, must have a
> hell of a research UX dept to make it possible and others just say it's
> hard. Google does the same on "dynamic attribution". It's not rocket
> science, especially when it's for desktop use, there's plenty of space to
> attribute visibly. It's just excuses.
>
>
> What about maps that display an overlay over a basemap? This would lead to
> the overlay data provider mostly being pushed in the second row because it
> is quantitatively less, but the overlay data might be the rare unique data
> that is interesting. In case someone displayed an OpenStreetMap based
> overlay over a different background, why would we deliberately renounce
> from attribution in these cases?
>
> We shouldn't as it would violate the license.
>
>
> It is crucial that the 50% relate to the actually visible map features,
> and not to the total map. If the latter was possible, you could just fill
> your db with random crap in the middle of the ocean and distort the
> proportion.
>
> Obviously, we know those dirty tricks. Fatmap is a perfect example of that
> https://fatmap.com/adventures/@38.6755407,-9.1596113,3096.1899062,-40.2439178,19.7162561,31.6575309,normal
> and there's is plenty of room to add the attribution visibly.
>
>
> To be honest i'm kinda fed up of all of this, nothing happens. And it's a
> shame stating "the license doesn't say this or that", it neither says you
> must attribute with the exact text “© OpenStreetMap contributors”, must
> be unreasonable calculated to acknowledge. Common sense and fairness is all
> needed, not crappy legal interpretations and placing fear for legal actions
> from corporate interests. Sadly i'm starting to believe the concerns that
> some have shared on the list that OSMF is being "controlled" by corporate
> interests and not by the spirit that it was created.
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:27 PM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> Your complaint about LiveStream is that their attribution is completely
> missing, not that it's behind a click. I agree that it's missing and that
> it should be somewhere. It's not clear at all where they are getting their
> data (the rendering looks like Leaflet). If they are looking into it, then
> why not believe they are looking into it? They will probably fix it after
> they figure it out. DJI fixed it after investigating, and it took them a
> while to investigate as well.
>
> By inspecting their code from the link i shared you get. src=
> "https://b.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/livestreamllc.i64m05c3/16/18179/27868.png;
> 
> unless they are using Mapbox without their attribution which i presume
> would be unauthorized use of Mapboxeither that or are premium clients
> (i did asked them that, they didn't reply obviously). None the less I gave
> up on asking Mapbox to make sure their clients comply with our license and
> their terms of service, as they ignore it. Which is a shame coming from a
> OSMF corporate member. Anyway i have asked, several times, even public,
> another OSMF corporate member to do the same, still displaying HERE logo on
> our data. Probably they take HERE seriously (legal) and not OSMF or OSM
> contributors.
>
> So maybe it is an unauthorized use of Mapbox. Anyone can sign up free. You
should report it to Mapbox.


> About DJI, i presume you know they stopped using Altitude Angel (the
> company that omitted the attribution and runs https://dronesafetymap.com/)
> and are now using Mapbox instead as you can see here
> https://www.dji.com/pt/flysafe/geo-map Mapbox owns me a cup of tea for
> another client, oh well i can refuse that cup of tea for adding the
> attribution proudly and not behind "i" or even omitting. Sometimes i think
> they are ashamed of using OSM data instead of proudly showing it. It's not
> about the data, it's what you do with it that matters and Mapbox does it
> well, but hiding the source is dirty.
>
How do you know that they stopped using Altitude Angel? I can see from the
map that they use Mapbox now, but can't they use more than one data source?

>
> "reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." What does reasonable mean?
> Well a court would look at what other people in the industry do. Do others
> in the industry list attribution, especially to multiple data sources,
> after a click (or many clicks)? Yes, all the time.
>
> Discussing the reasonable definition is nonsense. Also comparing us to the
> others in the industry is not reasonable as we do not accept money for
> providing data or removing attribution.
>
That might be your opinion, but I think a court would disagree. Courts
often look at norms in order to interpret a licence.


> Why not 100 click attribution? well that wasn't, isn't and never will be
> the spirit of open data. Unless OSMF is going against it's owns Objects of
> the foundation articles:
>
> OBJECTS
>
> 3. The Foundation is established for the purposes listed below:
> (1) encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free
> geospatial data; and (2) providing geospatial data for anybody to use and
> share.
>
>  The objects don't say anything about strict attribution requirements. In
fact, requirements that are too strict will *discourage* the "distribution
of free geospatial data" by making it too difficult to use. That's the
opposite of "providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share."


> A court would also look at what OSM does. Does OSM list its data sources
> after a link? Yes, sometimes two links (first to
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, then to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors). Some of this data is
> also under ODbL! Why is this not reasonable?
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, maybe we should fix it and give the example of
> one click only, just to avoid unreasonable interpretations. Anyway it's
> this kind of misleading interpretation of adding a simply “© OpenStreetMap
> contributors” to the data they are using, like it was some kind of secret
> (probably is for none OSMers and general public) that places OSMF projet at
> risk as it clearly does not encourage anything.
>
Great, so now you are saying that OSM has been doing it wrong since the
beginning?


> And you are pointing to the wrong version of CC-BY, btw, 4.0 came out long
> after the license change, but since "reasonable" is the standard, Creative
> Commons itself gives as an example of "best practices" attribution for
> multiple sources this page: https://learn.saylor.org/course/view.php?id=28
> Click on "Course Terms of Use" to see a list of attributions.
>
> well 4 c) says of CC-BY-SA 2.0 says:
>
> If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
> digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, *You
> must keep intact all copyright notices* for the Work 

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Your complaint about LiveStream is that their attribution is completely
missing, not that it's behind a click. I agree that it's missing and that
it should be somewhere. It's not clear at all where they are getting their
data (the rendering looks like Leaflet). If they are looking into it, then
why not believe they are looking into it? They will probably fix it after
they figure it out. DJI fixed it after investigating, and it took them a
while to investigate as well.

"reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." What does reasonable mean? Well
a court would look at what other people in the industry do. Do others in
the industry list attribution, especially to multiple data sources, after a
click (or many clicks)? Yes, all the time.
A court would also look at what OSM does. Does OSM list its data sources
after a link? Yes, sometimes two links (first to
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, then to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors). Some of this data is
also under ODbL! Why is this not reasonable?

And you are pointing to the wrong version of CC-BY, btw, 4.0 came out long
after the license change, but since "reasonable" is the standard, Creative
Commons itself gives as an example of "best practices" attribution for
multiple sources this page: https://learn.saylor.org/course/view.php?id=28
Click on "Course Terms of Use" to see a list of attributions.


On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:38 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on top of
> an image
>
> As written on CC-BY-SA
>
> *Attribution*.
>
> If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:
> retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed
> Material:
>
>1. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any
>others designated to receive attribution, in any r*easonable manner
>requested by the Licensor* (including by pseudonym if designated);
>
>  in 3 a 1 A 1 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
>
>
>
> that no interaction is allowed???
>
>
> it says:
>
> 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced
> Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you
> Publicly Use a Produced Work, *You must include a notice associated with*
> * the Produced Work* reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses,
> *views,* accesses, interacts with, or is *otherwise exposed* to the
> Produced
> Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative
> Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it
> is available under this License.
>
> If you can explain me how  "reasonably calculated" to anyone that views or
> is exposed means that no attribution must be visibly on the Produced work.
> Feel free, i would like to know.
>
> Unless OSMF when we switched from CC to ODbL mislead the contributors and
> it's contributor terms, which i highly doubt.
>
>
> Let's do an exercise.
>
> LiveStream, a company of Vimeo uses OSM data on their website via a third
> party provider (Mapbox). I contacted LiveStream to comply with the license,
> they reply they are not using OSM data. Strange since i see my
> contributions on it, maybe they are not aware (being premium clients
> doesn't allow you to remove the attribution, other than the service
> provider, Mapbox). Asked them who sold them my data without complying with
> the license that i agreed my content to be distributed under. For over one
> month their legal department is still checking this.
>
> Link with a map example (feel free to browse to your contribution area),
> click on the "i" for the map to display
> https://livestream.com/accounts/9869799/events/7517661 printscreen of the
> maphttps://ibb.co/TH4LbFp
>
> Now the questions:
>
> 1 - Are they fulfilling the license?
>
> a) yes
>
> B) no
>
>
> 2 - Who's responsible?
>
> a) Mapbox
>
> b) LiveStream/Vimeo
>
>
> But following your "Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that
> attribution must be on top of an image or that no interaction is allowed",
> i have search all LiveStream website and there's no notice at all of OSM
> data.
>
>
> 3 - Who's not aware?
>
> a) Mapbox, an OSMF corporate member
>
> b) LiveStream/Vimeo, client of Mapbox
>
> c) contributors/OSMF
>
>
>
> Às 18:56 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
>
> Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on top of
> an image or that no interaction is allowed???
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:17 AM Nuno Caldeira <
> nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So you are saying 

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

I disagree that there is no harm. The credibility point goes both ways.
While no one could sue OSMF for recommending something that is not required
by the license, OSMF would lose the trust of data users, mappers, and any
adjudicative tribunals.
And it would be misleading and harmful to anyone who sought to enforce the
licence, causing, at the very least, confusion, arguments and hurt
feelings. Plus, if anyone went to court trying to enforce something that
OSMF recommended that was outside the licence, they would lose, and perhaps
be forced by the court to pay attorney's fees. While this would probably
not cause financial harm to OSMF, but it would be very damaging to the
community.

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:29 AM Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> On Friday 09 August 2019, Kathleen Lu wrote:
> > You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out
> > reasonable guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are
> > unreasonable and not tied to the language of the licence, then no
> > one, either users of the data or judges, will listen to OSMF, and,
> > under the law, rightly so.
>
> The key point is that it is fine if the guidelines deviate from the
> license on the side of caution, i.e. as Richard puts it: requiring
> something that is not in the license.  That is possibly suboptimal but
> there is no serious harm to err on the side of caution.  No data user
> could sue the OSMF for in the guidelines recommending something that is
> not required by the license.  OTOH if the guidelines recommend
> something that is not allowed by the license that is a serious problem,
> it defeats the whole purpose of the guideline and endangers the
> credibility of the OSMF both with mappers and data users.
>
> In the current form i have the impression that the guideline draft tries
> to state the most lenient interpretation of the license w.r.t.
> attribution that is imaginable which is not obviously wrong (and in
> case of the 50 percent rule i think it goes beyond that - this is
> obviously not compatible with the license from my point of view).  I
> find this kind of - well - reckless.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on top of
an image or that no interaction is allowed???


On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:17 AM Nuno Caldeira 
wrote:

> So you are saying that when we switched from CC to ODbL, the bellow quote
> was not true?
>
> Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”.
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F
>
>
> Also the license is clear, anyone that views, i don't have to interact to
> acknowledge the notice.
> Às 18:08 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
>
>
> Guidelines by the licensor
>>
>> On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with users of our
>> data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court would make a final decision
>> on the issue, however we hope these guidelines are helpful to *avoid 
>> *disputes
>> arising in the first place and can be considered by the courts in coming to
>> their verdict.
>>
>> from https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines
>>
>
> Nuno, you are quoting this like it's the law, but what you have quoted
> here isn't the *law*, it's what *OSMF* thinks *might* happen and what
> motivates OSMF to put out guidelines. Frankly, OSMF can choose to change
> the language you have quoted as a part of changing the guidelines!
> Under the law, the licensor's opinion, as one party to the contract, is
> taken into consideration. However, it is *not* the only thing that matters.
> The words of the licence matter more, and if there is a conflict between
> what the licensor thinks and what the licence says, the words of the
> licence will control. In that case, the licensor is simply "wrong" (and
> there are plenty of cases where that was the end result).
> You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out reasonable
> guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are unreasonable and not
> tied to the language of the licence, then no one, either users of the data
> or judges, will listen to OSMF, and, under the law, rightly so.
>
>
>>
>>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

> Guidelines by the licensor
>
> On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with users of our
> data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court would make a final decision
> on the issue, however we hope these guidelines are helpful to *avoid *disputes
> arising in the first place and can be considered by the courts in coming to
> their verdict.
>
> from https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines
>

Nuno, you are quoting this like it's the law, but what you have quoted here
isn't the *law*, it's what *OSMF* thinks *might* happen and what motivates
OSMF to put out guidelines. Frankly, OSMF can choose to change the language
you have quoted as a part of changing the guidelines!
Under the law, the licensor's opinion, as one party to the contract, is
taken into consideration. However, it is *not* the only thing that matters.
The words of the licence matter more, and if there is a conflict between
what the licensor thinks and what the licence says, the words of the
licence will control. In that case, the licensor is simply "wrong" (and
there are plenty of cases where that was the end result).
You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out reasonable
guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are unreasonable and not
tied to the language of the licence, then no one, either users of the data
or judges, will listen to OSMF, and, under the law, rightly so.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Just email direclty | Re: Sharing, Facebook, mapwithai_feedback

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

**Just a fyi that Dristie is a woman. She was at SotM last year and quite
nice to chat with.

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:22 AM stevea  wrote:

> As Michal/Mike suggested, I did reply to DrishT's diary page and DrishT
> quickly replied.  He was conciliatory, saying "the team has been engaging
> in as many places as possible where we get reach outs with questions" and
> he agrees that "community communications (about this topic / these topics)
> are fragmented."  Although, I haven't seem DrishT or anybody who directly
> identifies themselves from Facebook engage the community (as narrow a slice
> as it may be) here (on this "talk channel"), it does appear that
> "engagement" is happening in other forums / channels.  That seems positive
> to me (and I'm somewhat skeptical of all of this and can be somewhat harsh
> in my criticism when I find any).
>
> I'm ready to pay some significant attention to opinions of those like Rory
> and Nuno who seem to indicate that Facebook publicly says one thing, but
> their actions (and how they reply / respond and engage) say another.  I am
> disheartened to hear that some people feel like they haven't been heard /
> aren't being replied to by Facebook (or their representatives), as that was
> not my recent experience.
>
> As might have been predicted, this is a complex topic with many channels /
> methods of communications, messages, past experiences, assumptions and
> opinions flying around, it can be difficult to untangle them all, and it
> can be easy to jump to conclusions and experience misunderstandings.  Let
> us be patient with one another, stick to facts and do our best to sort out
> as many of the issues as we can.  What appears to be happening here and now
> is that better "cross-pollination" avenues of communication are being
> explored and some "road is being paved" in that direction, that seems like
> a good thing.
>
> Rory, if it helps, it appears that DrishT engages relatively quickly (as a
> "somewhat representative member of the Facebook community working on this
> AI project").  If you feel as if you are not heard (or "less than heard"),
> I recently had a quick reply there (
> https://www.osm.org/user/DrishT/diary/368711 ); good luck.
>
> SteveA
>
> > On Aug 5, 2019, at 11:55 PM, Rory McCann  wrote:
> >
> > I think we'll just have to CC o...@fb.com and forward all replies to
> this list. Facebook won't engage.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

The produced work guideline goes down the slippery slope of trying to
> define a produced work though the intention of the creator.  This was
> always a highly questionable approach.  Not only because intention in
> general is hard to determine objectively but also because the ODbL does
> not require the creator of a produced work to put any contraints on how
> the produced work is used so the intention of the creator does not have
> any bearing on how users actually use this work.
>
> If a user misuses a produced work, that is the fault of the user (and
perhaps a breach of the license by the user), not the work producer.
I don't this is a slippery slope, but rather a principled decision. But the
guideline is what it is, and I suppose you could lobby the Board to change
it, but I personally would view such a change as unwise.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing question

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Agreed, my opinion is that generally a scenery generating program should be
considered a produced work.

It's possible the program reads from a derived database, depending on
whether map features were added, but that *database* could be made
available under ODbL. The program being GPL shouldn't block that
(otherwise, you couldn't have a photo processing program that was GPL, for
example)

-Kathleen

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 7:54 AM  wrote:

> Considering the Produced Work - Guideline: Is the result of Osm2city
> in your opinion a product or a derived database?
>
> If it is a product, then you can choose your own license, but you
> still have comply with the conditions of No. 4.3. ODbL .
>
> If it is a derived database then you have to comply especially with
> the conditions of No. 4.2 and 4.4 ODbL (but not only). Your derived
> database will still be under ODbL.
> If it's a derived database , then it also raises the question of
> whether ODbL (Open Data License) and GPL (Free Software/Open Source
> License) are compatible with each other, No. 4.4 a. iii. ODbL.
>
> Falk
>
> Zitat von merspieler :
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've got a question about licensing.
> >
> > I'm using a program called Osm2city [1] that generates scenery for the
> > flight gear flight simulator(FGFS) [2].
> >
> > To be on the safe side, I've currently released the results under the
> > WTFPL which isn't a big deal for me but FGFS is GPL2 only and it's
> > impossible, to get anything packaged with it, that's not GPL2.
> >
> > So my question: May I release the results under the GPL2 (if needed with
> > dual licensing)?
> >
> > This may affect others as well, as I'm not the only one, who's
> > generating any scenery but I haven't seen any licensing statement for
> > their work.
> > A list of this work is available on our wiki[3].
> >
> > Example results can be downloaded as well from the wiki page[3].
> >
> >
> > [1] https://gitlab.com/fg-radi/osm2city
> > [2] http://www.flightgear.org/
> > [3] http://wiki.flightgear.org/Areas_populated_with_osm2city_scenery
> >
> >
> > regards,
> >
> >
> > merspieler
>
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 6:32 PM merspieler  wrote:

