JA:Open Data License/Use Cases

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
利用できる言語 — Open Data License/Use Cases
Afrikaans Alemannisch aragonés asturianu azərbaycanca Bahasa Indonesia Bahasa Melayu Bân-lâm-gú Basa Jawa Baso Minangkabau bosanski brezhoneg català čeština dansk Deutsch eesti English español Esperanto estremeñu euskara français Frysk Gaeilge Gàidhlig galego Hausa hrvatski Igbo interlingua Interlingue isiXhosa isiZulu íslenska italiano Kiswahili Kreyòl ayisyen kréyòl gwadloupéyen kurdî latviešu Lëtzebuergesch lietuvių magyar Malagasy Malti Nederlands Nedersaksies norsk norsk nynorsk occitan Oromoo oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча Plattdüütsch polski português română shqip slovenčina slovenščina Soomaaliga suomi svenska Tiếng Việt Türkçe Vahcuengh vèneto Wolof Yorùbá Zazaki српски / srpski беларуская български қазақша македонски монгол русский тоҷикӣ українська Ελληνικά Հայերեն ქართული नेपाली मराठी हिन्दी অসমীয়া বাংলা ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ગુજરાતી ଓଡ଼ିଆ தமிழ் తెలుగు ಕನ್ನಡ മലയാളം සිංහල ไทย မြန်မာဘာသာ ລາວ ភាសាខ្មែរ ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ አማርኛ 한국어 日本語 中文(简体)‎ 吴语 粵語 中文(繁體)‎ ייִדיש עברית اردو العربية پښتو سنڌي فارسی ދިވެހިބަސް

このページではOpenStreetMap データ向けの、数多くの典型的な中核となるユースケースについて述べており、提案された(ODbL)を現実の様々な状況に照らして検証するために準備されたものです。ユースケースは2つの会議で召集され、レビューされました。回答は以下の文書からコピーされました:

ユースケースについての議論はlegal-talk メーリングリストで行ってください。



These Use Cases are about various things people may want to do with images created from OSM data.



A user should be able to publish a raster map/image created from OpenStreetMap and include this as part of a printed publication or on the internet or similar. They should acknowledge OpenStreetMap either below the image or at the start/end of the document or elsewhere where the viewer/reader would reasonably expect to find it. They can license the image using any appropriate license, including full copyright, ccbysa and Public domain. The image should be restricted to disallow people from reverse engineering a database from the image. It should be able to use multiple images to serve a 'slippery map' front end.


Q: how can the image be both public domain and restrict someone else down the line from publishing it without attribution or from reverse engineering a database from it?

Q: どうやったら画像をパブリックドメインであり、かつ誰か別の人に対して表示(attribution)なしに公開したりそれからデータベースをリバースエンジニアリングしたりすることを全面的に制限するようにできますか?

The basic argument, as the License Working Group understands it, is that there are layers of IP (Intellectual Property) rights. For example, if you take a photo of a sculpture and release the photo as public domain, anyone can use the photo as they wish, but it does not give them the right to reproduce the sculpture. So, 1) yes, it is hard too restrict someone else down the line from publishing it without attribution, but 2) if someone tries to reverse engineer the map, i.e. recreate OpenStreetMap data, then the original license still applies. Note: Since the original question was asked, the explicit "reverse engineering" clause mentioned has been removed from ODbL 1.0. This is due to the potential for conflict with, especially, the CC SA license stance that there should be no other restrictions on a creative work (map) so licensed. Subject to any future resolution by CC themselves as to whether this is really an issue, it can be re-instated in future versions.

