[OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

ewmjc
I am trying to find a solution that will allow the UMP project in Poland
to continue using OSM data and therefore reciprocally allow OSM to keep
a large amount of data that went into making the initial road map of
Poland and which is still there.  The UMP project collects road routes
within Poland and makes routable maps for Garmin devices publishes its
data under CC-BY-SA.  I hope that they will consider ODbL in the future,
but that is their choice and I am sure that they will want to see how we
fare first.

 From what I understand of how UMP uses OSM data, (which may not be 100%
right yet), I have made the following draft statement. May I ask you:

- as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make such a
statement?

- is it true?

- can you see any negative consequences?


"The OSMF acknowledges the kind help of UMP project and its members in
creating the OSM map of Poland. The OSMF acknowledges that the UMP
project is similar in spirit; providing geodata that is free and open.
Provided that UMP continues to publish its data under a free and open
license, the OSMF is happy to allow UMP to use OSM data for verifying
road routes within Poland.  UMP may also provide a layer of non-highway
data made from OSM data or OSM map-tiles within its Garmin maps; the
OSMF believes that this is allowed by the basic ODbL license and that no
special permission is required." (DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY!)

The key line for me is "the OSMF is happy to allow UMP to use OSM data
for verifying road routes within Poland" ... this is probably granting
permission for something not completely within the ODbL.

Mike

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Ed Avis
Legally there's no downside for granting extra permissions.  They are
additive on top of whatever licence is used and don't damage anyone
else's use of the data.  However, it is not in the spirit of the
community terms for OSMF to grant exemptions or extra permissions -
particularly not if they are specific to one user, which looks like
favouritism.

So I suggest, firstly, any extra permission granted should be to
everyone on equal terms or not at all; and secondly, if you believe
that the permission notice is necessary as an addition to the ODbL
(rather than just a clarification of what is already the legal
situation) then its text needs to be approved by the OSMF board and a
2/3 vote of active contributors.

--
Ed Avis <[hidden email]>



_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by ewmjc
Hi,

On 03/06/12 10:55, Michael Collinson wrote:
> "The OSMF acknowledges the kind help of UMP project and its members in
> creating the OSM map of Poland. The OSMF acknowledges that the UMP
> project is similar in spirit; providing geodata that is free and open.
> Provided that UMP continues to publish its data under a free and open
> license, the OSMF is happy to allow UMP to use OSM data for verifying
> road routes within Poland.

I don't think there is a process for granting special permissions to
anyone; this could only work through a license change (where the new
license is "basically ODbL for everyone but for UMP the following extras
are established...").

The only way I can see this fly is for OSMF to publish their
interpretation of ODbL that allows whatever UMP want to do.

Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data
(in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy
our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not
create a "derived database". (The database that contains the results of
the analysis might be derived and have to released.)

> UMP may also provide a layer of non-highway
> data made from OSM data or OSM map-tiles within its Garmin maps; the
> OSMF believes that this is allowed by the basic ODbL license and that no
> special permission is required."

Are Garmin maps databases or produced works? If they are databases then
UMP would have to make sure that the ODbL licensed OSM layer is
accessible separately and would have to make users aware that it is
ODbL. If they are produced works, then UMP would have to make the
derived non-highway database available under ODbL. If UMP were not
willing or able to do that, and OSMF were intent on removing this burden
from UMP, then OSMF could offer to publish a derived non-highway
database themselves, which would lead to UMP only having to point to
that database and say "there's our source and it's ODbL".

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Ed Avis
Is there a way to provide what UMP want by making a Produced Work (which could be
public domain or CC) rather than a Derived Database?

--
Ed Avis <[hidden email]>


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by ewmjc
Michael Collinson wrote:
> - as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make
> such a statement?
> - is it true?
> - can you see any negative consequences?

I'm with Ed and Frederik on this one, I'm afraid - I don't see any way in which we can afford additional permissions on a one-off basis under ODbL+current CTs; nor do I think that we should do so except universally (i.e. to everyone, worldwide, not just to one project in one country).

The question raised by Frederik is whether "verifying their data against OSM data" creates a derived work. As ever, ask in a different jurisdiction, get a different answer, but there is at least one case that suggests that it may (Singapore maybe?).

If we were to say "we don't think verifying data creates a derived work", would the great mass of OSM mappers be content to see Google (for example) use our effort to determine where new streets are; send the StreetView cars/satellites out; and have the new streets on Google Maps within a couple of days? I'm sure they wouldn't - indeed, I suspect many of those who've signed the CTs would feel cheated if they were told that it would permit this.