> I'd consider the work a produced work.  I will apply 4.3. ODbL.
>
> Thank you for your help.
>
> newsgr...@pirschkarte.de:
> > Considering the Produced Work - Guideline: Is the result of Osm2city in
> > your opinion a product or a derived database?
> >
> > If it is a product, then you can choose your own license, but you still
> > have comply with the conditions of No. 4.3. ODbL .
> >
> > If it is a derived database then you have to comply especially with the
> > conditions of No. 4.2 and 4.4 ODbL (but not only). Your derived database
> > will still be under ODbL.
> > If it's a derived database , then it also raises the question of whether
> > ODbL (Open Data License) and GPL (Free Software/Open Source License) are
> > compatible with each other, No. 4.4 a. iii. ODbL.
> >
> > Falk
> >
> > Zitat von merspieler :
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I've got a question about licensing.
> >>
> >> I'm using a program called Osm2city [1] that generates scenery for the
> >> flight gear flight simulator(FGFS) [2].
> >>
> >> To be on the safe side, I've currently released the results under the
> >> WTFPL which isn't a big deal for me but FGFS is GPL2 only and it's
> >> impossible, to get anything packaged with it, that's not GPL2.
> >>
> >> So my question: May I release the results under the GPL2 (if needed with
> >> dual licensing)?
> >>
> >> This may affect others as well, as I'm not the only one, who's
> >> generating any scenery but I haven't seen any licensing statement for
> >> their work.
> >> A list of this work is available on our wiki[3].
> >>
> >> Example results can be downloaded as well from the wiki page[3].
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://gitlab.com/fg-radi/osm2city
> >> [2] http://www.flightgear.org/
> >> [3] http://wiki.flightgear.org/Areas_populated_with_osm2city_scenery
> >>
> >>
> >> regards,
> >>
> >>
> >> merspieler
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

I don't think it's disingenuous at all for Facebook to use their own POIs
instead of OSM's. Wasn't the whole point of the Collective Databases
principle and the Collective Databases Guideline specifically to enable
this type of usage, so that those interested in OSM did not have to make an
"all or nothing" choice?

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:17 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Besides the tech boosterism, another issue is that it's disingenuous
> if Facebook claims to be strongly supporting OSM, while continuing to
> keep their valuable user-provided data in a separate, proprietary
> database.
>
> Facebook and Google have the two best lists of POIs like shops and
> restaurants, and an extensive database of customer photos and reviews
> which they control. While Facebook has decided to use OSM for road,
> street and waterway data (which they couldn't easily have users add),
> they keep this data for themselves. Were Facebook interested in
> improving OSM, they could share their POI data, including when a
> feature was last visited and notes about which feature no longer
> exist. This could add millions more OSM contributors for features like
> shops and restaurants, which are not yet completely mapped even in
> well-developed OSM communities in Europe, and it would be
> revolutionary in Indonesia and Thailand.
>
> Only a few people will every become hobby mappers, adding waterways,
> highways, landuse and such for fun, but every business owner wants to
> see their shop or office on Facebook, so these POIs would be added and
> kept up-to-date by users.
>
> I don't expect Facebook to share this data for free, because a large
> part of their business model is recording your geodata and using this
> to maximize profit for their shareholders, but if they ever decide to
> really prove "we're not that evil", sharing their data could go a long
> way to changing Facebooks poor reputation for corporate responsibility
> and transparency.
>
> Joseph
>
> On 8/1/19, stevea  wrote:
> > (I chose the wrong source email address; apologies if anybody gets this
> > twice).
> >
> > Thanks, Jóhannes.  I did try FB's tool myself and was pleasantly
> surprised
> > it does a "looks OK for now" job of how Mikel put it earlier:  "a balance
> > between turbocharged and exploitation."  I hear you as you say that
> > mapwith.ai has, as I described, a comfortable workflow of "AI suggests,
> > human maps, human checks that what is acceptable can be uploaded, human
> > uploads."  That's fine, it does indeed have "a human in the loop" and the
> > human checks for quality, the human is not just being there for the sake
> of
> > being there.  This aspect of "humans, not AI, determine quality" is a
> > critical component of what I am saying.
> >
> > What I believe raised ire here was the BBC botching the "press
> announcement"
> > as a stilted and seemingly uninformed "cheerleading" piece that made AI
> > sound as if it were a "magic bullet" that was going to save mapping in
> OSM
> > somehow.  It isn't (magic) and it won't (though AI is an important tool
> > going forward, especially as it is coupled with human wisdom and a
> hawkish
> > eye towards high quality).  OSM is, and will always be, a
> > human-participating project, with all of the social and "get outdoors and
> > map" project as one (human) might like it to be.  AI can and does help,
> > that's fine, as long as humans are always "in charge."
> >
> > Again, it sounds like there is a lot of agreement here.
> >
> > SteveA
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

I agree that human wisdom is critical to high quality, and AI isn't useful
if, at the end of the process, it doesn't produce quality output, but I
will challenge this statement: "you can have high quality without AI." I
don't think that's definitively true for a global map. It's very difficult
to keep something at that scale that is constantly changing up to date, and
while OSM is very high quality in some areas, human mappers have not been
able to produce high quality maps worldwide. Corporations that use
traditional survey techniques also have a lot of difficulty even while
spending $$$ (and many if not all of them are also using AI). AI can
augment human mapping in ways to make scale more manageable, and I think
both will be needed to make a worldwide high quality map.


On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:26 AM stevea  wrote:

> Oops, "social conscience." (not conscious)
> SteveA
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

On the other hand, if the map of your area is completely blank, it looks
very daunting to a new mapper, who may be discouraged and abandon OSM
(either as too difficult to improve and as too poor quality to use).
The map is constantly changing because roads and other things on the map
are changing in the real world. A city might close off a road and then it
will become a "bad" street. It's easier to delete a bad street than to add
a bunch of streets, especially when you are surveying on foot and don't
have a mouse.
I personally would much rather have a 101% map than a 1% map.

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:21 AM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Re: "OSM map with a one percent of roads is far worse than having 101%
> of the roads mapped with the help of AI with 1% of extras, because
> fixing that 1% is far less work than adding 99% by hand"
>
> I'm not certain this is true. It might be very difficult to find the
> 1% of incorrectly mapped roads; you don't know where to look, and you
> must survey on the ground with GPS, and check each road segment to
> find the 1% that actually are blocked by a fence or gate or don't
> really go through that clump of trees.
>
> In contrast, when 99% are missing it's very obvious when looking at
> the map data. You still have to survey and add the streets, but it may
> actually be faster to get to a complete map of your home neighborhood,
> than trying to find 10 bad streets out of 1000 segments in your
> neighborhood.
>
> Finally, when you look at the map and it looks 100% complete, you
> won't see the need to start mapping and become a totally addicted
> OSMer like you will if your village is only 1% mapped, so we may not
> get the new contributors that we need to actual maintain the data that
> our robot mappers have added.
>
> Joseph
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

The BBC article is missing a lot of context and details. The actual
Facebook post -
https://tech.fb.com/ai-is-supercharging-the-creation-of-maps-around-the-world/
- notes both the importance of human mappers and the local community's
on-the-ground contributions, and states "We became close collaborators with
the OSM community during our work in Thailand", quite different than the
BBC's statement.

