[OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[GITNE]

On 09/23/2020 at 11:22 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Mi., 23. Sept. 2020 um 11:02 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann
> <chris_hormann at gmx.de <mailto:chris_hormann at gmx.de>>:
>
>     ...  That changeset data
>     is distributed separately from other parts of our database is not an
>     argument against it being covered by the contributor terms.  Frequent
>     discussion in the OSM community that certain information (like source
>     tags) make more sense to be recorded in changeset tags than in
>     individual features (and accordingly that they can still be connected
>     to the features when recorded in that form) OTOH supports the view that
>     changeset tags are covered by the constributor terms and that the
>     mapper community regards them as such.
>
>     In any case - the OSMF is distributing changeset data under the ODbL...
>
>
>
> GITNE's point was not about changeset data, it was about changeset discussions.
> I agree there is no doubt that changesets are part of the geodatabase (at least
> for me), but for changeset comments it seems the situation isn't so clear, it
> could be seen as an edge case (either way could be defended by arguments),
> athough I agree that through linking it to the changeset_id it is within the
> geodatabase.

Right, the issue are not changesets since they are an integral part of the
modifying processes of the geo-database and thus constitute a contribution to
the geo-database. So, it also okay for the OSMF to distribute these either
separately or inclusively under the ODbL license. The issue is about chageset
comments or rather Changeset Discussions
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Changeset_Discussions). Please
pardon my ignorance on the proper term.

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/5/58/OSM_DB_Schema_2016-12-13.svg

Changeset Discussions merely reference a changeset id. This is like linking to a
web page or referencing a book in an article. If it were otherwise we would
quickly get into trouble with all sorts of works referencing other works.
Martin, please correct me if I am wrong but the database represented by the
schema you have pointed to is not what is actually publicly available, that is
what is licensed under the ODbL. In other words, the ODbL licensed database is a
subset of OSMF's database (or an export so to speak) because it contains amongst
other things e-mail addresses and password hashes which are not supposed to be
published.

Regards
GITNE