ライセンスワーキンググループの理解によれば、基本的な議論ではIP(知的所有)権のレイヤがある、ということになっています。例えば、あなたが彫刻の写真を撮り、その写真をパブリックドメインでリリースしたとすると、誰でも自分の望むようにその写真を使うことができますが、その彫刻を再作成する権利が与えられているわけではありません。したがって、1) はい、誰か別の人に対して表示(attribution)なしに公開することを全面的に制限するのは難しいです。しかし、2)もし誰かがマップのリバースエンジニアリング、すなわちOpenStreetMapデータの再作成を行おうとすれば、オリジナルのライセンスが依然として適用されます。メモ: オリジナルの質問が尋ねられて以来、明示的な"リバースエンジニアリング"条項の記述はODbL 1.0から削除されました。これはとりわけCC SAライセンスの、そのようなライセンスの創作的な作品(地図)に対して別の制限があってはならないというスタンスと矛盾する可能性があることによります。これが本当に問題なのかどうか、CC自身によるいかなる将来の解決にも従い、将来のバージョンで再度任命することができます。


A user should be able to produce a hand-made map derived from OSM data and add additional elements, remove others, move things around so they look better (avoiding overlap etc) and style the map. The designer should not be forced to make the edited raw data available and it should be possible to license the resulting maps in any way that is preferred.


Q: If the person notices errors in the OSM street or POI data and corrects these in their image should they be required to offer that data back to the community? We suggest that they should and the easiest way might be to enter the data into OpenStreetMap during the process.

Q: もしその人がOSMの通りやPOIデータのエラーに気づいてこれらを自分の画像で修正するとしたら、彼らはそのデータをコミュニティに再提供することを要求されるべきでしょうか?

Public use of the Produced Work would require the ODbL notice and public use of the Derived Database would require redistribution.
製作著作物(Produced Work)の公共利用(Public use)はODbLの注意書きを要求し、派生データベースの公共利用は再配布を要求するでしょう。

Q: Should their 'artistic reinterpretation of the factual data' have to be made available? we suggest that it should not.

Q: 彼らの'事実データの芸術的な再解釈'は利用可能であるべきでしょうか?我々はそうすべきではないと考えています。

No. The process of creating a Produced Work does not need to be revealed beyond the Derivative Database, so any artistic interpretation involved does not have to be made available.

SVG/KML/Postscript 等を使ったベクター形式画像の製作でのOSMデータ利用

A user should be able to create vector based mapping using a format such as postscript, svg or kml which are both able to produce rendered images but which also give easy access to the underlying vector data (thereby making it easier to reverse engineer a database). There should be protection to ensure that any systematic collection of vector data, or other reverse engineering techniques of substantial amounts of data should be considered as a Derived Dataset and be covered by 1) below.

ユーザは、描画された画像を作成できるが、下地にしたベクターデータにも容易にアクセスできる(それ故データベースのリバースエンジニアリングを容易にする)postscript, svg あるいはkml といった形式を使ってベクターベースのマッピングを作成できるべきです。あらゆるシステマティックなベクターデータの集まりや、他のデータのかなりの(substantial)量のリバースエンジニアリング技術は派生データセットと考えるべきであり、下記 1)によってカバーされるべきです。

Q: Is a vector map a Produced Work or a Database or both?

Q: ベクター地図は製作著作物(Produced Work)ですか、それともデータベースですか、あるいは両方ですか?

Beyond the definition in the ODbL, this would have to decided by a court and influenced by community guidelines.
ODbL 内の定義を超えて、これは裁判所で決定されるべきであり、コミュニティガイドラインを考慮するべきです。

Q: what license can be used?

Q: どのようなライセンスが使えるのですか?

This is covered by the outcome of the previous question and the previous "licensing produced works" question.

Q: What attribution is required, that for a Produced Work, or for a Derivative Database or both? If the attribution of a derivative database is required then will that be practical within a small svg/kml file?

Q: どのような表示(attribution)が必要なのですか?製作著作物に対して?派生データベースに対して?あるいは両方?もし派生データベースの表示(attribution) が必要だとすれば、小さなsvg/kmlファイル内では実際できるのでしょうか?

Covered by the previous two questions.


When a map or visualisation is used on a device with a small screen the licence should allow for the ackowledgement for the Dataset to appear on a dialog page, an about page or on a credits page rather than on every page.


Yes, the ODbL would cover and permit this example. The ODbL’s notice requirements provide for flexibility with regards to how notice is provided: “You must include a notice within, on, or as part of 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 (the “Source”), and that the Source is available under the terms of this License.”
はい、ODbLはこの事例をカバーし、許可するでしょう。ODbL の注意書き要件は、どのように注意書きが提供されるかについての柔軟性を提供します: “You must include a notice within, on, or as part of 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 (the “Source”), and that the Source is available under the terms of this License.”


