[OSM-talk] open data

[rob at robmyers.org]

Quoting Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemeD.net>:

> Sure, a grubby photocopy isn't, but a high-quality scan/photo is
> competition (Bridgeman vs Corel). So's a copy-and-pastable webmap.

With Bridgeman vs. Corel the photograph was of a public domain work so 
Bridgeman
couldn't claim copyright anyway. A copied-and-pasted webmap is not competition
for the production of new bespoke webmaps.

> I've had maps I've drawn stolen by web developers with no credit, let
> alone payment, in the past... it ain't fun.

That *is* bad. I would say it is a different context to OSM, though, 
which seems
to be more the idea of a public good.

>> The attribution-only/BY licence won't work for "naming and shaming".
>>  Microsoft happily igored complaints over their use of BSD code (which
>> uses an equivalent licence) in Windows, and didn't pay any money to the
>> BSD project.
>
> I presume you're talking about TCP/IP. AIUI Microsoft (for whom I'm
> certainly no apologist) distributed compiled code, not source, without
> attribution, which is entirely permitted by BSD-Attribution.

Yes this is my point. They are allowed to use it that way but people 
complained
that they'd used it that way because they're a big corporation. And 
they didn't
care. Naming-and-shaming BY users who don't pay for the privilege of work they
are allowed to use for free won't work (or make sense).

> That needn't be true of CC-BY or Our Own Attribution Licence,
> especially if ours requires a prominent hyperlink (in
> hyperlink-capable media (: ). I actually don't think anyone is
> advocating pure BSD or BSD-Attribution here.

During this thread people have argued for BY and for Public Domain 
dedication, I
believe.

> Not at all - it wouldn't prevent mashups. Just because you write a
> licence relating to (geo-)data doesn't mean that you can only
> distribute as (geo-)data, IYSWIM.

If people cannot mashup with Ordinance Survey data then OSM is no worse 
than the
OS. I agree that mashups with data-that-will-never-be-free are an 
important case
for consideration, but the loss of those opportunities may not be worse 
than the
loss of new opportunities that BY-SA would oetherwise afford, and may bring
pressure to bear on other useful data sets.

> To the contrary, it would _encourage_ them by stating explicitly how
> mashups are permissible.

And as new uses are dreamt up these would have to be permitted by licence
revisions. Whereas blanket copyleft would simply permit them without revision
being required.

> On this list, where people are more aware of
> geodata licensing issues than most other places on the web, there are
> about 50 different interpretations of how CC-SA applies to geodata. If
> we can't agree, what chance your average masher upper?

The only question is *whether* BY-SA can apply to geodata. Use cases 
fall out of
how BY-SA works. Those use cases may not make everyone happy, but SA isn't as
bad as NC. ;-)

> CC is for Creative.

CC is used for factual information. Wikitravel, for example. Textbooks. 
And any
CC-licensed digital media is just data really.

> Geodata ain't creative, it's a faithful representation of facts on 
> the ground.

That can be used creatively. This is the point of mashups. And artists are
already using GPS systems for drawing and data visualisation art.

> Some on the list (like Emil)
> don't think that facts can be copyrighted anyway. But whatever your
> interpretation, there are certainly questions as to how well a
> creative works licence applies to data.

I agree that there are, but the answers to those questions may not make a
"creative" licence mnore harmful than the limitations of a more specific
licence.

(I've yet to meet a user of BY-SA that doesn't regard it as the least worst
solution, but it is a solution.)

> (This debate was kind of started by Steve's superb EuroOSCon talk,
> http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=86 , which is really worth listening
> to/reading.)

Yes I'll take a look/listen. Thanks.

> True if we (OSMF) _want_ this to be returned to OSM. But Andy cited
> the aims of the foundation earlier, and they relate specifically and
> solely to "geospatial data". If OSM wants to gather maps, code and
> whatever, then that's a different debate and not one on which we (yet)
> have a consensus.

If OSM is devoted to geospatial data alone, it should rename itself OGSD to
avoid confusion. ;-)

But OSM will either be a larger project than just geodata, or be part of a
larger world than just geodata. In either case OSM need to think more broadly
than just geodata.

>> [...]
>> A geodata-only licence will prevent me making art. A
>> licence that restricts my uses of derivatives (such as preventing me
>> re-extracting points) will limit the art I can make.
>
> Again, that's really not true. I blathered on about such a licence at
> http://www.systemed.net/blog/entry060613093350.html
>
> which might be relevant.

Thanks. I like the source requirement. But this could presumably be done using
the GPL, and using GPL-3 you could provide a special exception for 
mashups. You
just couldn't use the results with all the CC licenced geotagged images on
flickr.

Looking at your blog post; "collective" and "derived" works are well-defined
terms in US copyright law and could easily be applied to all but edge cases by
a lawyer. This is not an area of ambiguity, and the GPL has the same
distinction in it ("mere aggregation" is the GPL's term for 
"collective"). I'll
ask about
the status of web-service mashups but I personally think they qualify as
derivative works. IANAL, TINLA, etc.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good", and BY-SA is quite good. But, 
as I say,
OSM *really* need to get a rock-solid legal opinion on the copyrightability of
geodata. No (c), no CC...

- Rob.