[OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Wed Sep 8 10:54:30 BST 2010 

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Eric Jarvies <eric at csl.com.mx> wrote:

>
> On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:58 AM, 80n wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Eric Jarvies <eric at csl.com.mx> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Sam Larsen wrote:
>>
>> > Eric,
>> >
>> > Unless you post the details of this edit on the list - then all this
>> info is
>> > useless for the rest of us reading it.  As you can see there are way too
>> many
>> > emails on this list for any sane person to keep up with & this is just
>> adding to
>> > the overload.  If you have provided the details to the data working
>> group - then
>> > that is great, and from our point of view they are the best people for
>> you to
>> > continue this investigation/discussion with.
>> >
>> I sent the way/info to the suggested OSM email address/people at OSM(read
>> previous dialog in this thread) earlier today after having been advised(by
>> Richard and 80n I believe) to do so.
>>
>> Eric, to be clear about what I advised - you should take this up directly
> with Google, as you are the copyright holder.  The OSMF and the Data Working
> Group might be able to support you but they are not the copyright holder -
> you are.
>
>
> Ok. But I really have no desire to do so at this point.  Instead, if after
> a period of time, this currently 'assumed/speculated/non-substantiated'
> activity continues, then I would of course send them an email reminding them
> to attribute and adhere to the OSM license, and go from there.  Right?
>
> You seem fairly knowledgeable in these subject matters... perhaps you could
> share some wisdom/informal advise of a legal nature pertaining to
> copyright/license/etc.  Much of the data I am posting to OSM now, over the
> past years I have licensed it out to various companies/persons for monetary
> gain, wherein they could not resell, etc. the data.  Now that I am posting
> some of this same data of mine here in OSM under share alike/attribution
> license, what happens to the status of my original data?  I can still
> license independently, correct?  For example... i will be posting properties
> to OSM, but I will not be posting property owner names, property owner
> histories, etc., because I still actively sell/license that data to third
> parties... but in doing so, I always provide them with the geometries.
>  After I post these geometries to OSM, and I later sell/license some data to
> someone, and provide them with the geometries from my source data, like in
> PostgreSQL or shapefile format, does that in any way conflict with the same
> data I have previously posted on OSM under an entirely different license?  I
> am under the current understanding that there is no problem with with... I
> can contribute to OSM some of my data, and that data then becomes subject to
> the CC by SA license terms, whilst at the same time I can license the same
> data differently to someone else... is this right?
>
> Eric, yes that's exactly right.



