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 <yuriastrak...@gmail.com> 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 <stevea...@softworkers.com> 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 <stevea...@softworkers.com> 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 > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
