[OSM-legal-talk] OpenData attributes from closed vector data

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 7 March 2014 22:40, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been provided (i) original vector data and (ii) a printed map leaflet
> both of which include attribute data about roads - for example, whether the
> road is lit.
>
> The owner of the attribute data (whether the road is lit) has explicitly
> stated that their data is available as OpenData and are happy for it to be
> added to OSM. However, I know that the underlying vector data is most likely
> derived from a closed source (national mapping agency).
>
> Given that I am only interested in the attribute data (we already have our
> own version of the road vector data) can I go ahead and add it to OSM using
> (i), (ii) or both?

I think it will depend on the attribute data, what additional
information you need to use/interpret it, and how it got to be tangled
up with the underlying vector data in the first place.

My first test would be a sort of clean-room test: Can you manipulate
the vector data-set in such a way that all the tainted information is
removed, and your new dataset contains just the attributes, and some
non-copyrightable identifiers (e.g. street names -- though the lack of
IP rights in a list of street names may be debatable)? Then can you
get the information you want to add to OSM from this new dataset? If
not, then arguably you would have to be making some use of the tainted
data in order to add the attributes to OSM, and hence it wouldn't be
allowed.

However, I don't think this is sufficient, since the tying of the
attributes to the identifiers may have made use of some of the tainted
data (e.g. the geometry). If this is the case, then arguably the
attribute-identifier relationships have been derived from the tainted
data in some way, and so are tainted also.

So I think, strictly speaking, could be on quite shaky ground here.
And if the underlying vector data has come from OSGB, they're likely
to claim IP rights in the derived dataset even if they don't legally
or morally have any. Rather than people playing arm-chair lawyers
here, I'd suggest that you get LWG to review the situation to give a
definitive answer of whether they're happy for the data to be used in
the way you're suggesting.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker