[OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file

[David Groom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Harley" <jon at spiffymap.net>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community 
Guidelines for temporary file


>
> On 30/06/11 11:55, David Groom wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Fairhurst"
>>> Jonathan Harley wrote:
>>>> Really I'm at a loss to see the point of the share-alike clause (4.4).
>>>> I can't think of a use-case for OSM where processing the database
>>>> doesn't reduce the amount of information.
>>>
>>> The canonical case, often cited by those who say OSM needs a share-alike
>>> licence, is to prevent commercial map providers taking the data we have 
>>> and
>>> they don't (e.g. footpaths), adding it to the data they have but we 
>>> don't
>>> (e.g. complete road network), and not giving us anything back.
>>>
>>> IRMFI, not because I believe it myself. :)
>>>
>
> I think anyone who thought ODbL satisfies this case would be being naive. 
> It's so easy to dodge really giving anything back in many different ways, 
> including (off the top of my head): combining OSM with "additional 
> contents" in the form of already rendered map data, with poor accuracy and 
> no metadata, which would make it virtually impossible for things like a 
> road network to be extracted; and/or publishing the derived database under 
> a license that's compatible with ODbL but incompatible with the CTs.

I have to admit to being slightly confused about what licence a derived 
database can be published under.

Clause 4.4a  "Any Derivative Database that You Publicly Use must be only 
under the terms of: (i). This License; (ii). A later version of this License 
similar in spirit to this License; or (iii). A compatible license."

Clause 4.8 "Each time You communicate .... any Derivative Database to anyone 
else in any way, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the 
Database on the same terms and conditions as this License"

Clasue 4.8 seems to me to render Clause 4.4a obsolete since the only way to 
have a licence on "the same terms and conditions as this License" would be 
if the text was word for word the same, unless of course 4.8 is meant to 
mean the "same *spirit* as  the terms and conditions as this License", but 
thats not what it says..

>
>> That would certainly seem a very good thing.  In lots of peoples opinion 
>> where you *add* data, then it is good if that data can be shared back to 
>> the community.
>>
>
> It would seem a good thing and I hope people who use OSM will do it, but I 
> don't believe ODbL enforces it effectively, while placing a heavy burden 
> on anyone who wants to use OSM without combining it with other data.
>
>> However where you *don't* add data, but merely process the OSM data, 
>> either by extracting some sub-set of it, or simply by transforming it 
>> from one form of database to another, then what is the point of requiring 
>> compliance with ODbL clause 4.6.
>
> I can't see any point. At least you don't have to publish your 
> database/method unless someone requests it.

I hadn't reaslised that, where is that stated in the ODbL licence?

Regards

David

>But we have to assume that sooner or later, some busy-body is going to go 
>around doing exactly that.
>
> J.
>
> -- 
> Jonathan Harley    :     Managing Director     :     SpiffyMap Ltd
>
> Email: md at spiffymap.com   Phone: 0845 313 8457   www.spiffymap.com
> Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ
>