[OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[Mike Collinson]

Jason,

Good questions and I've just been through the ODbL 0.9 version to double check. Here's is my IANAL but clear interpretation:

- If your work is a "derived work",  and I believe your examples are not,  AND you distribute it then you do have to offer it under the same license or compatible (ODbL 4.4).  You definitely do not have to give data to OSM yourself, i.e. send it to us voluntarily or learn how to input it yourself.  We'd like you to, but that is a different issue.  

- You also have to offer recipients of your new database either a complete machine-readable copy of it or at least the patches (ODbL 4.6).  That way OSM can get your 100 new roads, IF someone takes the time to do it ... and in an easier fashion than the old license.  I am personally no fan of Share-Alike provisions but I think this is very reasonable  You can also charge for your costs just like a GNU software license.

- HOWEVER your examples may not demand these:

:: Your map is a map not a database. Under ODbL it is a "Produced Work".  There is some ongoing public discussion about the final wording on this but a reasonable provisional take is that: If you adapted the OSM data with, say, that extra 100 roads then OSM would be allowed to put them into our database.  But, if you used an OSM basemap and put a layer of unrelated information, your obligation is simply to attribute OSM (ODbL 4.3).

:: Your kids in the park did not make a derived database nor did they use the OSM database.  They put a separate unrelated layer on top on top of a "Produced Work", i.e a printed map.  They have no obligations.  The map should already credit us.

:: The wildlife group can use the OSM database to plot out paths, forests. They can make their own database of protected species locations. They can make a "Produced Work", a printed map or a web mash-up combining the two. No obligation other than attribution.  Alternatively, they should strongly consider being an OSM contributor ... all the tools are there for them at no cost.  They can add all their species data using custom tags and also add any new or changed paths or landuse in the same environment.  Win-win.

I am a fan of the ODbL, a lot of hard-work and very clever thinking has gone into it.  It satisfies many of the concerns of  "PD-ers" such as myself about whether it is actually practical or legal to use OSM data in mixed data environments, such as here.  Yet it strongly preserves the Share-Alike ethos that encourages or enforces an ever-growing expansion of geo-data that can be publicly used at no cost.  Compromise while preserving utility is always one of the hardest things to achieve.  

Different viewpoints welcome,
Mike

At 04:00 PM 4/03/2009, Jason Cunningham wrote:
>Hi All
>
>I've read through a bundle of licence emails, and there is one aspect that worries me, which hopefully someone can clarify.
>
> From my understanding (and I dont speak legalese), under the CCBYSA license you can take OSM data, create a "derived work" and distribute it. But, you had to let people know you where using OSM data, you had make it clear that other people where allowed to use your "derived work" to make further derived work and the CCBYSA licence must apply to their work. But its turned out this license may not be enforcable. A new licence has been proposed that is enforcable, but adds a significant new "obligation" to people/groups creating derived works.
>
>Looking through advice regarding the new or proposed licence in the wiki I have come across the following which I am worried about and wish to clarify (which I quote below)
>1. <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ
>"requires those that combine our data with their own data will have to give the latter to OSM. This means we get more open data."

I think this needs more careful phrasing.


>2. <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases
>"Section 4.3 also requires that the notice include information regarding where the user can obtain a copy of the Database or Derivative Database."
>
>So it appears under the new licence when I create a map using OSM and add my own data (derived work), I have to make my data available to OSM. This leads on to a couple of questions.
>
>Questions
>1. The main question. Do I (any one else affected) have to actually send my data to OSM, or, make sure its available (via an emailed file (if requested) or as a download on a website), or, am I simply giving the right for OSM to to take the derived work and copy/extract all data.
>
>2. I am not entirely happy about making people/groups supply their data to OSM if they wish to create derived work. I agree with the original principle within the CCBYSA, that the derived work had to be CCBYSA. But I feel demanding that individual/groups make the data available puts a burden on some people they can not meet, or will not be acceptable.
>eg 
>    * (extreme example?) A group of 8 year old kids spend a day in a local park mapping out locations where they find butterflies. They map this information using an OSM map and stick a copy on their local parks noticeboard. Surely they shouldn't be made to make this data available to OSM? Its not worth the bother for them (or OSM) 
>    * A wildlife group wishes to map the location of endangered species. Lacking money, OSM seems like a good resource, but they can not supply the data and therefore the location of protected species to OSM. So they can not use OSM and have to spend money on another map? 
>I started supplying data to OSM in the belief I was creating map data that was free and could easily be used by everyone. This can not be achieved if the burden of using OSm data is greater than the benefit.
>
>Cheers
>
>Jason
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090304/79d077c7/attachment.html>