The license should allow a map/image/animation generated from OpenStreetMap data to be shown in a TV news story. The user may however supply credits on an associated website rather than within the program itself.

ライセンスはOpenStreetMap から作成された地図/画像/アニメーションについてTVニュースのストーリーで表示されることを認めるべきです。しかしながらユーザは番組そのものの中よりも、むしろ関連するウェブサイト上にクレジットを供給するかもしれません。

This use case produces no derivative database, it is only about attribution in a TV news context.


Putting the attribution in the credits of the programme is probably "reasonable", as it is the industry standard method of giving attribution. To remove doubt, the publisher can simply state that this is OK. For this, and other cases, a set of community guidelines for attribution have been started, further input is welcome there.

Wikipedia 及び Wikitravel での地図の利用

When OSM maps are incorporated into a page on a site such as Wikipedia and Wikitravel, the entire page, including the OSM map, can then be licenced under the GFDL or CC-SA (respectively).

OSM地図がWikipediaやWikitravelといったサイトに編入される場合、OSM地図を含めページ全体は、GFDL や CC-SA の下にライセンスできます(それぞれに)。

Yes, there are no license restrictions on Produced Works (other than the restriction in 4.6 that restricts users from reverse engineering Produced Works to re-create the Database and place it under a different license), although notice must be given that also makes the user aware of where he/she may obtain the Database.

Nothing in GFDL, or CC-SA, etc. restricts reverse engineering to re-generate a database (under the terms of the original GFDL, or CC-SA licence) -- this suggests that the ODbL licence is inherently incompatible with GFDL, and CC-SA? Also, clause 4a of the CC-BY-SA 2.0 legal code says "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License ...".

GFDLやCC-SAにおいては、データベースを再作成するためのリバースエンジニアリングを制限するものはありません(オリジナルのGFDLやCC-SAライセンスの利用条件においては)-- これはODbLライセンスが、本質的にGFLおよびCC-SAと非互換だということを示唆しているのでしょうか?同様に、CC-BY-SA 2.0の条文4a節には以下の記述があります。"このライセンスの利用条件を制限する作成物にかかるいかなる条件も提供したり課したりしてはなりません..."。

Such compatiblity (of Produced Works) with share-alike licenses is of high importance to us and if there is any risk of clash between the share-alike licenses' demand "you may not impose any terms that restrict..." and the reverse engineering clause then we need an amendment to ODbL. The problem is explained in detail on Open Data License/Suggested Changes#The "licensing Produced Works" problem.

そのような継承(訳注:share-alike)ライセンスの(製作著作物の)互換性は我々にとって非常に重要であり継承ライセンス間の要求がぶつかりあうリスクがある場合には"...を制限するいかなる条件も課すべきではなく"、リバースエンジニアリング条項も同じでその場合我々はODbLを修正する必要があります。Open Data License/Suggested Changes#The "licensing Produced Works" problem

Covered by previous question about licensing produced works.


Can maps rendered from ODbL data be packaged by Linux distributions? In particular, are maps rendered from data licenced under the ODbL distributable with GPL applications, e.g. KDE Marble, KGeography, etc.

ODbLデータからレンダリングされた地図はLinux ディストリビューションにパッケージできますか? 特に、ODbLの下にライセンスされたデータからレンダリングされた地図は、GPL のアプリケーション、例えば KDE Marble, KGeography,等と一緒に配布できますか?

Covered by previous discussion. Since GPL doesn't cover data, it should be OK.
先の議論でカバーされています。GPL はデータをカバーしていないので、おそらくOKです。



The licence should allow people to geocode moderate numbers of photographs, blog postings, microblogs such as Twitter or Jaiku, articles such as a Wikipedia article from the dataset. It should allow people to geocode moderate numbers of addresses possibly for inclusion in electronic business cards such as The hCard, which includes coordinates for addresses (see http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-examples for more information). They should be able to licence the resulting work in any suitable manner, including as public domain, ccbysa, and all rights reserved without acknowledgment to the Dataset.

