[Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Fri Dec 30 21:29:20 UTC 2016


The ODbL is very clear on what "Publicly" is:

“Publicly” – means 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 contracting with an independent consultant).

No need to speculate on that point.

On the other hand, if they were using OSM data to trigger to spawning in
a specific locations it would still be rather open if that is actually a
use that is substantial. Up to now I haven't seen any evidence that
couldn't be explained in numerous other ways that they are really using
OSM data.

Simon


Am 30.12.2016 um 22:08 schrieb Bill Ricker:
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Clifford Snow
> <clifford at snowandsnow.us <mailto:clifford at snowandsnow.us>> wrote:
>
>
>     Can you help me understand what part of the ODbL [1] they are
>     violating? As far I can tell, they don't modify the data nor do
>     they display OSM tiles or make any of the data available
>
>
> (​It was not my assertion, I was hypothetically answering a HOW question.)
>
> OTOH & IANAL....
>
> Hypothetically speaking,
> Not making available tiles or data extracts based on OSM data 
> relieves a hypothetical potential infringer from having to make data
> available (Share Alike & Keep Open clauses).
> Any published use* requires Attribution.
> * (Which i interpret as non-intramural use, not contained within a
> household or corporate entity, although that is the sort of think
> lawyers could argue. It's safest to attribute even intramural use
> cases, but not required by license.)
>
> If indeed they are reaping OSM nodes and ways to populate PoGo
> rookeries [an unproven assertion], that would make the whole game a
> "use ... or work[s] produced from the database" and if PoGo doesn't
> count as "public", I don't know what is.  (The players are not
> employees, contractors, or family members of Niantic Labs.)
>
> Hiding the _use_ of OSM data doesn't make the derived work private;
> only hiding the derived work (game, web map, whatever) does; and i
> doubt having to register to play the game would be accepted as making
> all Niantic properties "private" not "public".
> (IANAL but I would wonder if hiding the use could be construed as
> willful and malicious infringement.)
> (If Niantic claims any copyright in their work, it is by definition of
> "copyright" a "published" work. In theory Trade Secret, Patent, and
> Copyright are incompatible IP protections. Only TradeMark plays nicely
> with others.)
>
> #IANAL
>
>
>
> -- 
> Bill Ricker
> bill.n1vux at gmail.com <mailto:bill.n1vux at gmail.com>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20161230/c0a5f9bc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20161230/c0a5f9bc/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list