Nabble - OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk

Re: Answer the questions!

2009-12-22T10:27:47Z

On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Lulu-Ann <Lulu-Ann@...> wrote:
> the end of voting comes closer and nobody has answered the questions on
> the license use cases page yet.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases

i think i got them all. and the answers mainly came from reading
things which had been discussed elsewhere, and weren't based on any
new input from counsel, so don't take them as legal advice ;-)

cheers,

matt

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Answer the questions!

2009-12-22T02:19:26Z

Hi there,

the end of voting comes closer and nobody has answered the questions on
the license use cases page yet.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases

Thanks for answering before the voting ends.

Lulu-Ann

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-13T15:26:40Z

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Anthony <osm@...> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Anthony <osm@...> wrote:
>> > Okay, so if company C makes derived database and gives it to company D,
>> > then
>> > company D creates tiles with that database, company D has to offer the
>> > database to anyone who receives the tiles, right?
>>
>> yes, if D is a subcontractor of C. otherwise both C and D must offer it.
>
> What constitutes being a subcontractor? Subcontractor as in "work for
> hire"? C has to offer it to whom? I thought C only has to offer the
> database to D.

the wording used in ODbL is "Persons other than You or under Your
control by either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct
their activities (such as contracting with an independent
consultant)."

oops, what i wrote earlier wasn't quite right: C only has to offer the
database to D, and D has to offer it to recipients of tiles. (unless,
of course, C is "publicly using" the database as well.)

> "You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced
> Work..."
>
> So, if Company C makes a derived database, and gives it to Company D, and
> Company D makes a Produced Work, and gives it to Company E, Company C has to
> offer Company E the Derivative Database?

i think at that point company D has to offer the derived database to company E.

>> > Can users decline the offer, in which case I can delete the database?
>> > Can I
>> > give users the option to download the database immediately or to decline
>> > the
>> > offer, so I don't have to keep historical data around indefinitely?
>>
>> it's not necessary to keep historical data. and you don't have to keep
>> dumps around either. the offer is pretty much "if you contact me, i'll
>> give you my database as close as i can to the version you used". if
>> you practically can't keep the dumps, then that's not a problem.
>>
>> if you delete all records of the database, then your only options are
>> to recreate it, or reveal the method used to create it.
>
> So, you kind of didn't answer my question. If I distribute a produced work,
> can I ask the recipient "Do you want the data?", and if they say no, then I
> never have to worry about them coming back and saying "okay, now I want the
> data"?

sorry, i must have misunderstood the question. i think that would be
between you and the recipient.

> I guess if I have to offer even downstream recipients the database, it
> doesn't much matter. That person might say they don't want the data, and
> then give the produced work to a friend, who then calls me on the phone and
> demands the data.

yeah, the following passage might apply:

"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."

which seems to imply that the offer extends to anyone who sees your
produced work. i'm not sure how it extends to derivatives (where
permitted) of your produced work, though...

cheers,

matt

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-13T12:41:59Z

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Anthony <osm@...> wrote:
> Okay, so if company C makes derived database and gives it to company D, then
> company D creates tiles with that database, company D has to offer the
> database to anyone who receives the tiles, right?

yes, if D is a subcontractor of C. otherwise both C and D must offer it.

What constitutes being a subcontractor? Subcontractor as in "work for hire"? C has to offer it to whom? I thought C only has to offer the database to D.

"You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work..."

So, if Company C makes a derived database, and gives it to Company D, and Company D makes a Produced Work, and gives it to Company E, Company C has to offer Company E the Derivative Database?

> Can users decline the offer, in which case I can delete the database? Can I
> give users the option to download the database immediately or to decline the
> offer, so I don't have to keep historical data around indefinitely?

it's not necessary to keep historical data. and you don't have to keep
dumps around either. the offer is pretty much "if you contact me, i'll
give you my database as close as i can to the version you used". if
you practically can't keep the dumps, then that's not a problem.

if you delete all records of the database, then your only options are
to recreate it, or reveal the method used to create it.

So, you kind of didn't answer my question. If I distribute a produced work, can I ask the recipient "Do you want the data?", and if they say no, then I never have to worry about them coming back and saying "okay, now I want the data"?

I guess if I have to offer even downstream recipients the database, it doesn't much matter. That person might say they don't want the data, and then give the produced work to a friend, who then calls me on the phone and demands the data.

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-13T12:01:04Z

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Anthony <osm@...> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Anthony <osm@...> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:37 AM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The example I described above clearly demonstrates that you can't
>> >> differentiate between company A who doesn't use a derived database and
>> >> company B who does.
>> >
>> > What if company C makes a derived database and gives it to company D?
>> > Does
>> > company D have to release the derived database?
>>
>> no. if company D is a subcontractor to company C and no produced works
>> are published. if either company C or D publish produced works from
>> the database, they must make an offer of it. if company D isn't a
>> subcontractor then company C must make an offer of the database.
>
> Okay, so if company C makes derived database and gives it to company D, then
> company D creates tiles with that database, company D has to offer the
> database to anyone who receives the tiles, right?

yes, if D is a subcontractor of C. otherwise both C and D must offer it.