ライセンスはデータセットから中規模量の写真、ブログ記事、TwitterやJaikuなどのようなマイクロブログ、Wikipediaのような記事といったものを人々がジオコードすることができるようにするべきです。住所の座標を持っている(詳細は http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-example 参照)The hCardのような電子的ビジネスカードにおそらく含められるであろう中規模量の住所を人々がジオコードすることを認めるべきです。彼らは適切な方法であればパブリックドメイン、ccbysa、及びあらゆる著作権を含め、データセットに対する承認なしに、成果物をライセンスできるべきです。

Q: What does moderate mean? What would definitely be 'substantial' and what would definitely be 'in-substantial'?

Q: 中規模量(訳注:moderate)とはどういう意味ですか?'サブスタンシャル'及び'非サブスタンシャル'の明確な定義とは?

Covered by LWG / ML guidelines.
LWG / ML guidelinesでカバーされます。


The user runs their substantial database of addresses (100K+) through OSM to derive the geocodes. They wish to distribute this geocoded addresses within their business and to associate businesses but wish to keep the data confidential. They then later want to put pins in on-line maps in response to enquiries to their web site.


Seems to be covered by the definition of Publicly for the internal distribution. Second part (Public use of a Produced Work) would require public redistribution of the Derived Database.

パブリックな内部配布用の定義でカバーされるように見えます。第二部(製作著作物のパブリックな使用) は派生データベースのパブリックな再配布を必要とするでしょう。


Business has minimal information about companies. OSM has information about opening times, contact details, location, relations etc. Business makes searchable database to create directory of businesses for each region. Customers of their database can correct and update their records, for a fee.


I believe this example would be considered a Derivative Database under the ODbL, would be covered under the license, and certain obligations would be triggered if the Database were publicly Conveyed, or if a Produced Work based on it were publicly Used. However, this example seems to indicate that the Database is neither being publicly Conveyed, nor being used to create a Produced Work that will be publicly Used. As such, charging a fee to use the Database in the manner described appears to be permitted under the ODbL (see, e.g., Section 4.7(c) and the definition of “Convey”).

この例はODbLの下にある派生データベースと考えられ、ライセンス下にあると考えられ、もしデータベースがパブリックに利用可能とされる(訳注:convey)か、それ上の製作著作物がパブリックに使用された場合は、何らかの義務が発生するであろうと考えています。 しかし、この例はデータベースがパブリックに利用可能とされず、パブリックに使用される製作著作物を作成するのにも使用されないことを示すように思われます。このような場合、ここに記述されたようなやり方でデータベース利用に課金することが、ODbLの下で認められているように見えます。 (例えば、セクション 4.7(c) および “Convey”の定義)を参照。


The licence should allow people extract a small numbers of points, areas or linear features by tracing on using mechanical means (ie KML, shape files) without acknowledgement and then license the resulting data in way they choose.

ライセンスは人々に、承認なしで機械的な手段(即ちKML,shape files)を使ってトレースすることにより、少数のポイント、エリア、線形のフィーチャを抽出することを認めるべきであり、結果としてのデータにおいて、彼らの選んだやり方でライセンスできるようにすべきです。

Q: When would then 'derivative database' clause kick in?

"Substantial" - LWG / ML guidelines.

Q: ところで'派生データベース'はいつから有効になりますか?

"Substantial" - LWG / ML guidelines.

Q: For the avoidance of doubt, would repeated extractions of in-substantial amounts of data and then the aggregation of these elements into one single dataset later, even if these small extracts, and were done by different people constitute a Derivative DB.

Yes. See reverse-engineering clause (section 4.7) and section: 6.2 repeated extractions.
はい。リバースエンジニアリング節(セクション 4.7) 及びセクション: 6.2 繰返し抽出 を参照。


The license should allow a transport agency to build exact bus routes based on road centre-line data from OSM and from bus timetables (which are copyright). They then wish to provide these routes to other agencies as vectors (kml or shapefiles etc). The license should allow for manageable attribution and avoid a long list of sources.


Q: Assuming that the above was deemed to be a Derived Database then would all the notices from the DB be required to be attached to the output file? If so the this might be burdensome.

Q: 上記は派生データベースとみなされると推定すると、DBの全ての注意書きは出力ファイルへの添付が必須なのでしょうか?もしそうなら、これは重荷となるでしょう。

Attribution notice covered by section 4.3, which would seem not to be burdensome.
表示(Attribution)の注意書きはセクション 4.3でカバーされ、これは重荷ではないと思われます。

Converts GPS data to lists of streets and when they last gritted

The license should allow a local authority to covert GPS trails from gritting lorries into a database of streets and when they were last gritted. Both the names of the streets and the length would be taken from OSM. The authority would then publish this list as a spreadsheet giving street name, length and the time of last gritting.

Q: Again, is the spreadsheet a database or a produced work or both? Q: 繰返しになりますが、スプレッドシートはデータベース?製作著作物?それとも両方?

Covered by previous question about "vector format images".

If is a derived DB then where should then notices be attached? もし、派生DBなら、注意書きはどこに添付されるべきでしょう?

Covered by the license: "If it is not possible to put the required notices in a particular file due to its structure, then You must include the notices in a location (such as a relevant directory) where users would be likely to look for it." - for derivative DBs or "You must include a noticeassociated 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 Licence." - for Produced Works.



The User wishes to combine OpenStreetMap data with other data sources to use on a web based service. The additional data could be one of nasa height data, public transport schedules, census data or many others. They may not wish, or may not be allowed to release the other data source as ODbL; it may for example be only available under '(C) all rights reserved' or on a 'non-commercial' license etc. The user does not improve or modify the OSM data, but does convert it into a suitable format for their application.

ユーザがOpenStreetMapのデータと他のデータソースを結合してWebサービスに使いたがっています。付加するデータにはNASAの高度情報、公共輸送機関の時刻表、センサスデータ等々がありえます。彼らは他のデータソースをODbLとして手放したくはないでしょうし、またそうする許可も与えられていないでしょう; 例えば'(C) all rights reserved'とか'非商用'ライセンスなどの下でのみ利用可能なものです。ユーザはOSMデータを改善したり変更したりはしませんが、自分たちのアプリケーションに適したフォーマットに変換することは行ないます。

OK - Collective DB, but still requires the notice.
OK - 集合的なDB、しかし注意書きは必要。


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 park's noticeboard. They do not wish to be expected to contribute this information back to OSM.

  • For the purposes of this use-case would rubbish bins be a better example than butterflies? User:80n
OK - Collective DB. Maybe not Substantial, but still needs the notice.
OK - 集合的なDB。おそらくサブスタンシャルではないが、注意書きは必要。


A wildlife group wishes to map the location of endangered species. They wish to overlay nest sites or other information which would compromise the safety of the site if released. They wish to use OSM as a map base without having to contribute back.


OK - Collective DB, no Public use.
OK - 集合的DB、非公開。


The user wants to produce analysis from a combination of OSM data and public transport schedules. They will produce analysis of transport performance but do not want to show this to a public audience for commercial or data protection reasons.


OK as long as there is no Public use. Depends on whether the analysis is considered a derivative database or a produced work. More information is necessary to be more precise about the answer. Community guidelines can help here.
OK パブリック利用しない限りにおいて。分析が派生データベースと製作著作物のどちらと考えられるかにより変わってきます。より正確に答えるにはもっと情報が必要です。ここではコミュニティガイドラインが手助けになるでしょう。


The licence should allow OSM data to be distributed freely and anonymously via an API, from a download site or on a DVD and in other forms. Programs may automatically download updates and merge them into another database, to again produce images or derived datasets which can then be downloaded in turn as described above. Users should not be required to register an account or click some "I agree" page each time one accesses an update.


From the description provided, this example seems to fit within the ODbL’s permissions so long as all appropriate notices are provided.



The user wishes to use OSM data together with other significant distinct datasets to support a computer game. An example of this would be a flight simulation where the OpenStreetMap Dataset is used for land use, natural and man made features, and is combined with other potentially copyright material, including aeronautical data, airfield data, DEM (more likely SRTM based), description for various planes and other structures and they do not wish to, or would not be allowed to release the other data as ODbL. During the import of OSM data some information will be selectively included, other elements will not be required, the data will be reformed into an proprietary format which the publisher does not wish to disclose. The user wishes to protect the rendered scenery produced by the gaming code as (C) 'all rights reserved'. The data on the games DVD or download file will be encrypted or otherwise unusable. They will acknowledge the OSM data source along with other authors and contributors in the conventional place.