>
> Thanks!
>
> Eric Jarvies
>
>
>
>
>> Eric Jarvies
>>
>> > Sam
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----
>> >> From: Eric Jarvies <eric at csl.com.mx>
>> >> To: Licensing and other legal discussions. <
>> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>> >> Sent: Tue, 7 September, 2010 19:52:22
>> >> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sep 7, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Tue, Sep 7,  2010 at 1:12 PM, Eric Jarvies <eric at csl.com.mx>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> On Sep  7, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Also, as  more data sets are opening up it is possible that Map
>> Maker
>> >>>>> and  OSM editors are using similar sources.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes, I  understand this and the context you are explaining it in.
>>  But how
>> >> does  this apply to the edit I made to the OSM data?  This edit was not
>> some
>> >> recently made available source that was provided to OSM, Google, and
>> others, it
>> >> was a just a newbee screw up by yours truly, that resulted in a very
>> unique and
>> >> deliberate edit to an existing OSM coastline, that subsequently ended
>> up in
>> >> Google's data, as is clearly(to me) being rendered now.  I was just
>> shocked  to
>> >> see that Google had inherited my screwed up edit of an existing OSM
>>  coastline,
>> >> and that shock turned into interest, which is why I asked here if  they
>> are now
>> >> using OSM data.  In short, there really is no other 'similar  source'
>> in this
>> >> case... they either got the coastline/way directly from OSM, or  got it
>> from
>> >> someone else who got it directly from OSM.
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear  Eric,
>> >>>
>> >>> It is hard for me to say what happened.  What you  describe above does
>> >>> make it sound like a GMM contributor used OSM as a  source after your
>> >>> edit, but before you repaired it.  If I haven't  overlooked something;
>> >>> perhaps a GMM contributor made the same newbee  mistake?
>> >>
>> >> Well, this is what aroused my interest... after the  initial shock of
>> seeing my
>> >> mistake for a second time... first on OSM, and then  now on Google
>> MapMaker(I'm
>> >> talking a considerable stretch of coastline), I then  looked at what is
>> and what
>> >> is not possible to edit on Google MapMaker... and  coastlines are NOT
>> possible
>> >> to edit by contributors, or at least my user account  will not allow
>> it.
>> >>
>> >>> And if there
>> >>> is no other innocent  explanation; you didn't make the edit on GMM
>> >>> yourself did you? ;-)
>> >>
>> >> No, I have never contributed data to the MapMaker repo.
>> >>
>> >>> Then  80n's description above is correct.
>> >>> Infringement is much more likely to  be a result of ignorance rather
>> >>> than malice.  It is still  infringement but it might best be resolved
>> >>> with a please and thank you  than with a nasty-gram.
>> >>
>> >> I was merely curious if Google had started using  OSM data, simply
>> because I
>> >> was painfully reminded of that terrible coastline  screw-up I made,
>> that was the
>> >> bane of my initial OSM editing experience(not  knowing that the
>> coastline is not
>> >> rendered immediately/regularly).  So  apart from the initial shock of
>> seeing it
>> >> replicated on Google's MapMaker a week  or two after the initial
>> incident
>> >> occurred, I was just downright curious why it  would be there, as I
>> thought
>> >> Google did not use OSM data.  So this was a  curious fact finding
>> mission
>> >> wrought from a screwed-up coastline editing  experience... nothing
>> more.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> I do still recommend  that you share the location and details with
>> >>> OSMers you trust with more  experience than you have; you did describe
>> >>> yourself as a  newbee.
>> >>
>> >> I emailed the way to the email address you provided me  previously,
>> thank you.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> You might, as 80n described,  decide to pursue this with GMM yourself.
>> >>> I'd probably try to reach the  GMM contributor who made that edit,
>> >>
>> >> I could not find indication of  this... I was not allowed to edit the
>> GMM
>> >> coastline whilst logged into Google...  perhaps other users are able to
>> do so...
>> >> but I doubt it.
>> >>
>> >>> if
>> >>> that information is available.  Or, you may decide to ask somebody
>> >>> else in the community to do that for you.  Perhaps somebody at your
>> >>> local OSM meetups, mapping parties or local chapter.
>> >>
>> >> I am my local  chapter :(
>> >>
>> >>> Or you can
>> >>> report this to the Data Working Group  though they prefer if you have
>> >>> made some initial attempt at contact on  your own.
>> >>
>> >> No, this was not my objective... I merely wanted to know if GMM  was
>> now an OSM
>> >> user, and if not, I just wanted folks at OSM to be made aware, if  for
>> no other
>> >> reason then to be made aware.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> If GMM does  not
>> >>> provide a method to contact editors, the idea of contacting Google
>>  Map
>> >>> Mapker as a whole does sound a bit daunting.
>> >>
>> >> I have contacts  at Google, specifically in their data acquisitions
>> department,
>> >> as I've had  dealings with them in the past pertaining to my own data,
>> so
>> >> contact would not  be difficult, but as stated, that was not my
>> intention.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> I think your point about not publishing the location is worth
>> >>> considering.  In past, other contributors have provided links to
>> >>> examples.  That might make an interesting discussion on this list
>> >>> outside of the context of this specific edit.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> In what  sense?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> legal-talk mailing  list
>> >>> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> legal-talk  mailing list
>> >> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > legal-talk mailing list
>> > legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100908/fb706ff1/attachment.html>

More information about the legal-talk mailing list