[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] offering adapted databases

[David Groom]

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Anthony" <osm at inbox.org>
> To: "David Groom" <reviews at pacific-rim.net>
> Cc: "OSM Fork" <osm-fork at googlegroups.com>; "openstreetmap" 
> <talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] offering adapted databases
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:27 PM, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net> 
> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony" <osm at inbox.org>
>>> How long do I have to keep a copy of the adapted database in case
>>> someone takes me up on my offer? How much of the database do I need
>>> to keep? Is the offer valid to third parties? If person A makes a
>>> bunch of tiles from a database, and person B prints out a map from
>>> those tiles and gives the map to person C, who offers person C the
>>> copy of the adapted database? (Person B likely doesn't have a copy,
>>> but Person A would have to keep a ton of obsolete data indefinitely if
>>> his offer is valid to third parties.)
>>>
>>
>> It would depend on who was making the tiles and the print outs "publicly
>> available"
>
> In the example I've given, both A and B have made the work "publicly
> available", right?  (As far as I can tell, private distribution "to
> Persons other than You or under Your control by either more than 50%
> ownership or by the power to direct their activities", such as from
> Person B to Person C, counts as "making publicly available".)
>
> So if B prints out a map with directions to X (a bar, a meetup, a
> class, whatever), B has to include an offer [of one of those three
> choices].
>
>> It is the person who makes the produced work publicly available
>> who has to comply with clause 4.6. So if A made the tiles publicly
>> available he would have to comply, and if B printed out the map, and then
>> made that map publicly available he would have to comply as well.
>
> Right, but what does it mean for A to comply?  Does A have to offer
> [one of the three choices] only to the people who download the tiles,
> or does A have to offer [one of the three choices] to third parties
> who receive tiles indirectly?  Does A have to offer [one of the three
> choices] to third parties who receive derivatives of those tiles
> indirectly?
>

I have no idea! I think it would depend on whether the map printed out by B 
was considered a different produced work to the tiles made available by A. 
My gut feeling is that these are different produced works, and so A is only 
required to comply with one of the three options in respect of recipients of 
his produced work.

A more complicated scenario might be:

W produces a pdf map from data released under ODbL, W gives the pdf to X, X 
then distributes the pdf to Y & Z.

I could see that you could argue there is only one produced work, so  W is 
required to offer to Y & Z one of the alternatives.

However it might still be possible to argue that the pdf produced by W was 
different to the pdfs produced by Y (after all Y produced 2 copies of one 
original, so clearly they cant both be the original), so W does not have to 
offer anything to Y & Z.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the answer, and it may be that different 
jurisdictions take differing views.

> The former is certainly much easier for A to comply with than the latter.
>
> If you take a look at section 6 of the GPL, it's all spelled out a lot
> more clearly (all my questions are answered):
>
> The time limit is 3 years.  The source code includes "all the source
> code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the
> object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those
> activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries,
> or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which
> are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not
> part of the work."  Nothing more, nothing less.  The offer must be
> valid for "anyone who possesses the object code", including third
> parties.  In the case of Person B, if the redistribution is done
> "occasionally and noncommercially", then Person B can simply give a
> copy of the offer s/he received from Person A.  If the redistribution
> is not occasional, or is commercial, then Person B has to give an
> offer of his/her own (or the source code itself).
>
> If that's what's intended by the ODbL, then that should be spelled
> out.  And I think it's too much of a burden on Person A.  Though given
> a shorter time period (say, 3 months), I guess it's reasonable.
>
> As it stands maybe I just shouldn't sweat it at all, as I can just
> give an offer which expires in 15 days and doesn't include third
> parties, and still be within the letter of the license (*).

I'm afraid I dont understand that point at all.

Regards

David

> But I
> don't really want to do that.  I'd rather try to figure out what's
> actually intended, and get that spelled out in the license.
>
> (*) According to some people on the fosm list, I can say that the
> offer expires December 31, 1999 and still be in compliance with the
> letter of the license.  But I'm not so sure about that.
>
>
>
>
>
>