ユーザがあるコンピュータゲームをサポートするために、明らかに別個の他のデータセットとOSMを一緒に使いたがっています。その一例としてフライトシミュレーションがあります。そこではOpenStreetMapのデータセットは土地利用、自然、人工物の地物に使われ、そして他のおそらく著作権を持つものと組み合わされ、航空関連データ、飛行場データ、DEM(たいていはSRTMベース)、様々な飛行機と他の構成品の説明であり、これらは他のデータをODbLとしてリリースすることを望まない、あるいは許可されていません。OSMデータのインポートをしつつ、何らかの情報を選んで含めることもあるでしょうし、必要とされない要素もあるでしょう、さらにデータはパブリッシャーが公開を望まないプロプライエタリな形式に変換されるでしょう。 ユーザはゲームのコードによってレンダリングされたシーンを(C) 'all rights reserved'として保護したがるでしょう。ゲームDVDやダウンロードファイル上のデータは暗号化や何らかの方法で利用できないようにされるでしょう。彼らはOSMデータソースを他の作者及び貢献者たちとともに従来の場所で獲得するでしょう。

OK as long as the games company also provides an offer of the open derivative DB free from technical measures in parallel (see Section 4.8b). Otherwise, its explicitly disallowed.
OK ゲーム会社も平行して技術的手段にとらわれないオープンな派生DBを提供する限りにおいて (セクション4.8bを参照)。そうしない場合、これは明示的に不許可となります。

Q: In addition to a general response to this use case, please clarify if the selective import of OSM data be considered a Derivative Database even though no changes or improvements have been made to the data. We do not consider it necessary to publish a derivative database given that no changes have been made to the actual usable data.

Q: このユースケースに対する一般的な返事に加えて、データに対して変更や改善が何も加えられていない場合でも、OSMデータの選択的なインポートは派生データベースと考えられるのかどうか、明らかにしてください。

Covered by the definition of "Derivative Database" - extraction and re-arrangement mean that the selective import is a Derivative Database and, if publicly conveyed or publicly used, would need to be redistributed.
"派生データベース"の定義によりカバーされます - 抽出や再配置は、選択的なインポートが派生データベースであり、もしパブリックに委譲されたりパブリックに使用されたりした場合は再配布される必要がある、ということを意味しています。


The user wants to use OSM data in a satnav system. They need to be able to convert the data into a confidential proprietary format that works with their routing software which they don't want to disclose.


Due to the "technical measures" section, a non-confidential, non-proprietary version would have to be redistributed also.
"技術的手段" セクションにより、部外秘でない、プロプライエタリでないバージョンも同時に再配布されなければならないでしょう。

Linux ディストリビューション内でのデータの配布

Debian Linux wish to distribute OSM data within their main distributions? Is it acceptable in terms of the Debian Social Contract?

Debian LinuxはOSMデータをそのメインディストリビューションに入れて配布したいと考えています。Debian Social Contractは受け入れられるのでしょうか?

There doesn't seem to be anything in the Debian Social Contract which would make it not acceptable.
Debian Social Contract には受け入れないとするような理由は何も見当たりません。


The licence should allow a games maker to create a production run of DVDs and this in itself should not be considered to be "publication" so the share-alike clause for any Derivative Dataset should not come into force (yet). This should come into force once the DVDs are publicly distributed.


This would come under internal use and would be OK.

ネガティブなユースケース (許可されるべきでないもの)


A commercial map company uses OpenStreetMap data to plug holes in its own data which it then supplies as its own database with acknowledgement. They may have done this to add detail, such as footpaths, zebra crossings or to add territory to their dataset and sell it. They do not make improvements to OSM data, but don't share their commercial data with OSM arguing that this is a collective Dataset and they are not changing the OSM component.


