Hi Michael,<div><br></div><div>For my part, I really like your proposed wording and I hope we'll reach consensus on these issues in a way that satisfies both "producers" and "consumers" of OSM data. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Igor</div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Michael Collinson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@ayeltd.biz" target="_blank">mike@ayeltd.biz</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Igor and fellow legal-talk,<br>
<br>
A rather long email, so summary: I am rather hijacking Igor's email,
but I hope it will help provide an answer though not immediately. The
present "Trivial Transformation" Community Guideline, [1], is applying
tactics and discussion without having any overriding strategy or
conclusion. It is therefore confusing and difficult to develop further
as is. I propose that we base a re-write on: <b>OpenStreetMap
considers </b><b>Open Data to be a usefully collected set of
intelligently or machine-made physical observations only. Purely
algorithmic augmentation of data and re-casting of data to use, store
or transmit it in different manners is not part of the data IP. Share
Alike may however apply to physical observations inside the augmented
or re-cast data; in this case the physical observations must be
provided to the public in a commonly used or documented open format as
per ODbL clause 4.6b</b>. The wording might be improved, but that is
the general idea. If follows the general direction of discussion
within the License Working Group but takes it to a more extreme, but I
think logical, conclusion. Argument follows using Igor's posting.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
> I've read it carefully and it doesn't really answer my questions,
it just raises some new ones.<br>
<br></div>
I rather feared that.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
> <b>is there a place for proprietary/closed source software in OSM
ecosystem</b>? <br>
<br></div>
Yes, that is a key question. I will argue below that yes there
absolutely is a place. However, this is not necessarily a consensus
view and it is presented for discussion.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
> I see some serious issues with the way how we approach the whole
ODbL thing.<br>
<br></div>
I do not think the issue is ODbL. The issue is the application of Share
Alike to open data under whatever license. ODbL 1.0 has made a
tremendous leap forward here. But it is like climbing a mountain. You
need to climb the first ridge to start understanding what the rest of
the climb looks like. I understand this causes issues for commercial
companies, but our primary concern is growing open geodata and *very
carefully* evolving open data IP to lower barriers on everyone using it
in "creative, productive, or unexpected ways". <br>
<br>
To properly answer Igor, we need to do two things:<br>
<br>
1) Establish a general principle that the OSM community is happy with.<br>
<br>
2) Determine whether the general principle can be translated into
unambiguous wording without gotchas and whether it jives with specific
issues, for example as per Frederik's email. It should be presented as
a well-written Community Guide line. Once really understood, we can
then look at whether ODbL can be improved and give input for other open
licenses, such as CC.<br>
<br>
Here is what I, personally, see as the general principle and the
argument for it. <br>
<br>
OSM, and possibly any open data project, is about collecting a set of
physical observations and making them open in an open format. <br>
<br>
Additionally, (and not used by other projects, like US government
data), we want to apply a certain amount of pressure on folks who take
advantage of the results to open up and share more physical
observations of their own. For that we use Share Alike. Some like this,
some don't. But it is what we do. It has some great advantages for
commercial entities; it has some headaches.<br>
<br>
The key words here are "physical observations".<br>
<br>
Messing around with fancy algorithms and neat ways to store data
efficiently provides no added value to the data itself. It does not
generate more observations. It may provide more interesting information
or knowledge, but that is a creative process unrelated to the data
itself. [This is the contentious bit, counter comments welcome].<br>
<br>
It is a somewhat weak software IP analogy, but if Igor writes an
amazing book using vanilla Libre Office, then what he does with the
book is irrelevant to Libre Office licensing. He has not done anything
to improve Libre Office.<br>
<br>
The major exception to this is if Igor has somewhere along the line
added some more physical observations. Share Alike may apply to these
and proprietary transformation or storage mechanism may block access.