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 2:17 PM john whelan  wrote:

> My personal view is I think using AI to identify potential highways and
> buildings is fine but there needs to be a process that includes manual
> review.
>
> Basically the import process.
>
> I think my concern was more the idea in the article that suggests OSM
> welcomes AI mapping and by implication conventional mappers were no longer
> required.  This may impact HOT mapathons by the way if people feel that
> needn't bother mapping, the AI will do it all.
>
> Could someone clarify with the BBC to describe the process and emphasize
> the community aspect of OSM.  It is summer so news apart from Boris is thin
> on the ground so it might well be an opportune time to get a bit of
> publicity for OpenStreetMap.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 4:57 PM Andy Townsend,  wrote:
>
>> On 24/07/2019 20:56, John Whelan wrote:
>> > https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49091093
>> >
>> > I note "Martijn van Exel" is quoted.
>>
>> I'm sure if the BBC wanted to do some actual journalism they could ask
>> some OSM contributors in Thailand what their view was (see e.g.
>> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=65056 for a selection
>> of opinions) rather than just regurgitating FB's press release without
>> it touching the sides on either the way down or the way up.
>>
>> I'm sure that there's someone at the BBC who's job it is to deal with
>> complaints about non-news like this (in fact a couple of clicks from
>> that "article" takes you straight to
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/ ), just like the DWG
>> have to deal with complaints about, shall we say, "sub optimal mapping"
>> from the likes of Facebook et al.
>>
>> To be fair to Facebook (speaking entirely as an outsider to that
>> organisation here), their approach seems to have moved from being
>> entirely "mechanical" to involving more humans.  Facebook's early
>> attempts were, in a nutshell, dreadful:
>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17856687 is a write-up from someone
>> who was apparently working there at the time; it's pretty much a
>> textbook example of "how not to contribute to OSM". Latterly they have
>> been much more communicative with the community, as you can see by
>> reading the Thai forum threads.
>>
>> Other large companies contributing to OSM have followed similar paths;
>> although sometimes it does require a rather excessive number of
>> changeset discussion comments, OSM messages that users have to read
>> before continuing to edit, longer blocks and reverts before they give up
>> and actually try communicating with other people*.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> (a member of the DWG, so I've of course had to "bucket and shovel"
>> Facebook mechanical edits in the past, but writing here in an entirely
>> personal capacity)
>>
>> * for the avoidance of doubt this wasn't Facebook; it was a smaller
>> company offering B2B services in a couple of countries.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copy information from official business website (WAS: Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data)

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

There is fairly limited case law on what constitutes "substantial
investment" under the database law. Here is an article discussing a couple
of cases where significant investment was rejected, and one where it was
accepted (sadly all in the context of sports, not geodata) -
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ddc63c34-a49f-4876-86d5-aaec83d65ed1
Best,
Kathleen



On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 1:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 11. Jul 2019, at 20:23, Kathleen Lu  wrote:
> >
> > "Substantial investment" may not be a black and white standard, but it
> is a meaningful one. I hypothesize that Tesco would have difficulty proving
> "a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or
> presentation of the contents." (Note that investment in creating/setting
> the hours does not count.)
>
>
> It may have come along as sarcasm the way I have written it, but the idea
> is actually appealing: significant investment wrt the database could
> eventually be dismissed for those databases, which are more or less the
> result of some related operation/work, a byproduct, rather than being set
> up to gather and analyze data without being required in the operation. The
> investment would be the operation, while the db as a byproduct would be
> almost “free”. The OpenStreetMap database would still be protected under
> perspective, but a lot of databases would not be protected automatically
> any more.
>
> The maps the GIS department releases are definitely requiring a
> significant investment, but the lists of streets a municipality releases
> would probably not be covered by the sui generis rule because there is not
> much specific investment behind such a compilation, it is a byproduct of
> their operation as a public administration. Or the post code lists of the
> postal service: the effort is not specifically put into the db, they only
> have to print what they already know from planning and organizing the
> postal service.
>
> Is there already case law with examples where a claimed significant
> investment has been rejected? I would suspect that almost any database
> could be seen as having required a lot of investment for the creation and
> updates, or not, according to how you put it.
>
> From a practical point of view I agree I would not be worried about
> copying opening hours (or addresses, or phone numbers) from a retail
> company’s website, e.g. Tesco. It’s more likely they would pay you for this
> than sue you.
>
> Cheers Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copy information from official business website (WAS: Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data)

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

I understand the inclination to sarcasm, but your second statement is
simply not a logical one. A state's records of it's plans to build and
maintain roads aren't a map, and a typical map has many things on it other
than just roads. The plans by themselves may not be a protected database
under EU law, but governments discuss quite publicly the costs and efforts
of their GIS departments. "Substantial investment" may not be a black and
white standard, but it is a meaningful one. I hypothesize that Tesco would
have difficulty proving "a substantial investment in either the obtaining,
verification or presentation of the contents." (Note that investment in
creating/setting the hours does not count.)
Best,
Kathleen


On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 12:34 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 10. Jul 2019, at 18:35, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk <
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > I do not think that a retail store chain could successfully argue that
> it makes a "substantial investment" in maintaining a list of its own
> stores' hours. Since the store sets the hours, the effort of obtaining,
> verification, and/or presentation should be fairly trivial.
>
>
> Along the same reasoning you could say: “I do not think that a state makes
> a substantial investment in mapping the roads they maintain. Since the
> state plans, builds and maintains the roads it should be fairly trivial for
> them to make a map.”
>
> Cheers, Martin
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copy information from official business website (WAS: Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data)

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

For a single store I believe the answer is yes, since you're
> extracting un-copyrightable facts. But if there are a significant
> number of stores (as in this case), then the information becomes part
> of a database, which is by default protected by database rights (at
> least in the EU). You then can't use a significant amount of the
> information without an appropriate licence. Moreover, you can't safely
> take details from a single store from a chain's website, as there's a
> danger that lots of other mappers might do that independently for
> different stores, resulting in an infringement for OSM as a whole.
>
>
Mateusz posted this to the other thread (Proposal for a revision of
JA:Available Data) which seemed to have ended up on the same topic.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31996L0009#d1e757-20-1
says of the database right

"Member States shall provide for a right for the maker of a database which
shows that there
has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in
either the obtaining,
verification or presentation of the contents to prevent extraction and/or
re-utilization of the
whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or
quantitatively, of the contents
of that database."