The argument would have to be settled in court. Community discussions and guidelines can provide best-practices which are pretty strong in court. The best approach would be to put examples out there.

Google Map Maker内でのOSM

We would like to avoid someone like Google loading the whole of OSM into their Map Maker system, where Google then lay claim to any further improvements made by users. It is ok for them to load OSM, but improvements must then be shared back.

我々はGoogleのような誰かがOSM全体を彼らのMap Makerシステムにロードするようなことは避けたいと考えています。Map MakerではGoogleはユーザが行ったいかなる改善に対しても権利を主張します。彼らがOSMをロードするのはOKですが、改善は共有してOSMに戻さなければなりません。

Yes, such use would be prohibited under the ODbL.


To use OSM mapping to add places to Wikimapia. Example area: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=60.2261751&lon=24.9588776&z=11&l=0&m=a&v=2?

There seems to be no information about licencing on wikimapia and no agreement between people adding data and the project.

Wikipapiaに場所を追加するためにOSMマッピングを使うことについて。例となるエリア: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=60.2261751&lon=24.9588776&z=11&l=0&m=a&v=2?


Would require any derivative database to be ODbL licensed.


A third party wants to integrate OSM data into their database without being bound by the licence. They take a non-substantial amount and integrate it. A week later, they take another non-substantial data-set and integrate it. They continue accumulating data from different areas under the non-substantial clause.

The licence should clarify that the total amount of data taken from OSM decides whether it is a substantial use, regardless of the time span and the number of imports involved.


ライセンスはOSMから取得されたデータの合計量が、タイムスパンや含まれるインポートの数に関わらず、サブスタンシャルな使用なのかどうかを決定する 、ということを明確にすべきです。

Repeated extracts are covered in the license.


As mentioned above (images on small devices), the attribution and license only need to be available in an about dialog or similar. What if somebody takes a snapshot and publishes it, with no dialog visible?. This would be an easy way to get rid of license and attribution.

above (images on small devices)に記述されている通り、表示とライセンスは説明用ダイアログボックスやそれに類似するところにだけあれば良いです。もし誰かがスナップショットを取得して、目に見えるダイアログなしでそれを公開した場合はどうなりますか?これはライセンスと表示を免れる簡単な方法になりえます。

例: Traveling salesman screenshot.jpg

The screenshot is a Produced Work. Is probably covered by fair use exemptions in your jurisdiction's copyright law. If not, then you need to check the license under which the application's UI elements are distributed (e.g: the icons) as this may limit your options for distributing the screenshot. By distributing the produced work (screenshot) then you will need to include the database notice/attribution and an offer of the data (dump, diff or instructions) used to create the screenshot. If the application is rendering the data, it might not be Substantial anyway. If the application is displaying tiles then your rights (assuming no fair use) would be governed by the rights granted on those tiles, not the ODbL.

スクリーンショットは製作著作物です。おそらく、あなたの国の司法の著作権法のフェアユース 免除規定でカバーされます。もしそうでなければ、そのアプリケーションのUI要素(例えばアイコン)の配布ライセンスをチェックする必要があります。というのも、これはあなたがスクリーンショットを配布するオプションを制限するかもしれないからです。製作著作物(スクリーンショット)を配布することにより、あなたはデータベース注意書き/表示とスクリーンショットの作成に使われたデータ(ダンプ、差分および命令)を含める必要があります。もしアプリケーションがデータをレンダリングしているなら、それはいずれにしてもSubstantialではないでしょう。もしアプリケーションがタイルを表示しているのであれば、あなたの権利(フェアユースでないと推定される)はそれらのタイルによって許可された権利によって支配されるでしょう。ODbLではありません。


I did not found this use case: Is legal creating map composite from different source (free/commercial)?

I.e. I get commercial data about oil-well from customer. I analyze pollution on the oil-well. I will create map from

  • oil-well
  • oil-well pollution analysis
  • OSM topographic data, crop of the area in ESRI Shapefile format
  • SRTM contour line

and print them and give it to customer on CD as PDF, ESRI Shapefile. I declare topo (c) OSM, pollution (c) my, oil-well (c) customer, contour (c) NASA.