> However, if company D downloads the original database from OSM, then company
> D creates tiles with that database, company D doesn't have to offer the
> database to anyone who receives the tiles, right?

they've almost certainly created a derivative database, for example if
they're using postgis+mapnik, so i'd say they would have to offer that
database.

> Rereading the ODbL, this seems like the most natural way to read it.
>
> Assuming these two points are true, what is considered the original
> database? Anything on the official (planet.openstreetmap.org) download
> site? Only databases which were created by OSMF employees? Only the raw
> on-disk PostgreSQL datastores? Something else?

technically, it's the on-disk postgresql datastore, plus the server
implementation. the planet is a database dump, and loading that into a
database is creating a derivative.

> If I distribute a tile on March 31, 2010, what exactly do I need to offer?
> The exact portion of the database which is used to create this tile? If the
> data later changes, I still need to keep the old version in case someone
> takes me up on my offer, right? Is it enough to keep the full history and
> expect people to look at the timestamps to figure out the state of the
> database at the time of their download?

no. LWG took legal advice on this and it's sufficient to provide the
latest version of the database, or whatever you have which is as close
to the version the user used as possible.

> Can users decline the offer, in which case I can delete the database? Can I
> give users the option to download the database immediately or to decline the
> offer, so I don't have to keep historical data around indefinitely?

it's not necessary to keep historical data. and you don't have to keep
dumps around either. the offer is pretty much "if you contact me, i'll
give you my database as close as i can to the version you used". if
you practically can't keep the dumps, then that's not a problem.

if you delete all records of the database, then your only options are
to recreate it, or reveal the method used to create it.

>> > Do they have to mention
>> > company C?
>>
>> if D produces works, or further distributes the database or a
>> derivative of it then yes.
>
> What if company C gives them permission not to, or if company C asks them
> not to reveal who they are?

attribution is at the company's option, so if company C doesn't want
to be attributed then D can't mention them. the reverse is also true,
if company C wants to be attributed then D can't remove that
attribution notice. of course, neither C or D can remove the
attribution to OSM, as OSM wants to be attributed.

cheers,

matt

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-13T10:27:24Z

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Anthony <osm@...> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:37 AM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
>>
>> The example I described above clearly demonstrates that you can't
>> differentiate between company A who doesn't use a derived database and
>> company B who does.
>
> What if company C makes a derived database and gives it to company D? Does
> company D have to release the derived database?

no. if company D is a subcontractor to company C and no produced works
are published. if either company C or D publish produced works from
the database, they must make an offer of it. if company D isn't a
subcontractor then company C must make an offer of the database.

Okay, so if company C makes derived database and gives it to company D, then company D creates tiles with that database, company D has to offer the database to anyone who receives the tiles, right?

However, if company D downloads the original database from OSM, then company D creates tiles with that database, company D doesn't have to offer the database to anyone who receives the tiles, right?

Rereading the ODbL, this seems like the most natural way to read it.

Assuming these two points are true, what is considered the original database? Anything on the official (planet.openstreetmap.org) download site? Only databases which were created by OSMF employees? Only the raw on-disk PostgreSQL datastores? Something else?

If I distribute a tile on March 31, 2010, what exactly do I need to offer? The exact portion of the database which is used to create this tile? If the data later changes, I still need to keep the old version in case someone takes me up on my offer, right? Is it enough to keep the full history and expect people to look at the timestamps to figure out the state of the database at the time of their download?

Can users decline the offer, in which case I can delete the database? Can I give users the option to download the database immediately or to decline the offer, so I don't have to keep historical data around indefinitely?

> Do they have to mention
> company C?

if D produces works, or further distributes the database or a
derivative of it then yes.

What if company C gives them permission not to, or if company C asks them not to reveal who they are?

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-13T10:08:42Z

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Anthony <osm@...> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:37 AM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
>>
>> The example I described above clearly demonstrates that you can't
>> differentiate between company A who doesn't use a derived database and
>> company B who does.
>
> What if company C makes a derived database and gives it to company D? Does
> company D have to release the derived database?

no. if company D is a subcontractor to company C and no produced works
are published. if either company C or D publish produced works from
the database, they must make an offer of it. if company D isn't a
subcontractor then company C must make an offer of the database.

> Do they have to mention
> company C?

if D produces works, or further distributes the database or a
derivative of it then yes.

cheers,

matt

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-13T07:37:15Z

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:37 AM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:

The example I described above clearly demonstrates that you can't differentiate between company A who doesn't use a derived database and company B who does.

What if company C makes a derived database and gives it to company D? Does company D have to release the derived database? Do they have to mention company C?

