Talk:Open Data License/Use Cases

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Kann bitte jemand diese Fallbeispiele auf Deutsch übersetzen? - Für juristische Laien - also für die Meisten von uns! - sind vergleichende Fallbeispiele (vorher / Nachher) die beste Form, die konkrete Bedeutung einer Lizenz bzw Lizenzänderung zu verstehen. Danke!

Please can somebody translate this use cases? Thanks, --Markus 06:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Licensing of derivatives

I proposed to delete this sub-section (on licensing of derivatives) from the talk page - There seems to be agreement that such discussions should occur on legal-talk and I don't think it adds a lot to this page. Please let me know if you object PeterIto 08:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Unhappy with this rule - I think that any "integrated experience" or however you call it can be made available under any license, including PD, provided that the underlying database is made available under the terms of our license. --Frederik Ramm 20:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that the restriction is a nuisance, but without it does one not release the map data (in the form of an image or whatever) for people to do whatever they want with it, including to re-create their own DB without any constraints? PeterIto 06:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The current draft of the license seems to allow non-database derived works (a "produced work" in the language of the license) to be released under any license -- it doesn't prevent produced works from being released PD. The only restriction placed on reverse engineering is that the licensee (user of the database) cannot use the ability to create produced works as a loophole by which to reconstruct the database without following the license. As I read it, nothing prevents a printed/rasterized produced work from being released as PD by one party, and some unrelated person extracting the data therefrom, thus reconstructing the underlying dataset. Since the ODbL licensee is the user of the database, not the consumer of any produced works, I don't see a way around this unless we wish to apply reverse-engineering license restrictions to the produced works as well. (Note that, say, requiring the produced work to be CC-BY-SA is not enough, since CC-BY-SA only covers copyright, not any data rights, the reason why a different license was created in the first place.) In jurisdictions such as the US without copyrights on facts or explicit database rights, this would not be practical, as the only way to enforce such a restriction would be to require end-users to enter into a contractual agreement before viewing the produced work. Forcing one to enter into a contract before viewing maps derived from share-alike-licensed data seems a cure worse than the disease. --Speight 09:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The language here may need tightening up and I suspect this is worth raising on the legal-talk list. --Richard 10:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • My goal as a producer of Free (as in freedom) works is to enable (and encourage) others to create new and innovative Free works based on mine, so that the catalogue of Free works available to the world is growingly enriched by new contributors. This wealth of new works is my reward for contributing in the first place. I don't understand why anybody would be allowed to pick random pieces of Free works, produce something new with it, and not share it back. If they have a problem with sharing back to the community, they should just not use a Free work in the first place, get their data elsewhere and possibly pay for it.--Pshunter 12:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I very much agree with this. But section "4.5 Share Alike does not apply" of the proposed license will encourate not more but fewer Free works. --Lutz.horn 19:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a mistake to think that ODbL is a weaker copyleft than CC-BY-SA. In many ways it's stronger: in particular, there is a requirement in ODbL (which CC-BY-SA doesn't have) to make the source of any derivative available. This means more data will accumulate to OSM than it does at present - in your terms, increasing the amount of "Free works".
  • True. But Produced Works like mashups will not be required to follow the SA principle. Such Produced Works can easily be nonfree. It's not only the data that is important but how it is used. --Lutz.horn 21:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Nonetheless there is always, in any copyleft licence, a dividing line between what is a derivative and what isn't. In this regard ODbL, as a licence intended solely for data, is much closer to the GPL, as a licence intended solely for source code. The GPL also does not require Produced Works to be licensed under the same terms: think of a program compiled with GCC, for example. All of the optimisations carefully developed by the GCC devs are contained in the object code of the compiled program (the Produced Work in ODbL language) - it could therefore be considered a derived work. But the FSF, and GCC's developers, do not consider that the Produced Work in this case has to be licensed as GPL. ODbL is the same but with the added, express prohibition of reverse engineering (though as per above, this may need tightening up).
  • I would also offer the opinion that consensus is as important as having your own personal views reflected 100%. We have a very broad spectrum of views in OSM, from hardcore copyleft advocates to fervent public domain people. We will never get a licence that everyone agrees on; what's more important is to have one which the community can broadly coalesce around. --Richard 10:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Produced Works that I want to fall under the SA principle are mashups, routing software, statistics, etc. These are works that not just use the OSM data but include, display, rearange, and output it. I would not compare such Produced Works to the output of using the GCC. --Lutz.horn 21:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You might think of OSM as a geodata «compiler», but I think it is an error. Databases have many differences compared to a compiler. Compiling a program with GCC involves taking your data, process it and obtain the corresponding object code. In that process, no substantial part of the GCC code is copied to your program. When it is the case, for example with Bison (which is also some sort of compiler but the compiling process requires that a large part of Bison code itself is included in the resulting program), all the included code is covered under a special license (not GPL) that allows redistribution under relaxed terms, which include the possibilty that the copy becomes non-free (BSD like). The problem with OSM and Free data in general is that most of the uses involve a direct copy (or representation) of the data, which exposes the very essence of the project. On the contrary, compiling any amount of random code through GCC will never expose the inner workings GCC at a cost lower than rewriting a compiler yourself. As such, I think that any work that involves a transformation of someone's data in a process that uses OSM, and whose result would be data which can hardly be related to OSM should remain under full property of the original owner of the data. However I cannot see such an use case.--Pshunter 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Use Case Processed Status

Can we work out a scheme to flag Use Cases which still require a response from the Legal counsel. Also flag items which require extra explanation for the Legal counsel.Firefishy

  • Sounds good, although I do also think we should tighten up the wording for some use cases and merge similar ones which might open up the review process again but will be worth it in the end.PeterIto 19:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have updated the Use Cases and the Use Cases are now flagged as proposed PeterIto 08:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Text removed from main page for reasons given below

Original section heading: "Licence compatibility"

Which licences are compatible with data licenced under the ODbL: 1). GPL 2). BSD 3). Artistic 4). GFDL 5). CC-BY-SA

Which licences are compatible with maps rendered from data licenced under the ODbL: 1). GPL 2). BSD 3). Artistic 4). GFDL 5). CC-BY-SA

  • This is not a Use Case. Please consider how to phrase this as a Use Case. Thanks PeterIto 05:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the essence of this is covered already in the questions "... including OSM in Linux distributions" and "Use of maps in Wikipedia and Wikitravel". --Frederik Ramm 23:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • moved to talk pages PeterIto 09:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


"Substantial" would need to be defined as something like "more than n% of the ways contained by the bounding box of the area covered by the extract that is displayed in the derivative work" i.e. _not_ something like "more than n% of a country/continent/whole database" (because countries are so variable, so you can't choose 1 percentage that is appropriate for all). The percentage should be quite small, like 2%. However, that wouldn't stop someone filling the database with a lot of rubbish so that the bit they want to extract is less than "Substantial"...--Spod 15:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Using data to create or augment a business directory

This was tagged as "Wording changed, question added - needs review by lawyer again". What is the change that the lawyer should review? (I don't see any difference to the question at --Ulfm 13:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted text from Substantiality section

The following text has been removed from the article to avoid confusion in relation to the article on substantiality:-

What constitutes a "substantial" extract. Which of the follow extracts from OSM would be treated as substantial?

  • UK[1]
  • An English county [2]
  • The Isle of white (an island off the south of the UK) [3]
  • Newport (a small town on the isle of white) [4]
  • A list of places to eat in Newport [5]

Legal opinion seems to point in the direction of quantitative measures.

  • If 1% of he DB is treated as insubstantial then as OSM grows will the non-substantial area also grow?
  • How widely is legal opinion of substantiality vary between lawyers and jurisdictions?

In the context of OpenStreetMap, we are also concerned about cascading "substantialness". If I take the OSM database encompassing the whole world (the "planet file") and extract from it the data for London (creating a derivative database) then is it possible that someone who extracts, say, "all cycleways in London" creates a substantial extract (that triggers the ShareAlike clause of the license) while someone who does the same from to the original world-wide database does not create a substantial extract even though the resulting database is identical?

The database directive explicitly states that: The maker of a database [...] may not prevent a lawful user of the database from extracting and/or re-utilizing insubstantial parts of its contents [...] for any purposes whatsoever. (Art.8 Par.1) There is a useful and relevant discussion of interpretations of Substantial in Scoping a Geospatial Repository for Academic Deposit and Extraction (pdf) from page 28 and relevant case law.

  • Here is (my personal) tentative proposal for our own guideline based on comments on the legal-talk mailing list. MikeCollinson 08:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"We regard the following as being not Substantial within the meaning of our license provided that the extraction is one-off and not repeated over time for the same or a similar project:

1. 100 features. In OpenStreetMap parlance, a feature can be a way, such as part a road with the same characteristics, or an independent node, (Point Of Interest), such as an eating place.

2. You can go over the 100 feature limit, provided that the extraction is non-systematic and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria. For example, we would regard the extraction and use of all eating places or all castles in an area as Substantial. But if you extract the locations of restaurants you have visited for a personal map to share with friends or use the locations of historic buildings as an adjunct in a book you are writing, we would regard that as non Substantial.

3. A single systematic extraction and re-use of an entire area of up to 1,000 inhabitants . The area can be a small densely populated area,(for example, a European village but not a town), or a large sparsely-populated area, (for example, Australian bush).

If your extraction of data does not fall within the above guidelines, then we would expect it to be Substantial and therefore you should comply with the provisions of our license."

I am not happy that I have captured 2 properly.

The overall rationale for the wording is

a) it is safer to define non-Substantial than Substantial;

b) to encourage as much as possible the worry-free use of our data for personal projects, local community and local educational projects, for commercial projects where our data is either a very small adjunct to the main thrust of the product/service or where the commerciality is clearly cottage-industry, for example village map OK, town map not OK;

c) to build a case for the "qualitative" interpretation of Substantial (, p28). In particular that a systematic extraction of a single criteria is Substantial in a qualitative sense (even if a minute quantity of the entire database).

Server abuse Heavy use of OSM tile servers through commercial applications

Is there a section where I can place the following question:

Shall a developer be allowed to publish and sell a commercial software (e.g. iPhone navigation application) that only or as standard uses OSM servers and not own tile servers? --Lulu-Ann 14:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It does seem wrong, but they are not against our current Tile usage policy. The iPhone applications are free advertising for OpenStreetMap and have drawn a large number of people especially from the USA to the project.
The tile policy will likely be reviewed in the future, but isn't a problem yet.
--firefishy 11:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, a tool with a name that means "offline maps" surely "encourages bulk downloading". And I guess a top 50 iPhone app is considered a "heavy user", so there are already sentences in the Tile usage policy that apply. I agree that these tools are good advertising, but they would also be good advertising using their own tile servers ;-) I would like to add a paragraph about commercial applications. --Lulu-Ann 13:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking someone to law for license violation

Sorry to bring up a subject that is new in the usecases. Imagine an OSM contributor needs money and thinks sueing somebody is a nice way to get some. Is it possible with the new license that a single contributor goes to court to blame a license violator? --Lulu-Ann 13:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal Definitions redundancy

Under Can one freely arrange data within a Collective Database as appropriate for the application am I right in thinking this sentence "We believe that this should be allowed so long as merged database itself is not being published." is redundant and can be removed? Collective DBs can be published (shown to the public) without triggering SA on the non-OSM data.