So... sorry, but no, I don't think it'll work. :(

cheers
Richard

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

ewmjc
In reply to this post by Ed Avis
On 06/03/2012 15:34, Ed Avis wrote:
Is there a way to provide what UMP want by making a Produced Work (which could be
public domain or CC) rather than a Derived Database?

  
UMP only collect "road routes". With the caveat that I probably still do not understand *exactly* the intended use, (if anyone knowledgeable wants to jump in, please do), I think the issue breaks into two parts. 

The first issue is to augment their Garmin map. So, yes, it is very likely they could use our data as an independent Produced Work layer. 

The second issue is that they are very reasonably asking reciprocity - if OSM can continue to use UMP road data, so UMP should be able to use OSM road data.  And that is the difficult one.  I was hoping to work with defining what "use" actually meant.  It is possible that UMP would never actually want to copy in an OSM road or any details about it into the UMP project database.  They just want to be able to compare the road networks, see if there is anything missing or potentially anomalous and go out and independently map it. Frederik puts it well:

"Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data (in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not create a "derived database". (The database that contains the results of the analysis might be derived and have to released.) "

However, if I were in UMP, I would want to be cautious and seek clarification from OSMF.  Which is what I am seeking to give.  Doing it specifically for another free and open project with known goals seems safe, doing it for anyone- as Ed, Frederick and Richard are reasonably suggesting - seems dangerous without very carefully defining what "verifying" could mean, and more importantly, what it does not mean.  If we do not find a resolution, it will be a great shame for both projects.

Stumped,
Mike



_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
Hi,

On 03/06/2012 02:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data
> (in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy
> our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not
> create a "derived database". (The database that contains the results of
> the analysis might be derived and have to released.)

Oops. Tripped over my own negative here. I wanted to say: As long as
they just compare stuff and verify, I think it's ok and they won't be
affected by viral ODbL-ness.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

dieterdreist
Am 6. März 2012 17:52 schrieb Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]>:

> On 03/06/2012 02:36 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Personally, I don't think that *verifying* their data against OSM data
>> (in the sense of flagging potential problems, as long as they don't copy
>> our data outright) would be a valid use of our data that would not
>> create a "derived database". (The database that contains the results of
>> the analysis might be derived and have to released.)
>
>
> Oops. Tripped over my own negative here. I wanted to say: As long as they
> just compare stuff and verify, I think it's ok and they won't be affected by
> viral ODbL-ness.


Really? So also this sentence was not intended and you mean the
opposite: "(The database that contains the results of
the analysis might be derived and have to released.)"? Isn't this a
kind of merge: "just compare and verify" (above there was also
"flagging")?

cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Erik Johansson-2
In reply to this post by ewmjc
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:55, Michael Collinson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> - as an OSM community member, are you happy for the OSMF to make such a
> statement?

I think OSMF should give UMP concession to use OSM data in their maps
of Poland with their current license, like this:

"The OSMF acknowledges the kind help of UMP project and its members in
creating the OSM map of Poland. The OSMF acknowledges that the UMP
project is similar in spirit; providing geodata that is free and open.
Provided that UMP continues to publish its data under CC-BY-SA"

I only see "negative consequences" with saying anything more than that.

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Ed Avis
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst
Richard Fairhurst <richard@...> writes:

>If we were to say "we don't think verifying data creates a derived work",
>would the great mass of OSM mappers be content to see Google (for example)
>use our effort to determine where new streets are; send the StreetView
>cars/satellites out; and have the new streets on Google Maps within a couple
>of days?

More to the point, would OSMF be happy for mappers to do the reverse operation,
using Google Maps as a guide to where to go out and resurvey?

If OSMF makes a statement that verifying data doesn't create a derived work, it
must do so only on the basis of justifiable legal opinions, which are publicly
reviewable.  Anything else would not be a statement of belief about the law, but
a special exemption or extra permission outside the normal licence, which cannot
be done without a 2/3 vote.

If OSMF does decide, after careful consideration of the legal evidence, that
verifying data does not create a derived work under copyright or related rights,
then a necessary consequence is that OSM mappers will be able to make use of
other maps to verify their work, just as UMP will be able to use OSM.

All this goes away if the OSM map continues to be published under CC-BY-SA in
parallel with ODbL.

--
Ed Avis <[hidden email]>


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

jaakkoh
Umh. Of course other (as in any) maps can be used for _some_ level of "verification" (such as: oh, there seems to b a rd here! I should go out and survey that!) -- Or should I rather say navigation to help in one's own surveying.