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-13T06:06:54Z

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:37 AM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
> It's clearly not the same difficulty. And the point of this is that it's
> going to be almost impossible to detect a derived database in use. You said
> yourself that you'd just assume that anyone processing OSM data would be
> presumed to be using a derived database.

it is the same difficulty. it can be almost impossible to detect
whether someone is using OSM data or not, especially if the output
isn't tiles or extra data has been mixed in.

> The example I described above clearly demonstrates that you can't
> differentiate between company A who doesn't use a derived database and
> company B who does. You counter example, that maps are just as difficult is
> hardly relevant, and incorrect anyway. In most cases you can detect the
> infringment because you would have the evidence in front of you.

my counter example is relevant, as it shows that the situation isn't
really changing; only the terminology is changing. clearly we aren't
going to be able to agree on this, but for the benefit of anyone else
with the stamina to have reached this far down the thread:

1) if a company is publishing produced works, and isn't making an
offer of a database available, you can contact them and ask them
(politely of course) whether they have forgotten to make an offer of
their derived database available.

2) if a company is publishing maps, and you suspect they're derived
from OSM but aren't appropriately attributed or licensed, you can
contact them and ask them (politely of course) whether they have
forgotten to put the appropriate attribution and license on their
maps.

the situation we have at the moment is that most of these situations
are clearly evidenced. with the ODbL i expect that to remain true,
since it's going to be pretty obvious that company X's
routing/geocoding/tiles aren't rendered directly from planet and will
involve a derivative database. furthermore, i expect that in the
future, as currently, most license violations will stem from an
incomplete understanding of the license, or forgetfulness, more than
maliciousness.

> The reality is that the derived database rule is almost unenforceable in the
> way that you describe it. It would be a massive drain on OSMF resources to
> try enforcing such a policy and would certainly be a very strong case for
> many commercial companies to avoid OSM data like the plague.

i don't believe so. have you talked to any commercial companies who
would be more put off by the new license than the old?

cheers,

matt

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T23:37:08Z

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:45 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:

>> are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the "on the
>> ground" rule? ;-)
>
> The two are not mutually exclusive. Ordnance Survey are well known for
> having very accurate maps, they are also known to have easter eggs.

sure. but each easter egg is a deliberate inaccuracy.

>> it isn't a good method of establishing grounds if the data may have
>> been modified by the inclusion of 3rd party data, or processed in a
>> way which would change the visual texture of the data. basically,
>> while sometimes you can be sure there's a derivative database or that
>> data is from OSM, a lot of times you can't be.
>>
> I think you've lost the thread. Now, you are arguing that you can't spot a
> derivative database.

i've been arguing that from the start. not only have i been saying
it's difficult to tell if there's a derivative database, i've been
saying it's the same difficulty as telling if a map is derived from
OSM, or if a binary contains modified GPL code, or if a service is
using modified AGPL code.

It's clearly not the same difficulty. And the point of this is that it's going to be almost impossible to detect a derived database in use. You said yourself that you'd just assume that anyone processing OSM data would be presumed to be using a derived database.

The example I described above clearly demonstrates that you can't differentiate between company A who doesn't use a derived database and company B who does. You counter example, that maps are just as difficult is hardly relevant, and incorrect anyway. In most cases you can detect the infringment because you would have the evidence in front of you.

The reality is that the derived database rule is almost unenforceable in the way that you describe it. It would be a massive drain on OSMF resources to try enforcing such a policy and would certainly be a very strong case for many commercial companies to avoid OSM data like the plague.

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL Enforcement (Re: OBbL and forks)

2009-12-12T18:24:35Z

On 12/12/2009, at 9:15 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> Rather than naming and shaming, the FSF and the SFLC always work quietly
> to get compliance from people who break the GPL. They don't call them
> out in public or drag their asses to court to make an example of them.
> Legal action and the publicity that brings is a last resort. I think
> that's a better balance.

I definitely agree - most GPL violations are done by someone who accidentally did so, because they didn't understand it properly. Quietly talking to them with the presumption of accidental violation is definitely what we'd want to do.

However there might come a time where someone is wilfully violating it, and talking to them doesn't help. I wasn't trying to start a debate about what we would do, with lawyers costing money and all, but what we could do about it.

I was trying to find out whether my logic for the only real option being the Licensor suing for breach contract was correct, whether OSMF could claim to be the licensor if I got it via a third party. Oh, and jurisdictions would be fun with the lack of proper-law (choice of law) clause, for a contract which could span countries. Especially if the site you downloaded it from sent you to different servers based on geo-IP mapping or something

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T17:07:46Z

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:45 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:
>> are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the "on the
>> ground" rule? ;-)
>
> The two are not mutually exclusive. Ordnance Survey are well known for
> having very accurate maps, they are also known to have easter eggs.

sure. but each easter egg is a deliberate inaccuracy.

>> it isn't a good method of establishing grounds if the data may have
>> been modified by the inclusion of 3rd party data, or processed in a
>> way which would change the visual texture of the data. basically,
>> while sometimes you can be sure there's a derivative database or that
>> data is from OSM, a lot of times you can't be.
>>
> I think you've lost the thread. Now, you are arguing that you can't spot a
> derivative database.

i've been arguing that from the start. not only have i been saying
it's difficult to tell if there's a derivative database, i've been
saying it's the same difficulty as telling if a map is derived from
OSM, or if a binary contains modified GPL code, or if a service is
using modified AGPL code.

cheers,

matt

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T15:47:41Z

Hi,

Anthony wrote:
> Where does one draw the line between a "Derivative Database", a
> "Collective Database", and a "Produced Work" anyway?

Part of the answer is, in almost salomonic fashion, here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline

There's also tons of discussions about this on the lists which i suggest
you could read, e.g. start from

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-July/002673.html

Bye
Frederik

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T15:31:33Z

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Anthony <osm@...> wrote:

Where does one draw the line between a "Derivative Database", a "Collective Database", and a "Produced Work" anyway? Can a "Produced Work" also be a "Derivative Database"? If not, which definition overrides the other? An image qualifies under the definition of "Database", does it not?

What about a collection of rendered tiles. That's gotta be a Derivative Database, doesn't it? It's definitely not a Collective Database. The individual tiles are Produced Works, but the collection of tiles is a database.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T15:26:00Z

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik@...> wrote:

I think we have now established that whenever you do something with OSM
data that involves a derivative database, but just to make things
simpler for you and not as an absolutely necessary component, then
nobody can prove that you are using a derivative database, and nobody
has a legal right to challenge you for an explanation - it's your
business secret.

Where does one draw the line between a "Derivative Database", a "Collective Database", and a "Produced Work" anyway? Can a "Produced Work" also be a "Derivative Database"? If not, which definition overrides the other? An image qualifies under the definition of "Database", does it not?

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T15:10:47Z

Hi,

80n wrote:
> I think you've lost the thread. Now, you are arguing that you can't
> spot a derivative database.

My original question was aiming at whether or not there are ways to
weasel yourself out of the requirement release derivative databases or
the algorithms leading to them.

I think we have now established that whenever you do something with OSM
data that involves a derivative database, but just to make things
simpler for you and not as an absolutely necessary component, then
nobody can prove that you are using a derivative database, and nobody
has a legal right to challenge you for an explanation - it's your
business secret.

People can write to you and ask; and if you don't reply (or reply that
you don't use a derivative database) all they can do is sue you for
breach of license and hope that the judicial process finds out the truth.

It is not such a big difference from what we have today. Even with
Easter Eggs and all, I can never prove beyond doubt that someone is
using OSM, I can only collect evidence and then ask a court to clear
things up.

But it is probably easier to collect that type of evidence than to
collect evidence for someone having a secret derived database.

Bye
Frederik

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T14:56:03Z

Hi,

Matt Amos wrote:
> let's assume it's known that this company is definitely using OSM data
> - determining that can be difficult, depending on exactly what it is
> they're doing with the data. in general, it's very difficult to do
> anything directly from the planet file alone, so i'd suspect that any
> company doing anything with OSM data has a derived database of some
> kind and, if there's no offer evident on their site, i'd contact them
> about it.

I think it would be great to have some standardised "declaration form"
that we could point people to. Not something that people are forced to
use, but something they *can* use as an easy way to help them play by
the terms of the license if they want. Something like this:

------------------------------

This site publicly uses data derived from OpenStreetMap.

Description of derived data: .......................................

[ ] We are making the derived data available

[ ] here: .......................
in the following format: .....................
on a regular basis, licensed under the ODbL.
[ ] on request; please contact ..................

[ ] We are making a "diff" file available that allows you to arrie at
the derived data if you have a recent OpenStreetMap database,

[ ] here: ........................
in the following format: .....................
on a regular basis, licensed under the ODbL.
[ ] on request; please contact ..................

[ ] We are providing a machine-readable description of the algorithm
used to arrive at the derived data,

[ ] here: ........................
[ ] on request; please contact ..................

------------------------------

Another idea, again entirely voluntarily, would be to set up a register
of organisations using OpenStreetMap data, where they could create an
account and make the above declarations. If we sell that well, with a
"wizard" kind of user interface that guides them through their
obligations regarding ODbL, then many people would probably use it
because it makes everything simpler for them. The über cool thing about
this is that we'd get a list of OSM-using people for free ;-)

Bye
Frederik

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T14:45:38Z

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:03 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:

>> a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data

>> isn't. you have no grounds for suspicion, but you might have a gut
>> instinct. what do you do?
>>
> If you have no grounds for suspicion then you do nothing.
>
> But checking the Easter Eggs is a pretty good method of establishing grounds
> in your example. That doesn't hold true for the derived databases in my
> scenario.

are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the "on the
ground" rule? ;-)

The two are not mutually exclusive. Ordnance Survey are well known for having very accurate maps, they are also known to have easter eggs.

it isn't a good method of establishing grounds if the data may have
been modified by the inclusion of 3rd party data, or processed in a
way which would change the visual texture of the data. basically,
while sometimes you can be sure there's a derivative database or that
data is from OSM, a lot of times you can't be.

I think you've lost the thread. Now, you are arguing that you can't spot a derivative database.

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T13:20:31Z

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:03 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:
>> a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data
>> isn't. you have no grounds for suspicion, but you might have a gut
>> instinct. what do you do?
>>
> If you have no grounds for suspicion then you do nothing.
>
> But checking the Easter Eggs is a pretty good method of establishing grounds
> in your example. That doesn't hold true for the derived databases in my
> scenario.

are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the "on the
ground" rule? ;-)

it isn't a good method of establishing grounds if the data may have
been modified by the inclusion of 3rd party data, or processed in a
way which would change the visual texture of the data. basically,
while sometimes you can be sure there's a derivative database or that
data is from OSM, a lot of times you can't be.

cheers,

matt

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T13:03:17Z

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:20 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:30 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
>> >> > What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database
>> >> > is
>> >> > involved in the process?
>> >>
>> >> if you suspect that someone is using a derived database, and isn't
>> >> making an offer of it, you are suspecting that they are in breach of
>> >> the ODbL. this can be tested by asking the company and, if they don't
>> >> provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow.
>> >>
>> > Exactly. On what grounds would you suspect that either company was
>> > using a
>> > derived database?
>>
>> by whatever grounds you'd suspect that a company was providing
>> services based on AGPL software, or distributing a binary
>> incorporating GPL software - gut instinct ;-)
>
> In the scenario I described you'd have no grounds for suspicion.

yes. and you'd have no grounds for suspicion if a company were using
modified AGPL software, so you have to rely on gut instinct.

>> let's assume it's known that this company is definitely using OSM data
>> - determining that can be difficult, depending on exactly what it is
>> they're doing with the data. in general, it's very difficult to do
>> anything directly from the planet file alone, so i'd suspect that any
>> company doing anything with OSM data has a derived database of some
>> kind and, if there's no offer evident on their site, i'd contact them
>> about it.
>>
> You're going to do that for every single organisation that publishes some
> kind of OSM data?!! Good luck.

no, i'm going to assume that most organisations and are going to read
the license and abide by it, the same way they'd read and abide by any
other open source/content license.

>> it's a similar situation to looking at a site and thinking they're
>> using OSM data to render a map, without respecting the license. it's
>> entirely possible that they have some other data source, or have
>> collected the data themselves. so it's a gut instinct whether or not
>> you think any of the data has come from OSM and should be followed up.
>
> Not at all. The lack of attribution is self evident. A derived database is
> not at all evident.

company A: publishing a map with no attribution, but it's at least
partly derived from OSM.
company B: publishing a map with no attribution and it's all their own data.

a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data
isn't. you have no grounds for suspicion, but you might have a gut
instinct. what do you do?

If you have no grounds for suspicion then you do nothing.

But checking the Easter Eggs is a pretty good method of establishing grounds in your example. That doesn't hold true for the derived databases in my scenario.

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T12:44:11Z

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:20 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:30 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
>> >> > What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database
>> >> > is
>> >> > involved in the process?
>> >>
>> >> if you suspect that someone is using a derived database, and isn't
>> >> making an offer of it, you are suspecting that they are in breach of
>> >> the ODbL. this can be tested by asking the company and, if they don't
>> >> provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow.
>> >>
>> > Exactly. On what grounds would you suspect that either company was
>> > using a
>> > derived database?
>>
>> by whatever grounds you'd suspect that a company was providing
>> services based on AGPL software, or distributing a binary
>> incorporating GPL software - gut instinct ;-)
>
> In the scenario I described you'd have no grounds for suspicion.

yes. and you'd have no grounds for suspicion if a company were using
modified AGPL software, so you have to rely on gut instinct.

>> let's assume it's known that this company is definitely using OSM data
>> - determining that can be difficult, depending on exactly what it is
>> they're doing with the data. in general, it's very difficult to do
>> anything directly from the planet file alone, so i'd suspect that any
>> company doing anything with OSM data has a derived database of some
>> kind and, if there's no offer evident on their site, i'd contact them
>> about it.
>>
> You're going to do that for every single organisation that publishes some
> kind of OSM data?!! Good luck.

no, i'm going to assume that most organisations and are going to read
the license and abide by it, the same way they'd read and abide by any
other open source/content license.

>> it's a similar situation to looking at a site and thinking they're
>> using OSM data to render a map, without respecting the license. it's
>> entirely possible that they have some other data source, or have
>> collected the data themselves. so it's a gut instinct whether or not
>> you think any of the data has come from OSM and should be followed up.
>
> Not at all. The lack of attribution is self evident. A derived database is
> not at all evident.

company A: publishing a map with no attribution, but it's at least
partly derived from OSM.
company B: publishing a map with no attribution and it's all their own data.

a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data
isn't. you have no grounds for suspicion, but you might have a gut
instinct. what do you do?

cheers,

matt

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T12:20:27Z

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:30 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:

>> > What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database is
>> > involved in the process?
>>
>> if you suspect that someone is using a derived database, and isn't
>> making an offer of it, you are suspecting that they are in breach of
>> the ODbL. this can be tested by asking the company and, if they don't
>> provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow.
>>
> Exactly. On what grounds would you suspect that either company was using a
> derived database?

by whatever grounds you'd suspect that a company was providing
services based on AGPL software, or distributing a binary
incorporating GPL software - gut instinct ;-)

In the scenario I described you'd have no grounds for suspicion.

let's assume it's known that this company is definitely using OSM data
- determining that can be difficult, depending on exactly what it is
they're doing with the data. in general, it's very difficult to do
anything directly from the planet file alone, so i'd suspect that any
company doing anything with OSM data has a derived database of some
kind and, if there's no offer evident on their site, i'd contact them
about it.

You're going to do that for every single organisation that publishes some kind of OSM data?!! Good luck.

it's a similar situation to looking at a site and thinking they're
using OSM data to render a map, without respecting the license. it's
entirely possible that they have some other data source, or have
collected the data themselves. so it's a gut instinct whether or not
you think any of the data has come from OSM and should be followed up.

Not at all. The lack of attribution is self evident. A derived database is not at all evident.

cheers,

matt

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T12:09:46Z

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:30 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
>> > What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database is
>> > involved in the process?
>>
>> if you suspect that someone is using a derived database, and isn't
>> making an offer of it, you are suspecting that they are in breach of
>> the ODbL. this can be tested by asking the company and, if they don't
>> provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow.
>>
> Exactly. On what grounds would you suspect that either company was using a
> derived database?

by whatever grounds you'd suspect that a company was providing
services based on AGPL software, or distributing a binary
incorporating GPL software - gut instinct ;-)

let's assume it's known that this company is definitely using OSM data
- determining that can be difficult, depending on exactly what it is
they're doing with the data. in general, it's very difficult to do
anything directly from the planet file alone, so i'd suspect that any
company doing anything with OSM data has a derived database of some
kind and, if there's no offer evident on their site, i'd contact them
about it.

it's a similar situation to looking at a site and thinking they're
using OSM data to render a map, without respecting the license. it's
entirely possible that they have some other data source, or have
collected the data themselves. so it's a gut instinct whether or not
you think any of the data has come from OSM and should be followed up.

cheers,

matt

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T10:30:21Z

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth@...> wrote:

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
> On what basis can you demand from company B that they release their
> intermediate database? You don't know (for sure) that they have an
> intermediate database. The ODbL doesn't give you any rights to ask company
> A to warrant that they are not using an intermediate database.

company B is required, under the ODbL, to provide an offer of their
derived database (or a diff, etc...).

> What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database is
> involved in the process?

if you suspect that someone is using a derived database, and isn't
making an offer of it, you are suspecting that they are in breach of
the ODbL. this can be tested by asking the company and, if they don't
provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow.

Exactly. On what grounds would you suspect that either company was using a derived database?

this is similar to the AGPL. if you suspected that someone was
distributing or allowing "users [to] interact[...] remotely through a
computer network" with a derivative version of AGPL'd code, you could
ask them where the corresponding offer is and, if they don't provide a
satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow.

cheers,

matt

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T08:13:15Z

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n <80n80n@...> wrote:
> On what basis can you demand from company B that they release their
> intermediate database? You don't know (for sure) that they have an
> intermediate database. The ODbL doesn't give you any rights to ask company
> A to warrant that they are not using an intermediate database.

company B is required, under the ODbL, to provide an offer of their
derived database (or a diff, etc...).

> What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database is
> involved in the process?

if you suspect that someone is using a derived database, and isn't
making an offer of it, you are suspecting that they are in breach of
the ODbL. this can be tested by asking the company and, if they don't
provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow.

this is similar to the AGPL. if you suspected that someone was
distributing or allowing "users [to] interact[...] remotely through a
computer network" with a derivative version of AGPL'd code, you could
ask them where the corresponding offer is and, if they don't provide a
satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow.

cheers,

matt

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T07:58:39Z

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik@...> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> OdbL has this requirement where, if you publish a produced work
> based on a derived database, you also have to publish either
>
> (a) the derived database or
> (b) a "diff" allowing someone to arrive at the derived database if he
> has the original, publicly available database or
> (c) an algorithm that does the same.
>
> Is that correct so far?

you don't have to publish any of these. the language used is that you
have to "offer" these things, which means you don't have to be able to
host these things. for example, sending a DVD through the post is in
compliance with the license.

also, these things have to be "in a machine readable form".

> I guess it would probably permitted to specify a number of PostGIS
> commands that achieve the changes. - Let us assume for a moment that
> applying these PostGIS commands would require a machine with 192 GB of
> RAM and Quad Quadcore processors and still take two weeks to complete,
> putting it out of reach of many users. Would it still be permitted to do
> that?

yes.

> Or, would it be allowable to say: "For simplification, a Douglas-Peucker
> algorithm <link to DP wikipedia entry> is used." (leaving open the exact
> implementation and parametrisation of DP - bear in mind that with some
> algorithms, how they work is easily explained but implementing them in a
> way that runs on standard hardware may be a hard task).

no, i don't believe this would constitute "machine readable form".

> Or, would it be allowed to say: "For simplification, just load the data
> set into <name of horribly expensive proprietary ESRI program> and hit
> Ctrl-S X Y, then choose Export to PostGIS"?

i think this would constitute "technological measures" of restriction,
so i think you'd need to provide a parallel distribution of the full
unrestricted output.

> What about: "For simplification, we did the following steps: <detailed
> instructions that are easy to follow>. These steps in this sequence are
> patented by us, so if you want to follow them, please apply to us for a
> license to use our patent."

again, i think this would constitute "technological measures", and
would require a parallel unrestricted distribution.

cheers,

matt

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T07:43:57Z

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik@...> wrote:

Hi,

OdbL has this requirement where, if you publish a produced work
based on a derived database, you also have to publish either

(a) the derived database or
(b) a "diff" allowing someone to arrive at the derived database if he
has the original, publicly available database or
(c) an algorithm that does the same.

Is that correct so far?

I don't think it's quite as simple as that.

Suppose, considering your WMS example, two separate companies provide identical services:

A) The first service uses massive processor power to analyse a raw planet dump and provides the output directly. Perhaps a larger company such as Google might take this approach.

B) The second uses some algorithms and optimisations that involve creating a derived database, but results in exactly the same output as service A. Perhaps, a smaller company such as Geofabrik might take this approach.

Let's assume that neither company voluntarily publishes any information about their methods.

On what basis can you demand from company B that they release their intermediate database? You don't know (for sure) that they have an intermediate database. The ODbL doesn't give you any rights to ask company A to warrant that they are not using an intermediate database.

What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database is involved in the process?

80n

To use a simple example, let's say I build a WMS that works with OSM
data. To make this perform well at low zooms, I have to combine ways
into longer bits and simplify their geometry. The result is clearly a
derived database that falls under the above, and in practice I would
probably choose the "a" route and simply make a weekly PostGIS dump
available for download and be done with it.

However, I wonder about the permitted ways of doing (c).

I guess it would probably permitted to specify a number of PostGIS
commands that achieve the changes. - Let us assume for a moment that
applying these PostGIS commands would require a machine with 192 GB of
RAM and Quad Quadcore processors and still take two weeks to complete,
putting it out of reach of many users. Would it still be permitted to do
that?

Or, would it be allowable to say: "For simplification, a Douglas-Peucker
algorithm <link to DP wikipedia entry> is used." (leaving open the exact
implementation and parametrisation of DP - bear in mind that with some
algorithms, how they work is easily explained but implementing them in a
way that runs on standard hardware may be a hard task).

Or, would it be allowed to say: "For simplification, just load the data
set into <name of horribly expensive proprietary ESRI program> and hit
Ctrl-S X Y, then choose Export to PostGIS"?

What about: "For simplification, we did the following steps: <detailed
instructions that are easy to follow>. These steps in this sequence are
patented by us, so if you want to follow them, please apply to us for a
license to use our patent."

Bye
Frederik

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL Enforcement (Re: OBbL and forks)

2009-12-12T05:19:36Z

On 12/12/09 12:27, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Agreed, although this of course requires determined and capable people
> to do the work. If there are such people in OSM who do that voluntarily
> then that's good. If there are no such people then I would object to
> spending money to hire them from outside the project.

Apart from anything else it's very hard to find people who are used to
alternative licence law, so I understand this objection. :-)

That said, would you object to using a nonprofit resource like the
Software Freedom Law Centre, where it doesn't take too much from OSM's
time and money and the people involved hopefully understand where OSM is
coming from?

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

signature.asc (269 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: OBbL and forks

2009-12-12T04:48:11Z

Hi,

2009/12/12 James Livingston <doctau@...>:
> One of the claimed problems with CC-BY-SA was that users were worried that they could be sued by any contributor for copyright infringement.
>
> Aside from any "can the data have copyright rights" questions, if OSMF was to claim some copyright in the data then they're basically implying that other contributors do too, and anyone of us could sue users. Which I don't think is what they want.
>

I'm not sure if this was so bad, in the end this is like in most
opensource projects (those that don't require copyright assignment).
Of course contributions in OSM may be easier to make than code
contributions, but a project like Linux still has more contributors
(subjects owning copyright) than we have. And those contributors have
been successfully suing those who broke the rules, e.g. Harald Welte
and his gpl-violations.org, without help from Linux Foundation.

>
>> Out of curiosity, could the license at all work if contributors didn't
>> have to assign copyright *nor* database rights? Apart from the fact
>> that updating the license would require a new vote (or licensing under
>> ODbL v1+, similar to GPLv2+), but could that be done?
>
> As I understand it, contributors don't have to (and aren't being asked to) assign either of those rights in the "exclusive transfer" sense. We're giving OSMF non-exclusive permission to distribute our contributions under ODbL (and future licenses, etc.).

What if we didn't give it any special rights and be on par with
potential forks? Maybe the February license change should try to do
one change at a time and people would be more happy to accept those
changes? (I probably would be more happy, it would also be easier for
me to convince the people whose CC-by-SA data I have imported, to
agree to ODbL too)

Cheers

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

2009-12-12T04:07:24Z

Hi,

OdbL has this requirement where, if you publish a produced work
based on a derived database, you also have to publish either

(a) the derived database or
(b) a "diff" allowing someone to arrive at the derived database if he
has the original, publicly available database or
(c) an algorithm that does the same.

Is that correct so far?

To use a simple example, let's say I build a WMS that works with OSM
data. To make this perform well at low zooms, I have to combine ways
into longer bits and simplify their geometry. The result is clearly a
derived database that falls under the above, and in practice I would
probably choose the "a" route and simply make a weekly PostGIS dump
available for download and be done with it.

However, I wonder about the permitted ways of doing (c).

I guess it would probably permitted to specify a number of PostGIS
commands that achieve the changes. - Let us assume for a moment that
applying these PostGIS commands would require a machine with 192 GB of
RAM and Quad Quadcore processors and still take two weeks to complete,
putting it out of reach of many users. Would it still be permitted to do
that?

Or, would it be allowable to say: "For simplification, a Douglas-Peucker
algorithm <link to DP wikipedia entry> is used." (leaving open the exact
implementation and parametrisation of DP - bear in mind that with some
algorithms, how they work is easily explained but implementing them in a
way that runs on standard hardware may be a hard task).

Or, would it be allowed to say: "For simplification, just load the data
set into <name of horribly expensive proprietary ESRI program> and hit
Ctrl-S X Y, then choose Export to PostGIS"?

What about: "For simplification, we did the following steps: <detailed
instructions that are easy to follow>. These steps in this sequence are
patented by us, so if you want to follow them, please apply to us for a
license to use our patent."

Bye
Frederik

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL Enforcement (Re: OBbL and forks)

2009-12-12T03:27:26Z

Hi,

Rob Myers wrote:
> Rather than naming and shaming, the FSF and the SFLC always work quietly
> to get compliance from people who break the GPL. They don't call them
> out in public or drag their asses to court to make an example of them.
> Legal action and the publicity that brings is a last resort. I think
> that's a better balance.

Agreed, although this of course requires determined and capable people
to do the work. If there are such people in OSM who do that voluntarily
then that's good. If there are no such people then I would object to
spending money to hire them from outside the project.

Bye
Frederik

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: ODbL Enforcement (Re: OBbL and forks)

2009-12-12T03:15:37Z

On 12/12/09 11:49, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> but even with ODbL in place and considering the best interests of the
> project as a whole, for me it would be perfectly sufficient to be able
> to say publicly that X is using OSM illegally.

Rather than naming and shaming, the FSF and the SFLC always work quietly
to get compliance from people who break the GPL. They don't call them
out in public or drag their asses to court to make an example of them.
Legal action and the publicity that brings is a last resort. I think
that's a better balance.

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

signature.asc (269 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: ODbL Enforcement (Re: OBbL and forks)

2009-12-12T02:49:25Z

Hi,

James Livingston wrote:
> Which brings us on to enforcement - at some point a user is going to use
> ODbL licensed data, not comply with the licence, and not respond to
> asking nicely. Who is going to sue them to enforce the ODbL and for
> what?

I am certainly not going to sue anybody. I consider my data PD anyway,
but even with ODbL in place and considering the best interests of the
project as a whole, for me it would be perfectly sufficient to be able
to say publicly that X is using OSM illegally. I would definitely oppose
any allocation of funds or effort to chase violators over and above that.

Bye
Frederik

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: OBbL and forks

2009-12-11T23:04:26Z

On 08/12/09 15:14, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> Right, so this is one thing that isn't being made so clear. It's been
> said multiple times that the ODbL transition in summary is the spirit
> of CC-By-SA taken and made into a proper license for a database. But
> actually it's the spirit of CC-By-SA + copyright assignment, like that
> of Mozilla and others, which makes a difference.

Correction: Mozilla does not require copyright assignment. (However,
your point is correct.)

Gerv

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: OBbL and forks

2009-12-11T23:03:04Z

On 09/12/09 09:48, Ed Avis wrote:
> A related question is that if a fork happened, could it then be merged back
> into the main OSM project?

Just like any other ODbL contribution, this could only be done if the
contributors signed the Contributor Terms, or the OSMF agreed to waive
the signing of them.

Gerv

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk