[OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Sat Sep 27 15:12:06 BST 2008


Let me answer from the perspective of the new licence that is in
preparation.

My company intends to charge for services using OSM data, not traffic
related, but our situations are similar from a legal perspective.

We are currently reviewing the new proposed OSM licence in draft form and my
company has just commissioned legal advice on this in order to confirm that
it is suitable for our business. We will also provide input into the
drafting process as necessary.

My understanding of the new licence is as follows:

The OSM Database will be available on a share-alike by attribution licence.

Any 'Derivative Work' created from the OSM Database will also need to be
made available for free on a similar 'share-alike by attribution' licence
(so for example if you spot a problem in the OSM database and change it
internally in your copy of the DB then this is a Derivative Work and as soon
as you make services or products using this data available to the public
then you have to make the Derivative DB available to the public in a
accessible way.

If however you create a 'Collective Database' consisting of the unaltered
OSM Database and one of more other independent and distinct datasets then
you do not have to publish the integrated dataset (but you still do have to
publish any changes you make to the OSM component, the 'derivative
datasbase') and you have to acknowledge the source of the OSM component.

Ok, so you should be able to import the OSM dataset, change it, publish it
as share-alike, but you should then be able to merge it with other datasets,
possibly containing your traffic data (assuming that this speed data
constitutes an 'independent and distinct dataset) and you are set up with
the data for your service.

Now you can put your paid-for service on top of this. My understanding is
that this is entirely ok and you can charge whatever people will pay and put
it behind fire-walls and passwords as much as you like. You are charging for
the processing and the service, not the data and you are making the OSM
component of your data available FOC using a suitable SA licence.

It is also my understanding that that any maps or visualisations or analysis
generated from this dataset using this new licence can be copyrighted, this
means that you can produce software or services to produce beautiful
rendering of the OSM data together with other data and you can protect this
work and possibly try to sell it.

There is a 'but' here, and it is a big but. It is this one; since the same
OSM data that you are using is also available to people offering free
services and given that the OSM community if very dynamic and clever then
you are going to be competing with 'free', so your product/service had
better be good enough, if not then you are going to get trampled, or worse
just ignored!

In summary, I think this licence will be very good for the project for a
number of reasons.

1) It gives much stronger protection to the OSM database and ensures that
additions are published in a format that will be available and useable by
the wider community.

2) It clarifies the rules around combining OSM data with other datasets,
some of which have different licence terms.

3) It creates a much clearer situation for people wishing to use OSM data
for commercial services. These commercial users should then become strong
supporters of the project itself with all sorts of potential benefits to the
OSM.

I should be more informed by the end of next week when we have had some
answers from the lawyer and I should then be able to help bring the new
licence to a successful conclusion.



Regards,




Peter Miller
CEO, Ito World Ltd
http://www.itoworld.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-
> bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of legal-talk-
> request at openstreetmap.org
> Sent: 27 September 2008 12:00
> To: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Spam] legal-talk Digest, Vol 25, Issue 24
> 
> Send legal-talk mailing list submissions to
> 	legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	legal-talk-request at openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	legal-talk-owner at openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of legal-talk digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM (Iv?n S?nchez Ortega)
>    2. Re: [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM (Frederik Ramm)
>    3. Re: [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM (Iv?n S?nchez Ortega)
>    4. Re: [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM (Frederik Ramm)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:14:49 +0200
> From: Iv?n S?nchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM
> To: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Cc: dev at openstreetmap.org, Julison <julisonbr at gmail.com>
> Message-ID: <200809261714.52366.ivan at sanchezortega.es>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> El Viernes, 26 de Septiembre de 2008, Julison escribi?:
> > Hi all,
> > I'm not sure it this list is the correct place to post that question,
> but
> > there it goes:
> 
> No - the correct list is legal-talk, so please follow up the conversation
> there.
> 
> > I'm developing a traffic info service as a layer into OpenStreetMap,
> > primarily for Sao Paulo, Brazil.. I'm in a very beginning in that
> project.
> [...]
> > My question is: Can I legally charge a service that it will run over a
> > OpenSource (and free) service, if I provide extras info that doesn't
> exist
> > in OpenStreetMaps?
> 
> Short answer: yes.
> 
> 
> Long answer: The majority of license-aware OSM users do believe that, as
> long
> as you keep the information layers separate, the attribution of both
> layers
> separate, and a normal user can tell apart which is which, putting several
> layers together is not considered a derivative work but a collaborative
> work,
> and the CC-by-sa license does not have to be enforced to turn the other
> layers into CC-bt-sa -covered material.
> 
> Even if the CC-by-sa license would ever "contaminate" your traffic and
> routing
> data, the license does not have the "nc" component, so you'd be able to
> charge money (though in the worst case, you'd have to release traffic data
> under CC-by-sa after you're charged for it).
> 
> 
> 
> (eu lamento que n~ao peguei o meu GPS quando fui para al? - si n~ao, agora
> Trindade ficar?a no mapa)
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> --
> ----------------------------------
> Iv?n S?nchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>
> 
> Don't look back, the lemmings are gaining on you.
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 197 bytes
> Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
> Url : http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-
> talk/attachments/20080926/23beb2b6/attachment-0001.pgp
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:26:36 +0200
> From: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM
> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
> 	<legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Cc: dev at openstreetmap.org, Julison <julisonbr at gmail.com>
> Message-ID: <48DD619C.4070407 at remote.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Iv?n S?nchez Ortega wrote:
> > putting several
> > layers together is not considered a derivative work but a collaborative
> work,
> 
> "collective"
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:30:41 +0200
> From: Iv?n S?nchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM
> To: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <200809262230.43619.ivan at sanchezortega.es>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> El S?bado, 27 de Septiembre de 2008, Frederik Ramm escribi?:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Iv?n S?nchez Ortega wrote:
> > > putting several
> > > layers together is not considered a derivative work but a
> collaborative
> > > work,
> >
> > "collective"
> 
> /me bangs head against wall repeteadly.
> 
> --
> ----------------------------------
> Iv?n S?nchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>
> 
> El recuerdo es el ?nico para?so del cual no podemos ser expulsados.
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 197 bytes
> Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
> Url : http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-
> talk/attachments/20080926/f628d160/attachment-0001.pgp
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:53:48 +0200
> From: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-dev] Paid services from OSM
> To: Iv?n S?nchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>
> Cc: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <48DD67FC.3040808 at remote.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Iv?n S?nchez Ortega wrote:
> > /me bangs head against wall repeteadly.
> 
> Don't. The Foundation has already budgeted your head for 2009.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> 
> 
> End of legal-talk Digest, Vol 25, Issue 24
> ******************************************





More information about the legal-talk mailing list