このようなユースケースが見つかりませんでした: 異なるソース(フリー/商用)から合成したマップを作成することは適法ですか?

例) 私は顧客から油井についての商用データをもらっています。私は油井の汚染を分析します。私は以下のものからマップを作るつもりです

  • 油井
  • 油井汚染分析
  • OSM地形データ、ESRI Shapefile形式でエリアをトリミングしたもの
  • SRTM contour line

そしてこれらを印刷してPDF、ESRI ShapefileとしてCDで顧客に渡します。私は、地形 (c) OSM、汚染 (c) my、油井 (c) 顧客、等高線 (c) NASA と宣言します。

OK. The other items have no dependency on or interaction with OSM layer. License provisions for the OSM layer should followed: A PDF may (or may not) be a Produced Work (see produced work guidelines), in which case you would have to include an offer of the OSM-derived data used to create the map. This may be limited to the OSM data itself, or include other data which was used to modify it. If the OSM data was rendered without modification then it is not necessary to release the other data sources. An ESRI shapefile may be considered a database for the purposes of the ODbL, which would require that you distribute the data under the ODbL to your customer. This may not be possible if a single shapefile contains several sources of data which cannot be released under ODbL. If separate shapefiles are used then there should be no problem, although the OSM-derived shapefile would be ODbL licensed. --Matt 17:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC) with slight modification MikeCollinson 18:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


add details here


  • 投稿者が新しいライセンスを明らかに侵害する出版物を見つけました。



  • 新しいライセンスを明確に侵害している出版物があります。OSM Foundation はその所有者を告訴できますか?


The license relies heavily on a number of important sorts of Work: the Derivative Database, Collective Database and Produced Work and the interpretation of the above Use Cases often rely on the use of the terms. This section explores the boundaries between these. These examples refer both to these terms and to more detailed implemention details to explore the implications of the license for some applications.


During the creation of many Produced Works the first stage is likely to be to create a smaller more manageable dataset stored in a more convenient form and only containing the data from OSM that is relevant to their needs. This might result in a new smaller Database or a arrangement of a selection of the full dataset in the main computer memory. To be clear this process will not involve adding additional content to the database although it might include the rejection of badly formed data using an automatic process or even the correction of some data by an automated process - for example to reject non-closed polygons or to automatically close them. This process should lead the creation of a derivative database.

See [[1] for futher comments and suggestions.

Covered by the "substantial" / "non-substantial" guidelines.

Can one freely arrange data within a Collective Database as appropriate for the application

When a programmer is working with OSM and data from other sources and thereby creates a Collective Database they will want to be free to arrange the combined data in the most appropriate form for their purpose. We believe that this should be allowed so long as merged database itself is not being published.

The non-OSM parts of a collective database do not need to be published.

If it is necessary to publish the Collective Database then it should be possible to use the Parallel Distrubution clause to use an optimised merged format internally and provide a public version where the data is kept distinct.

The parallel distribution clause may also be used.

Can one adjust the OSM data automatically while building a Collective dataset

When merging OSM data with data from other sources it might be necessary to modify the OSM data (or the other data) to make it fit together well.

For example one is matching up churches in the OSM dataset with a (C) library of photographs of churches of which most have rough geocodes. Some churches may exist in OSM but not in the library and some in the library but not in OSM and some will exist in both but the position will be different. The programmer will create a computer program to reconcile these differences with the aim to create a computer model with a feature for every church together with a photograph. The combined data would be partially derived from a (C) source so the programmer would not be able to release it to OSM. Is this allowed.

As long as the derived database isn't publicly used, or used to create a public produced work.

When is something a Derivative Database when is it a Produced Work and can it be both

Is a large KML file a Derived Database, a Produced Work or both. It could be considered as a vector description of an image or as a database and any KML file can be used as either. If it is a database then what notices should be provided with it.

Is a large SVG file a derived database or a produced Work of both? same questions as above

Similarly for a pdf file containing a vector description of a map.

Should be clarified by community guidelines.

What constitutes a Substantial extract

The license allows the free extraction of non-substantial amounts of data. People will be allowed to extract anything below this threshold and use it completely free of any restrictions. See Substantial - Guideline for details on this point.