[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Produced Works other than maps

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Mon Mar 29 18:57:50 BST 2010


Arne Johannessen wrote:
> I assumed the bakeries were already present in OSM as shop=bakery  
> nodes, but understand now you meant for them to be added from another  
> source?

No, I was thinking of bakeries that were added to OSM in the course of 
normal mapping, by lots of people.

> But the point is that even though the image itself isn't covered by  
> sui generis database rights, the actual content *displayed* in the  
> image still is. That's what I think the ODBL means with section 4.4 (c):
> # A Derivative Database is Publicly Used and so must comply with
> # Section 4.4. if a Produced Work created from the Derivative Database
> # is Publicly Used.

Well you seem to have a little bit of legal background so I hesitate to 
simply say "no" - any view onto ODbL by someone not "tainted" by the OSM 
view is most welcome.

The main idea behind the paragraph you quoted is that we want the 

If someone improves OSM data and makes a Produced Work from it, we want 
him to share the improved data.

For the bakery scenario, since the database behind the map tile (as well 
as the database behind the published list) is pure OSM, just filtered by 
region and theme, I think that in lieu of actually publishing the 
derived database it would be sufficient to say that you've been using 
OSM and whoever wants to reproduce your image or list is welcome to use 
OSM too.

> Since your map or list of bakeries was to be made public on the web,  
> any OSM data you included may be reused directly from your map or  
> list, hence attribution as per section 4.2 ODBL is required (for the  
> OSM database or significant extract the map or list is based upon).

But since the list of bakeries or the map tile are Produced Works, I 
can, while complying with attribution requirements, publish the list 
under a PD license, thus waiving downstream attribution requirements.

> In other words, while the map image may not strictly speaking fall  
> under the ODBL, the map data still does.

I'm only concerned with the image and its uses right now.

> In plain English, the ODBL continues to apply to those map contents  
> that ware taken from an ODBL source without virally 'infecting' the  
> other map contents. The final map image is, however, covered by CC-BY- 
> SA in its completeness.

That would be my reading as well. I also think that CC-BY-SA has no 
built-in requirement to transport the message "parts of the data from 
which this work was created are ODbL licensed" further downstream, and 
expressly prohibits anyone to interfere with the downstream chain, which 
means that, in order to make this derived image possible, ODbL must not 
require this notice. (Attribution is fine - CC-BY-SA supports that idea.)

> A single map tile is unlikely to even qualify as a database under  
> either the ODBL or the EU database directive.

> However, if one plans to combine ODBL data with a database not covered  
> by ODBL (as in your CC-BY-SA example above), I believe ODBL's  
> Collective Database concept is the only possible way this can work if  
> you want to avoid the viral aspect of ODBL.

I don't have a problem with the viral aspect of the database, I just 
want to be able to publish a paper map (or something) without any 
virality - *especially* no competing virality between ODbL and something 
else ;-)


Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

More information about the legal-talk mailing list