r (yamadai [at] iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp) to get an
access.
From: Nuno Caldeira
Sent: Tuesday, 31 December 2019 5:50 AM
To: Christoph Hormann
Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
here's a interested c
On Monday 30 December 2019, Nuno Caldeira wrote:
> here's a interested case
> https://www.gislounge.com/gis-data-high-resolution-global-hydrography
>-dataset/amp/ are they allowed to share this on CC4? Shouldn't it only
> be ODbL? are they allowed to share only after a registration? anyone
> wanna
here's a interested case
https://www.gislounge.com/gis-data-high-resolution-global-hydrography-dataset/amp/
are they allowed to share this on CC4? Shouldn't it only be ODbL? are they
allowed to share only after a registration? anyone wanna try getting a copy
of the derivated work as they need to
15 Nov 2019, 16:37 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
> Am Fr., 15. Nov. 2019 um 13:44 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <>
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> >:
>
>> I understand that training their algorithim ("AI") on Openstreetmap
>> data is fine.
>>
>>
>
>
> actually this is something I do not
On Friday 15 November 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > > there isn't OSM data in their dataset.
> >
> > And neither is there is my ocean data set - the OSM data set used
> > only contains land masses, my resulting data set (D2 in Rory's
> > terms) only contains oceans. So no OSM data in it.
>
Am Fr., 15. Nov. 2019 um 14:21 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann :
> On Friday 15 November 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > there isn't OSM data in their dataset.
>
> And neither is there is my ocean data set - the OSM data set used only
> contains land masses, my resulting data set (D2 in Rory's
Am Fr., 15. Nov. 2019 um 13:44 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> I understand that training their algorithim ("AI") on Openstreetmap
> data is fine.
>
>
actually this is something I do not understand. What is called "artificial
intelligence" in this context is
On Friday 15 November 2019, Martin Trautmann wrote:
>
> No. Elementary logic does not apply for legal advice.
Thanks for putting it so bluntly - that is indeed an impression i often
get from discussions on legal matters in the OSM community. But as
said that makes this kind of discussion
/>"I don't understand why it is being claimed that facebook ... is not
using Openstreetmap data."/
The original claim was not about facebook "using" OSM data, it was
that a specific dataset was "derived" from OSM data. To use the cooking
analogy, a cake is derived from flour, oil, sugar, etc.
I suggest that those that want to continue this discussion do so on the
legal-talk mailing list. It’s especially for discussing this level of detail of
license questions.https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/
You all are free to ignore my suggestion, it’s not made with any
On 19-11-15 12:38, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Because the basis of most comments made does not seem to be the desire
> to neutrally assess the situation Rory presents here and its
> implications. This would usually go by considering what if Rory is
> right and data productions like this would
On Friday 15 November 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> > From an engineering perspective the idea that adding OSM data can
> > create a derivative database but subtracting OSM data cannot does
> > not hold up of course. I can create a polygon data set of the
> > Earth surface (a simple
Well it's quite obvious to me that for adding or subtracting you need OSM
data, so I have no doubts. it's like a cook recipe, if you don't have use
it, you won't get the end result without it, adding or subtracting.
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, 11:41 Christoph Hormann, wrote:
>
> This realization (of
I don't know anything about the legal aspects, but logically I don't
understand why it is being claimed that facebook releasing a list of
possible roads, which specifically excludes all roads in
Openstreetmap, is not using Openstreetmap data.
I understand that training their algorithim ("AI") on
Am Fr., 15. Nov. 2019 um 12:41 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann :
> Because the basis of most comments made does not seem to be the desire
> to neutrally assess the situation Rory presents here and its
> implications.
> What it seems instead happens here is that people look at the situation
> and
(Deliberately replying to myself since this is not meant as a reply to
anyone specifically)
If i try for a moment to ignore the fact that this matter has
significant meaning for the OSM community and its social cohesion (the
social contract between mappers and data users etc.) this is
I suggest this is "referencing" and, while it does not mention the word,
is covered in the Legal FAQ
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
I think I originally
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
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
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
> wrote:
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 15. Nov 2019, at 00:19, stevea wrote:
>>
>> But the "ultimate
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"
Yuri, I appreciate your analogies and making the point about "derived." Yes,
we are inspired by architecture we see, if we incorporate a little finial from
a public building in our new roof project, do we owe the architecture money, or
a nod?
There are plenty of examples like this in real
even if we would have a right to be quoted for the absent data, IMHO it would
be silly to pursue the case.
I‘d rather spend the resources on those cases where they are actually using
OpenStreetMap data and not sufficiently attributing it. There’s a lot of cases,
Facebook being one of them.
I
stevea, I would not be exactly the same person without OSM. Does it mean
ODbL applies to me? A hammer was used to build a house, but the house does
not have hammer's copyright. Just because some data was used in the process
does not necessarily mean that whoever saw that data taints everything
While exactly "the data" may not be "in" the derived work, because of the
process of their creation, "their spirit" are in the derived work, as they were
a part of the new data's production. That strongly seems "derived" to me,
whether that "spirit" is inspirational or gives rise to "do
sent from a phone
> On 14. Nov 2019, at 23:25, stevea wrote:
>
> But if you DO use that "OSM over-layer," then please: agree with common
> sense that those work are derived from OSM, even if they do not contain OSM
> data in them. They contain data "helped" by OSM data, so they are
I'm not an attorney, but I do have an opinion. Just because there "is no data
from OSM in the dataset" does not mean they are (or aren't) derived. If OSM
data were used in conjunction with its production, I think an argument can be
made that those work are derived. The question would be:
I would believe it isn’t a derived work, as there is no data from OpenStreetMap
in the dataset.
I agree with Mateusz, if they trained their ai with OpenStreetMap data, you
could take the position that every outcome of their blackbox is
OpenStreetMap-derived, but AFAIK it is a gray area.
Ciao
There seems to be a misunderstanding of the definition of "Derived". In
order for something to be considered derived it needs to contain some
elements from which it was derived. The end product described by
facebook contains no OSM data, therefore it is literally the opposite of
a derived
14 Nov 2019, 22:12 by yuriastrak...@gmail.com:
> Let me get this straight:
>
> * I create a dataset from public data sources, e.g. a list of roads, and
> publish it under the Public Domain dedication (i.e. CC0). (I agree that MIT
> is weird here).
> * Afterwards, I make a subset of my
Let me get this straight:
* I create a dataset from public data sources, e.g. a list of roads, and
publish it under the Public Domain dedication (i.e. CC0). (I agree that
MIT is weird here).
* Afterwards, I make a subset of my original data by removing any roads I
found elsewhere, e.g. in a
On Thursday 14 November 2019, Rory McCann wrote:
>
> That webpage says the data is MIT licenced (_data_ under MIT is odd,
> but whatever). The files are zipfiles with a licence file also saying
> MIT. The description is “Country exports contain only the AI
> predicted roads that are missing from
14 Nov 2019, 21:38 by r...@technomancy.org:
> Facebook provide download dumps of their machine detected roads on a
> country by country basis
IANAL, but as far as i know you are
100% right.
Also, is their road detection powered
by already mapped OSM roads?
In such case it would be ODBL even
Hello all,
Facebook provide download dumps of their machine detected roads on a
country by country basis¹. It's great to see direct access to this data,
allowing us to look at that data without having to use a raw API. Well
done Facebook.
That webpage says the data is MIT licenced (_data_ under
34 matches
Mail list logo