I do not think that a retail store chain could successfully argue that it
makes a "substantial investment" in maintaining a list of its own stores'
hours. Since the store sets the hours, the effort of obtaining,
verification, and/or presentation should be fairly trivial. (I would also
question the sanity of any store chain making such a claim, since the whole
point of making a list of store hours is available online is to inform
shoppers, and that information being in OSM would only help inform more
shoppers.)

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copy information from official business website (WAS: Proposal for a revision of JA:Available Data)

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Re the "misleading" license - I do not think that anyone at Tesco who wrote
that to cover the entire website was thinking of how it would specifically
apply to the hours of shops, as opposed to, for example, a phishing site
that attempted to emulate the Tesco site.
The different with the Sacramento open data portal is that clearly they
intended to apply CC-BY to the data. Now, that said, I doubt that the
Sacramento data administrators knew that CC-BY and ODbL are not fully
compatible. This is a case where one might write in and obtain a waiver.


On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:04 AM tomoya muramoto 
wrote:

> I understand that dominant opinion is the fact data published on the
> official website is available to OSM.
> It's good for the OSM community to be clear about available data.
>
> I would like to ask again about similar cases that I do not understand
> enough.
>
> Assume that TESCO has published the shop data under the CC BY license.
> Then can I use that data for OSM?
> I think that data is not available because CC BY license is incompatible
> with ODbL as OSMF has stated.
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/
>
> However, current data published by TESCO under the "misleading" terms is
> considered as available.
>
> It seems unreasonable for me that open data is not available and
> "misleading" terms data is available.
>
> And another case.
> Many municipalities have published open data under CC BY license. For
> example, Sacramento County has published the location data of the drainage
> pumps under CC BY license.
>
> https://data-sacramentocounty.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/37cc6535316e43dbab8e1942ef1d7313_3
> Can I use this data for OSM without additional permission?
> I think that it is not available because it is incompatible with ODbL.
> However, drainage pumps are managed by Sacramento County, and their names
> and locations are fact data, so they can be considered as available. Which
> is correct?
>
> After this discussion I would like to make an OSM wiki page as an
> agreement by the OSM global community.
> wiki/Available_Data is fine for it?
>
> Thanks.
>
> muramoto
> ___
> 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-talk] OpenTrailView 360 - StreetView-like application for hikers

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

In that case, if I were you, I'd just go straight CC-BY with a OSM/ODbL
compatibility waiver. (See
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ for template
language)
The "sharealike" in SA refers to the sharing conditions on derivatives, not
the original. The BY part refers to the attribution requirement, which
should inform future users how the panos are available under the original
license.

CC-BY-SA would not permit the video I described being released on CC-BY
terms, for example


On Mon, Jun 3, 2019, 11:52 PM Nick Whitelegg 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> All I really want is to ensure the panos as individual entities (i.e. not
> as part of another piece of work) must be attributed (to "OTV360
> contributors") and must be available as individual entities under the same
> permissive license as originally provided.
>
>
> I am not so bothered if people then use them as part of some other piece
> of work which is commercial  (such as a video with a narration, as you
> suggested) - as long as they are attributed.
>
>
> Would ODBL be the best license in this case? Or CC-by-SA?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
> --
> *From:* Kathleen Lu 
> *Sent:* 03 June 2019 18:03:50
> *To:* Nick Whitelegg
> *Cc:* Martin Koppenhoefer; Milo van der Linden; OSM Talk
> *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk] OpenTrailView 360 - StreetView-like application
> for hikers
>
> So to confirm what you want...
> If someone wanted to use the panos in a video, stitched together with
> photos they took and narration about a hike, that video must be CC-BY-SA or
> the panos cannot be used, is that right?
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 4:58 AM Nick Whitelegg 
> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Martin,
>
>
> Yes, that sounds a good idea.
>
>
> So (and asking everyone) if I was to license the panos themselves under
> CC-SA,  but their locations, and data derived from them, as ODBL - does
> that sound acceptable?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Martin Koppenhoefer 
> *Sent:* 01 June 2019 08:25
> *To:* Nick Whitelegg
> *Cc:* Kathleen Lu; Milo van der Linden; OSM Talk
> *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk] OpenTrailView 360 - StreetView-like application
> for hikers
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 31. May 2019, at 22:13, Nick Whitelegg 
> wrote:
>
> Hello Kathleen and Milo,
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> No-one besides myself has uploaded anything yet, so happy to change to
> ODbL. The panoramas are a different dataset to OSM however, now I think
> about it, it could well be they are a 'derived work' as the OSM map helps
> users to position them - so fine with the license change.
>
>
>
> maybe you can make use of 2 licenses, cc-by-sa for the images/panoramas
> and odbl for data derived from these images? ODbL is a db license and isn’t
> very suitable for individual photographs?
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenTrailView 360 - StreetView-like application for hikers

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

So to confirm what you want...
If someone wanted to use the panos in a video, stitched together with
photos they took and narration about a hike, that video must be CC-BY-SA or
the panos cannot be used, is that right?