The obvious solution is to make available the physical observations,
just the observations, in an open format, such as OSM XML.<br>
<br>
And so hence the first attempt at creating clear, unambiguous wording
with no side-effects:<br>
<br>
"<b>OpenStreetMap considers Open Data to be a usefully collected set of
intelligently
or machine-made physical observations only. Purely algorithmic
augmentation of data and re-casting of data to use, store or transmit
it in different manners is not part of the data IP. Share Alike may
however apply to physical observations inside the augmented or re-cast
data; in
this case the physical observations must be provided to the public in a
commonly used or documented open format as per ODbL clause 4.6b </b>."<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline</a><div><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
On 29/10/2012 18:07, Igor Brejc wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Michael,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>First of all, thanks for the link. I've read it carefully and it
doesn't really answer my questions, it just raises some new ones. Those
guidelines, as they are written, treat the issue of proprietary/closed
source code very superficially and without considering too much the
practical consequences. They also don't really answer the question
"what is a Database". Let's take, for example, the statement "Rendering
databases, for example those produced by Osm2pgsql, are clearly
databases". First of all, what are "rendering databases"? I don't share
the same "clearliness" of that statement, frankly.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Another issue is "machine-readable form" of an algorithm. Who
says I should interpret that as a source code? And if I do, under what
license can/should/must I release the source code? I'm certainly not
going to release my work under the Public Domain.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think the core issue that needs to be addressed and answered
is: <b>is there a place for proprietary/closed source software in OSM
ecosystem</b>? If we follow the "strict reading" logic of the mentioned
guideliness and the one expressed in Frederik's answer, I would
certainly have to say the answer is NO. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I see some serious issues with the way how we approach the whole
ODbL thing. As someone who has invested a lot of time and energy into
OSM and who is trying to find a business model that would enable me to
stay in the OSM domain, I think the core questions about ODbL have not
been answered and this scares people/companies off. If the OSM
community wants all the OSM-based software to be open source, then
please say so. But please treat all the players the same: Apple, esri,
Google and one-man-band companies.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div>Igor<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Michael
Collinson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@ayeltd.biz" target="_blank">mike@ayeltd.biz</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Igor,<br>
<br>
I wonder if this resource helps with your question?<br>
<br>
<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline</a>
(a work in progress)<br>
<br>
Mike
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
On 22/10/2012 18:45, Igor Brejc wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">Hi,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for your clarifications, everybody. I was under the
(looks like wrong) impression the produced work must also be available
under the ODbL license.</div>
<div>One issue still bugs me though:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:12.8px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">If
the
closed software you have used did not work on the data directly,
but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would
be the data you have to hand over.</span></blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What does "pre-processed or augmented" data really mean? OSM
data has to be preprocessed to get to the form suitable for rendering.
Some examples of preprocessing:</div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Importing it into PostGIS and flattening the geometries
(like
Mapnik does it).</li>
<li>Generalizations: simplifications of roads, polygons etc.
for a
certain map scale.</li>
<li>Finding suitable label placements.</li>
<li>Extracting topology from the data (like multipolygon
processing, merging of polygons, road segments etc.).</li>
<li>Running other complex algorithms on the OSM data.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div>This preprocessing can be done "on-the" fly or (in case of
Mapnik) as a separate prerequisite step.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Igor</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM,
Frederik
Ramm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org" target="_blank">frederik@remote.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
On 10/22/12 12:07, Igor Brejc wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex"> 2.
I generate a PDF map from that extract using an unpublished,
<div><br>
closed-source software. The map includes the appropriate OSM<br>
attribution text.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex"> 1.
Is this possible?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes (assuming that the PDF is not a database).<br>
<br>
> 2. What are my obligations in terms of ODbL license? What (if
anything)
<div><br>
> do I have to provide, publish etc.?<br>
<br>
</div>
Recipients of the PDF, i.e. anyone who views iStockPhoto, would have
the right to ask you to hand over the database on which the map is
based. You would then have the option of saying "it's plain OSM, simply
download it from <X>", or actually give them the data.<br>
<br>
If the closed software you have used did not work on the data directly,
but on some sort of pre-processed or augmented data, then *that* would
be the data you have to hand over.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex"> 3.
Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't think so.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex"> 4.
Can the buyer of such a map then password-protect his own resulting
<div><br>
work (which includes that map)?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes. You will have sold him the work under the condition that he
continues to attribute OSM, but other than that he has no obligations
(unless you put some in).<br>
<br>
If you sell the work with an OSM attribution but without the condition
to perpetuate that attribution, you may be in breach of ODbL or you may
not; this depends on how you interpret the "suitably calculated to make
anyone ... aware" clause.<br>
<br>
Bye<span><font color="#888888"><br>
Frederik</font></span><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>