I'd be very very surprised if let's say any new company in the maps business doing their survey of roads would not be doing it "based on" other providers maps. They'd send out cars with GPSs to just randomly drive around the country?? Unlikely.

Rather, they'd buy a Garmin/TomTom/WhatNot and drive all the roads on that, make their own notes of the road classifications, etc details, and build their map data based on that.

It's only(?) crowd-sourced community-created maps like OSM, Waze, etc that have (some) patience in building their map road by road (and even these do imports -- and keep eyes open when looking at other maps).

Perhaps we're going into nitty-gritty over the term verification, here?

Cheers from Haiti,
-Jaakko

Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel
--
Mobile: +509-37-26 91 54, Skype/GoogleTalk: jhelleranta

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Avis <[hidden email]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:40:41
To: <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
        <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Richard Fairhurst <richard@...> writes:

>If we were to say "we don't think verifying data creates a derived work",
>would the great mass of OSM mappers be content to see Google (for example)
>use our effort to determine where new streets are; send the StreetView
>cars/satellites out; and have the new streets on Google Maps within a couple
>of days?

More to the point, would OSMF be happy for mappers to do the reverse operation,
using Google Maps as a guide to where to go out and resurvey?

If OSMF makes a statement that verifying data doesn't create a derived work, it
must do so only on the basis of justifiable legal opinions, which are publicly
reviewable.  Anything else would not be a statement of belief about the law, but
a special exemption or extra permission outside the normal licence, which cannot
be done without a 2/3 vote.

If OSMF does decide, after careful consideration of the legal evidence, that
verifying data does not create a derived work under copyright or related rights,
then a necessary consequence is that OSM mappers will be able to make use of
other maps to verify their work, just as UMP will be able to use OSM.

All this goes away if the OSM map continues to be published under CC-BY-SA in
parallel with ODbL.

--
Ed Avis <[hidden email]>


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Kai Krueger
jaakkoh wrote
Umh. Of course other (as in any) maps can be used for _some_ level of "verification" (such as: oh, there seems to b a rd here! I should go out and survey that!) -- Or should I rather say navigation to help in one's own surveying.
Furthermore, we are currently doing that on a large scale with our own data. We are using CC-BY-SA data to verify where we need to re-survey to create an ODbL database. There are even a whole bunch of great tools that make this as easy and systematic as possible. So I presume that form of verification is legal and is not covered by the share alike clause of the license.

jaakkoh wrote
Perhaps we're going into nitty-gritty over the term verification, here?
Well, perhaps we do need to actually define the term much better to be able to judge if that is a violation of copyright / the license. If their definition of verification e.g does not go beyond the definition of verification of CC-BY-SA / ODbL data, which has thus presumably been deemed acceptable, then it wouldn't be an extra grant (which wouldn't really be possible) but simply a clarification as various of the other community guidelines that have been defined. If in turn this would lead to UMP accepting to allow to keep their data, that would be a major win for all!

Kai
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Erik Johansson-2
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 05:43, Kai Krueger <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> jaakkoh wrote
>>
>> Umh. Of course other (as in any) maps can be used for _some_ level of
>> "verification" (such as: oh, there seems to b a rd here! I should go out
>> and survey that!) -- Or should I rather say navigation to help in one's
>> own surveying.
>>
> Furthermore, we are currently doing that on a large scale with our own data.
> We are using CC-BY-SA data to verify where we need to re-survey to create an
> ODbL database.

No the data that is entered and remove is still CC-BY-SA, and any
automatic product is still CC-BY-SA.

I still say you are all making it more complicated than it should be.
Just give UMP the data, since they are using CC-BY-SA they can't do
anything evil with it anyways.

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Ian Sergeant-2
If we need a change to the licence wording to allow Poland to keep their data, lets put a few words a the end of the licence to allow Poland to do just that, and put it to vote as required in the contributor terms.

Didn't we adopt the contributor terms just so we have just this flexibility?

I think a single line at the end of the licence, say "For the avoidance of any doubt, data within the boundaries of Poland can be used as a data verification tool, provided the data being verified is being released under a free and open licence."

I can't see who would have a problem with this.  And if we lose a vote, then so be it.  Better to have tried and failed, then toss the data without having tried.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Ed Avis
In reply to this post by Kai Krueger
Kai Krueger <kakrueger@...> writes:

>We are using CC-BY-SA data to verify where we need to re-survey to create an
>ODbL database. There are even a whole bunch of great tools that make this as
>easy and systematic as possible. So I presume that form of verification is
>legal and is not covered by the share alike clause of the license.

That's a big presumption.  I would have expected that remapping would be done as
a strictly 'clean room' operation, without looking at the existing CC-BY-SA data
at all, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

--
Ed Avis <[hidden email]>


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Nick Whitelegg-2

>That's a big presumption.  I would have expected that remapping would be done as
>a strictly 'clean room' operation, without looking at the existing CC-BY-SA data
>at all, but that doesn't seem to be happening.


Isn't not "looking at" existing CC-by-SA data a little OTT? We may as well forget the remapping ever getting done this side of 2020 if so ;-)

That would be even worse than saying that you can't look at a road atlas to work out which roads need to be surveyed!

AFAIK "looking at" existing maps to work out where to survey is perfectly OK, from numerous discussions on this topic in the past.
For example, using road atlases to navigate is ok as long as the actual status of the road is taken from ground observations.


Is anyone seriously going to sue us for looking at our own data to work out where to remap?

Nick


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Nick Whitelegg-2

Sorry, I think I may have misunderstood - I guess you meant "copying tags from existing CC-by-SA data" not "using existing CC-By-SA to work out
where to remap". Apologies for the misunderstanding :-)

Yes, my own practice so far has been to use ground observations (or memory, most of my remapping sp far has been based on 6-month old mapping trips from last summer/autumn) rather than copying tags from  the old CC-SA.

Nick

-----Nick Whitelegg [hidden email] wrote: -----
To: [hidden email]
From: Nick Whitelegg [hidden email]
Date: 09/03/2012 11:50AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data


>That's a big presumption.  I would have expected that remapping would be done as
>a strictly 'clean room' operation, without looking at the existing CC-BY-SA data
>at all, but that doesn't seem to be happening.


Isn't not "looking at" existing CC-by-SA data a little OTT? We may as well forget the remapping ever getting done this side of 2020 if so ;-)

That would be even worse than saying that you can't look at a road atlas to work out which roads need to be surveyed!

AFAIK "looking at" existing maps to work out where to survey is perfectly OK, from numerous discussions on this topic in the past.
For example, using road atlases to navigate is ok as long as the actual status of the road is taken from ground observations.


Is anyone seriously going to sue us for looking at our own data to work out where to remap?

Nick

=_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Rob Myers
In reply to this post by Ian Sergeant-2
On 09/03/12 10:59, Ian Sergeant wrote:
>
> I can't see who would have a problem with this.

Hi. ;-)

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

Ian Sergeant-2
Indeed.

My point is we can discuss it here on legal-talk, and get the opinions of a handful of people are hung up on the legals and the licence change already.   Or we can put it to the vote, and I'm confident in the wider community that we'd get the support of the 75% required to permit Polish OSM data to be used for verification only, and as long as the resulting data is released under a free and open licence.

It is hard for me to imagine an average active mapper who has mapped their local streets, and a POI here and there, would rather see Poland wiped from OSM rather than give another organisation which is also distributing under a free and open licence the use of our data just to verify their own.  Especially when it is probably permitted under our licence anyway, we'd just be confirming that it is okay to avoid doubt.

Ian.

On 10 March 2012 07:36, Rob Myers <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 09/03/12 10:59, Ian Sergeant wrote:
>
> I can't see who would have a problem with this.

Hi. ;-)

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Feedback requested ... OSM Poland data

LM_1
Why not make this rule general (outside Poland) "any data published
under free and open licence (whatever it is) can be verified by OSM
data".
This brings no risk, that anyony "big and evil" (whatever that is)
will use it to overrun OSM...
LM_1

2012/3/9 Ian Sergeant <[hidden email]>:

> Indeed.
>
> My point is we can discuss it here on legal-talk, and get the opinions of a
> handful of people are hung up on the legals and the licence change already.
>   Or we can put it to the vote, and I'm confident in the wider community
> that we'd get the support of the 75% required to permit Polish OSM data to
> be used for verification only, and as long as the resulting data is released
> under a free and open licence.
>
> It is hard for me to imagine an average active mapper who has mapped their
> local streets, and a POI here and there, would rather see Poland wiped from
> OSM rather than give another organisation which is also distributing under a
> free and open licence the use of our data just to verify their own.
> Especially when it is probably permitted under our licence anyway, we'd just
> be confirming that it is okay to avoid doubt.
>
> Ian.
>
>
> On 10 March 2012 07:36, Rob Myers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 09/03/12 10:59, Ian Sergeant wrote:
>> >
>> > I can't see who would have a problem with this.
>>
>> Hi. ;-)
>>
>> - Rob.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
12