On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 4:58 AM Nick Whitelegg 
wrote:

>
> Hello Martin,
>
>
> Yes, that sounds a good idea.
>
>
> So (and asking everyone) if I was to license the panos themselves under
> CC-SA,  but their locations, and data derived from them, as ODBL - does
> that sound acceptable?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Martin Koppenhoefer 
> *Sent:* 01 June 2019 08:25
> *To:* Nick Whitelegg
> *Cc:* Kathleen Lu; Milo van der Linden; OSM Talk
> *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk] OpenTrailView 360 - StreetView-like application
> for hikers
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 31. May 2019, at 22:13, Nick Whitelegg 
> wrote:
>
> Hello Kathleen and Milo,
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> No-one besides myself has uploaded anything yet, so happy to change to
> ODbL. The panoramas are a different dataset to OSM however, now I think
> about it, it could well be they are a 'derived work' as the OSM map helps
> users to position them - so fine with the license change.
>
>
>
> maybe you can make use of 2 licenses, cc-by-sa for the images/panoramas
> and odbl for data derived from these images? ODbL is a db license and isn’t
> very suitable for individual photographs?
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] How to Translate Strings in OSM to other languages

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

> In general, it is impossible to find proper names in one language when you
> have solely name in other language. One needs more context to actually do
> this.
>
> To make the translator's job easier, I do a google or bing or wikidata
> or some machine translation, so that they can skip the correct one.
> They can only fix the wrong translations.
>
> I would not expect some reasonable quality from that.
>
> I would expect locals to be able to determine this. From your post, I
assume that you are a local and fluent in Tamil, and therefore able to tell
whether the translations from your volunteers are correct. I would suggest
testing with a small sample for translation using your proposed translation
process and then manually edit those names to see whether you get the
results you're hoping for.


> Also, note that imports from wikidata to OSM are not acceptable.
> See
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata#Importing_data_from_Wikidata_into_OSM
>
> Given that the proposal involves only suggested translations and
post-editing by human translators, I would not consider this an import from
Wikidata, as the human translators break any (already limited by law) IP
claims in names.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenTrailView 360 - StreetView-like application for hikers

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Looks neat, Nick!

I will say that given that OSM is under ODbL, which is not compatible with
CC-BY-SA (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility)
I would suggest that you consider using ODbL as the license instead of
CC-BY-SA.

Best,
Kathleen

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:22 AM Milo van der Linden 
wrote:

> Cool! It looks and interacts awesome.
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2019, 18:43 Nick Whitelegg 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks! Actually used Pannellum: https://pannellum.org/
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> Note that there is one little issue, which I thought I'd resolved, but
>> has recurred today, and *might* be down to Pannellum: occasionally (and
>> inconsistently, i.e. there isn't a sequence of actions which causes it to
>> happen) if you click on a camera icon when in map mode it doesn't load the
>> panorama. Most of the time it's fine though.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Milo van der Linden 
>> *Sent:* 31 May 2019 17:20:57
>> *To:* Nick Whitelegg
>> *Cc:* osm-talk
>> *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk] OpenTrailView 360 - StreetView-like
>> application for hikers
>>
>> Nice! Did you create your own panoviewer or did you use
>> https://www.marzipano.net/?
>>
>> Op vr 31 mei 2019 om 13:46 schreef Nick Whitelegg <
>> nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> Some of you are probably aware that way back in 2010 I started developing
>> OpenTrailView , which aims to be a StreetView-like web application but
>> focusing on off-road routes such as hiking trails, with crowd-sourced
>> panoramas.
>>
>>
>> Recently, due to the increasing availability of 360 cameras and the
>> appearance of mature panorama APIs (e.g. Pannellum) and client-side routing
>> APIs (GeoJSON Path Finder) I have restarted work on OpenTrailView and did
>> an initial presentation at FOSDEM 2019 back in February.
>>
>>
>> Since then I have done further work and OpenTrailView, while still
>> incomplete, is in a state where I believe it's ready to start receiving
>> contributions.
>>
>>
>> It's available at
>>
>> https://www.opentrailview.org/
>>
>>
>> You can get an idea of how it allows you to 'walk' along OSM ways by
>> navigating in the default area (Southampton Common). There are also some
>> panoramas available close to Fernhurst, West Sussex (lat 51.05, lon -0.72).
>> There's a Nominatim search available if you switch to 'map' mode (see the
>> map icon).
>>
>>
>> If you signup and then login, you can contribute your own 360 panos.
>> Obviously follow the usual privacy considerations (no faces, no car number
>> plates) - panos will be moderated before they go live to ensure they do not
>> have any privacy violations amongst other things.
>>
>>
>> The key thing about this version is that it will use underlying OSM data
>> to auto-connect panoramas. This was not done on any previous version.
>>
>>
>> However, note that while the site will accept panos anywhere in the
>> world, at present, the auto-connection facility will only work in *Europe*
>> plus Turkey (I am using the Europe Geofabrik extract), as my server
>> currently only stores European data. Nonetheless I have had a possible
>> offer of helping with hosting costs so expansion to the entire world could
>> well happen soon.
>>
>>
>> The maps provided are rather basic, showing only highways, coastlines and
>> a few selected POIs, this is due to server capacity constraints. If anyone
>> is aware of a tile server I can use legitimately as a replacement, without
>> violating the usage policy, please let me know.
>>
>>
>> In similar style to OSM, panos will be copyright 'OTV360 contributors'
>> and licensed under CC-by-SA. IANAL but this seems to be the most common
>> practice.
>>
>>
>> Do remember once again that this is an unfinished product but it is now
>> in a state where I believe it is of interest to contributors.
>>
>>
>> Gitlab: https://gitlab.com/nickw1/opentrailview/
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> [image: http://www.dogodigi.net] 
>> *Milo van der Linden*
>> web: dogodigi 
>> tel: +31-6-16598808
>>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How to get geolocation without problem into Wikidata

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

I think what's key for each individual Wikidata editor to know is that it's
possible for even an individual to engage in a "systematic attempt to
aggregate" per the Geocoding Guidelines, which is not allowed without
triggering sharealike. Copying single lat/longs is permitted without
sharealike.

