[OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El Jueves, 7 de Febrero de 2008, Peter Miller escribió:
> [...] see if we think they would be allowed, or not allowed, based on the 
> proposed licence and also if we would want them to be allowed or not.

OK, here goes my personal view on these cases.

Disclaimers: IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt. Everything is IMHO.

"ODL-DB" means "Open Database License"; "ODL-factual" means "Open Data Factual 
Info License".

> Someone takes OSM data and creates a map of an area of the country and
> surrounds it with photos and diagrams and wants the collection to be C to
> them. I would hope that this was allowed but that the person was expected
> to put a licence phrase relating to the OSM content on the resulting map.

He couldn't copyright the entire collection: the data from which the data 
comes from will still be covered by ODL-factual. The viral clause(s) from 
ODL-factual would stop that person from getting a copyright on the street 
names, etc.

ODL-DB would not apply in this case.

> Someone take OSM data, makes some additions to the street data and then
> publishes it as above with additional photos and diagrams. I would hope
> that this was allowed, that a message on the paper map was required and
> that the updated 'Derived Database' of OSM data was made available in a
> suitable and usable form for inclusion in OSM in the future.

No. ODL-DB would only be enforceable if that person *redistributes* 
the "derived database". If he doesn't, he doesn't have to abide by ODL-DB.

> Someone creates a video animation from OSM data to be broadcast as part of
> a news package on the BBC. I would hope that it would be ok, but that a
> acknowledgement for OSM was included in the credits or visibly as part of
> the animation or by other means, possibly on their web site if there was
> genuinely no reasonably way to include it in the broadcast.

Exceptions for critical analysis apply here.

AFAIK, most EU countries have a couple of rights to allow citations and such, 
similar to the US concept of "fair use". If, by any change, an OSM image 
would get some screen time in BBC news, BBC does *not* have to abide to our 
licenses, as long as they only use the OSM image(s) for commenting on the 
project, etc.

The same goes for scientific research. If you're writing a paper on 
geographical database indexing (or whatever), you can get a portion of OSM 
data and do *whatever* you want with it.

AFAIK, no license can stop this from happening. The CC licenses even have a 
clause making this fact explicit:

"2. Fair Dealing Rights. Nothing in this License is intended to reduce, limit, 
or restrict any uses free from copyright or rights arising from limitations 
or exceptions that are provided for in connection with the copyright 
protection under copyright law or other applicable laws."

> BadMapCo creates a Collective Work based on their own mapping data (roads
> in most places and footpath/cycle path data in places) and augment this
> with additional footpath/cycle path from OSM (taken as a Derivative
> Database with a geocoded boundary) and then published the resulting DB as C
> BadMapCo as a Collective Database with acknowledgement for OSM.

If BadMapCo uses *only* footpaths from OSM, then the resulting DB can *not* be 
a collective one.

Even if the only thing that BadMapCo does is re-arranging the DB (for example, 
distributong a portion of the planet, or converting "planet.osm" to a 
diferent format), then anything resulting is a *derivative* DB, and any OSMer 
would be in an advantage when suing BadMapCo.

For a DB to be part of a collective DB, it must be *unmodified*. Converting 
the data to another format (e.g. MySQL to PGSQL) is a modification. Even 
extracting a polygon is a modification.

> LicenceBreaker creates a Collective Database with OSM data and some other
> random Public Domain geocoded photos and publishes it as a Collective Work
> as PD (which I think the licence currently allows).

No. My interpretation of ODL-DB, clause 4.5, is that the resulting DB must 
include a notice about the OSM data being covered under ODL-DB. This would 
prevent the whole collective work from being pure PD.


> BadInternetCompany takes OSM data, uses it to create mapping and offers it
> to the public and then encourages their users to correct and improve it,
> but claim that, since it is only for 'internal' use, they therefore don't
> have to offer any content back to OSM.

"Public" and "Internal use" are not sinonyms. ;-)

If this happens, then some OSMers would sue BadInternetCompany.

Is it neccesary to make this point of "publishing to the Internet" more 
explicit in the ODL-DB draft?



Cheers,
-- 
----------------------------------
Iván Sánchez Ortega <ivansanchez at escomposlinux.org>

Now listening to: Angelo Badalamenti - Secretary (2002) - [11] Secretary's 
Secrets (2:44) (0.000000%)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20080207/729a76b9/attachment.pgp>