[OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.

Cristian Consonni kikkocristian at gmail.com
Sun Jul 13 15:51:39 UTC 2014

2014-07-13 16:19 GMT+02:00 Stephan Knauss <osm at stephans-server.de>:
> On 13.07.2014 15:35, Paul Norman wrote:
>> In general a tile layer is going to be rendered from a collective
>> database, of which part of is a derivative database licensed under the
>> ODbL. They're obliged to disclose the derivative database, but not which
>> parts of it are used, and nothing about the other databases in the
>> collective database.
> Can you point to sources? 4.3 only requires attribution for produced works.
> 4.5 explicitly says that you don't need to share your collective database.
> http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1-0/
> 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work
> does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a
> Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work
> reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses,
> interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that
> Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database
> as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this
> License.
>       a. Example notice. The following text will satisfy notice under
> Section 4.3:
>     Contains information from DATABASE NAME, which is made available
>     here under the Open Database License (ODbL).
> 4.5 Limits of Share Alike. The requirements of Section 4.4 do not apply in
> the following:
>       a. For the avoidance of doubt, You are not required to license
> Collective Databases under this License if You incorporate this Database or
> a Derivative Database in the collection

Hi all,

my opinion is the same as Stephan's.

All we know is that they are downloading OSM data (periodically), they
are filtering only some elements (i.e. filtering out the roads,
maintaining buildings and landuse). Then they are probably rendering
the background with the OSM data, then rendering the road network from
other data (probably Navteq) and they collate the two images
superimposing the roads on the background. I think they could, as
well, have added the road data in another table and have a single
rendering step, I do not think this change in procedure would change
anything about the licensing.
At the moment, we have no sign of the fact that they derived any data
from OSM data, or have used OSM data in any other way other than
producing the background of the tiles.

For how I understand the ODbL (but IANAL) and how I understand they
are using OSM data this is a collective database and they are not
activating the share alike clause. I think we may asak them to either:
* disclose which tags they are using/filtering out
* publish a copy of the filtered OSM database they are using

For the campaign we have run, the only thing we were 100% sure is that
they were not attributing OSM correctly, so we mentioned only that in
the campaign.


More information about the talk mailing list