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 5:47 PM Shu Higashi  wrote:

> I wanted to tell Wikidata community in Japan how to get geolocation
> from OSM without problem(trigger share-alike).
> It will be a kind of guideline for them and each Wikidata editor may
> do so individually.
>
> Shu
>
> 2019-05-14 8:08 GMT+09:00, Martin Koppenhoefer :
> >
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 14. May 2019, at 00:14, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> If by "Each wikidata people repeat this operation manually." you mean
> that
> >> each individual Wikipedia editor makes their own decision about whether
> to
> >> copy the lat/long, and it is not a coordinated or automated effort (not
> a
> >> "systematic attempt to aggregate" per the Geocoding Guidelines), then it
> >> is allowed.
> >
> >
> > how could Wikidata not be considered a coordinated effort? I mean he is
> > asking here, people are making plans how to proceed, how can this be „not
> > coordinated“? Isn’t a plan to operate „individually“ already a kind of
> > coordination (purposefully crafted to circumvent the licensing
> provisions)?
> >
> > Cheers, Martin
> > ___
> > 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] How to get geolocation without problem into Wikidata

[Kathleen Lu via legal-talk]

Hi,

If by "Each wikidata people repeat this operation manually." you mean that
each individual Wikipedia editor makes their own decision about whether to
copy the lat/long, and it is not a coordinated or automated effort (not a
"systematic attempt to aggregate" per the Geocoding Guidelines), then it is
allowed.

(The Substantial Guideline concerns the same underlying principle, but only
gives as an example a different bright line rule, so I do not think it is
useful guidance in your case. If an activity is allowed under the Geocoding
Guideline, it does not matter if the Substantial Guideline would have
already permitted it (and vice versa).)

Best,
Kathleen

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 7:35 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> provided you do it for a substantial part of OpenStreetMap data, from my
> understanding you would trigger ODbL, i.e. you would be creating a
> derivative database.
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline
>
> Cheers, Martin
> ___
> 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-talk] FCC public documents license and submarine cables mapping

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Google, yes. Google's lawyers, no ;)

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, 4:07 AM Simon Poole  wrote:

> Actually I think the more important question is: doesn't google have a
> better method to create a background map than screenshots? :-)
> (particularly noticeable due to the POI pins in the 2nd and third
> illustrations).
> Am 13.04.2019 um 16:47 schrieb François Lacombe:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Google is currently rolling out several submarine telecommunication cable
> systems and Amercian FCC actually publishes application documents
> describing them.
>
> Such one regards the Dunant system between Virginia Beach and
> Saint-Hilaire-de-Riez in France
> https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1650796
>
> As the application document shows maps of landings and global Atlantic
> Ocean route, I'm technically able to add it to OSM as several other
> submarine systems already exists there.
>
> Are you aware of license issues regarding FCC documents which would
> prevent us to take data from them?
>
> All the best
>
> François
>
> ___
> talk mailing 
> listtalk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] FCC public documents license and submarine cables mapping

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Of course Google *can* afford a lawyer and bureaucracy does not legally or
physically limit their ability to act, but I think you underestimate the
*practical* limitations. Even the smallest amount of bureaucracy and cost
(which just adds more bureaucracy, because the cost must be approved) makes
it just not worth it for the *individual* who works for Google who would
have to call up the lawyer and find the paperwork and organize the
paperwork and get approvals, when they already have a hundred other more
important tasks to do. Honestly, the bigger the company, the more
bureaucracy.

In the general scenario, setting aside the insignificant case, there's an
argument to be made that three difference "infringements" can take place:
One by the mapper in copying the material into OSM, one by OSM in
"distributing" the material (whether "distributing" is really the right
word is going to depend country by country, but that's the concept), and
one by a user in copying the material from OSM (and then doing whatever
else to it). So the law of the country of all three would apply, just apply
to different activities.
>From a practical standpoint, if there were a significant infringement
situation, and regardless of whether the owner was Google or some other
entity, I would think their main concern would be stop further inclusion of
the material OSM, and possibly further use by a major user of OSM, so the
location of the mapper matters very little (unless the mapper was a
disgruntled employee or some weird situation like that).

-Kathleen

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 9:25 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> > On 15 Apr 2019, at 18:07, Kathleen Lu  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Martin,
> > Yes, Google might already have a subsidiary in a country (since they
> have them in many but certainly not in all countries) but they would still
> have to "go" there in the sense that: 1) I very much doubt the subsidiary
> would already have a plaintiff-side copyright attorney on speed dial, so
> they'd have to get one; 2) they'd have to produce the paperwork that shows
> that subsidiary owns the copyright in question. Given that this was a
> filing with the US FCC, odds are that all the people involved in producing
> the filing are in the US, and therefore the paperwork is in the US and
> would need to be transferred to the subsidiary in order for the subsidiary
> to sue... (Frankly, I don't think it'd be cheaper to that, vs the default
> ownership entity hiring local lawyers and filing suit in its own name, so I
> don't think the existence of the subsidiaries matters.)
> >
>
>
>
> I guess bureaucracy would not limit their ability to act. These reasonings
> may hold up for smaller countries and companies, but Google Ireland Ltd. is
> the Google subsidiary for the whole common European market (or EU, not
> sure), their 2017 revenue was 32 billion Euros, if they need an attorney
> they will find one.
>
> Reason I asked was because you wrote the situation depends on the place
> where the infraction happens (besides the probably insignificant case at
> hand, with a single line drawn), the question which law is applicable is a
> returning one.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] FCC public documents license and submarine cables mapping

[Kathleen Lu via talk]

Hi Martin,
Yes, Google might already have a subsidiary in a country (since they have
them in many but certainly not in all countries) but they would still have
to "go" there in the sense that: 1) I very much doubt the subsidiary would
already have a plaintiff-side copyright attorney on speed dial, so they'd
have to get one; 2) they'd have to produce the paperwork that shows that
subsidiary owns the copyright in question. Given that this was a filing
with the US FCC, odds are that all the people involved in producing the
filing are in the US, and therefore the paperwork is in the US and would
need to be transferred to the subsidiary in order for the subsidiary to
sue... (Frankly, I don't think it'd be cheaper to that, vs the default
ownership entity hiring local lawyers and filing suit in its own name, so I
don't think the existence of the subsidiaries matters.)
-Kathleen

On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 7:47 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 14. Apr 2019, at 10:48, Kathleen Lu  wrote:
>
> For Berne counties, I think it technically depends on where the
> "infringement" takes place, whatever that would mean in this scenario
>
>
>
> the information is stored and distributed from the UK, the mapper is more
> likely to come from a different country.
>
>
> but the idea that Google would go to another country to spend $$$ to sue
> over this one line is preposterous to me.
>
>
>
> what I meant is that they are already there.
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk