OpenStreetMap's point of no return [LWN.net]

By Jonathan Corbet
January 12, 2011

Back in 2008, LWN reported on the OpenStreetMap project and its plan to change the licensing of its map database. This change was controversial, to say the least, but the project as a whole appeared to be determined to press forward with it. At the beginning of 2011, the license change has not yet happened. But it has now been determined that April 1 of this year will be an important milestone date in this process. This could be interesting to watch, as the project is still not entirely sure of what it is changing to.

The new license - the Open Database License (ODBL) - is well understood. The ODBL is an attempt to stretch European-style database rights to the point where they cover the database worldwide. To that end, the ODBL is explicitly written as a contract - a crucial difference from most free licenses, which try to avoid contract law entirely. The ODBL must take this approach because the OpenStreetMap database, being primarily factual in nature, is not easily covered by copyright. A license which relied strictly upon copyright law would risk being unenforceable in much of the world.

Of course, relying on contract law has its own difficulties - contracts are only binding if everybody involved has agreed to them. Direct downloads of the database from OpenStreetMap will require a click-through agreement, but further redistribution (which is naturally allowed by the license) need not involve any such formalities. If there is ever a case in a part of the world which does not recognize database copyrights, where the defendant denies having ever agreed to the contract, the outcome could be interesting to say the least.

Be that as it may, the ~~project~~ Foundation voted to change over to the ODBL. But a vote does not give the OpenStreetMap Foundation the right to change the license on previously-contributed data. So, before the database as a whole can move to the ODBL, the project must (1) convince all contributors to agree to a relicensing of "their" data, or (2) remove data contributed by people who are unwilling to agree. To that end, OpenStreetMap has been trying to get contributors to agree to a contributor agreement which gives the Foundation some wide-ranging rights:

Subject to Section 3 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to sublicense the work through multiple tiers of sublicensees.

The "Section 3" mentioned above restricts the Foundation to the use of ODBL, CC-BY-SA, or "another free and open license." This agreement has been somewhat controversial within the project for a number of reasons, starting with the mechanism by which the license could be changed (again) in the future: a vote of "active contributors" would be held. Some people seem to fear that a future, dark-side Foundation could restrict contribution for a bit, then hold a rigged election to obtain the results it wants.

The contributor agreement also restricts contributors to adding data to which they, personally, hold the copyright (if any). Much of the data going into OpenStreetMap, though, comes from governmental sources and may have its own license terms applied to it. Forgoing that data seems undesirable, so some contributors understandably complained. In response, there is now a draft update to the agreement which softens that requirement. This draft has not yet been adopted, though, and there are suggestions that further changes are in the works.

Despite the lack of an updated agreement, the OpenStreetMap board recently mandated that, after March 31, only contributors who have accepted the agreement will be allowed to make changes to the database. That clears the way for the final step: the removal of all data for which permission to relicense has not been obtained. Some contributors fear that quite a bit of data could be lost at that time.

How much data is entirely unclear. There appears to be no publicly-available information on how many contributors have accepted the agreement, or how much data can be relicensed. There seems to be confusion about what will happen to data contributed by one person (who may not have accepted the agreement) which was subsequently edited by another (who did agree) - or vice versa. People within the Foundation may have a good idea of what the consequences of the license change will be, but they don't seem to be talking much; requests for information (example) have gone unanswered. The board did say, in its December 2010 meeting minutes, that:

The board discussed the issue of data loss and expects, considering what has been seen, it will not be a showstopper at the time of the final switch.

In any case, that "final switch" may still be some time in the future. The April 1 deadline ensures that new data is ODBL-compatible, but it does not, itself, force a relicensing of the database. The OpenStreetMap license change page contains a lot of information about the new license and the motivation for the change, but it contains no dates for an actual changeover. So this transition, which has dragged on for some years, could continue to drag for a while yet, especially if it looks like a lot of data could be lost. The prospect of a significantly reduced map database could give strength to the loud contingent of contributors who would rather see the project just put the data into the public domain and be done with it.

The motivations which are driving the move to the ODBL are similar to those behind the use of the GPL for code; contributors do not want to see others distribute enhanced versions of their work without giving back their changes. But trying to extend the reach of copyright to data it does not naturally cover, in a project involving many thousands of contributors, is never going to be an easy thing to do. There is no clear map showing a way out of this situation.

why delete?

Posted Jan 12, 2011 20:58 UTC (Wed) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link] (17 responses)

I don't understand why they would need to delete the work of non-cooperating past contributors; they could just apply the contract to new or relicensed data, and the previous license to the old. Copying it would require satisfying both the license and the contract. Is the present material licensed in a way incompatible with the new regime? Indeed, is it, being a compilation of facts, subject to any conditions at all? (Isn't that what this is all about?) If not, why does it matter whether they agree to anything?

The scrupulous way to do this would be simply to fork the present project, compete with it under the new terms, and see who wins.

why delete?

Posted Jan 12, 2011 21:26 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (5 responses)

> fork the present project

If you split OSM's contributor base, the winner will be Google Maps.

why delete?

Posted Jan 12, 2011 21:46 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (3 responses)

Really? So you expect a close to 50% split then in the contributor base, and with very little overlap (few contributors to both)? If not, without this very specific outcome, I hardly see how a split could be very detrimental.

If you stepped back ~15 years, would you say to the Wikipedia folks that if they split from Nupedia, that the winner would be Britannica?

I am not claiming that you are wrong, simply that you are making a wild and bold prediction of the future as if it were a simple obvious fact. I don't believe that it is.

why fork?

Posted Jan 13, 2011 10:55 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (2 responses)

Any loss of contributors is a loss, and would demotivate the remaining contributors.

Nupedia wasn't at OSM's stage of development when Wikipedia forked off from it.

What I think is wild and bold is the proposition of a fork when there's no current need for it. If the licence debate gets to a point where contributors start leaving, then yeh, I hope those contributors at least work on another free mapping project. Some things are worth forking over. But for so long as everyone can continue to work together, it's probably best to do so.

If forking was so harmless, why only fork in two? Why not invite OSM to fork into ten little projects? :-)

why fork?

Posted Jan 13, 2011 17:16 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (1 responses)

> Any loss of contributors is a loss, and would demotivate the remaining contributors.

The lack of forking when a project is taking a wrong turn is also demotivating (Again, I am not claiming it is a wrong turn). Forking could mean a gain in contributors (I believe that was likely the point in the original suggestion), in the right case, it does. And, not forking can sometimes lose more contributors.

> Nupedia wasn't at OSM's stage of development when Wikipedia forked off from it.
Please explain. Do you feel it is way ahead or way behind Nupedia?

> If forking was so harmless, why only fork in two? Why not invite OSM to fork into ten little projects? :-)

Why not fork in 100 projects? It likely won't matter. since 98 of those 100 projects will likely have 1 contributor to them. Just because someone forks a project doesn't mean that anyone is going to follow them. Tiny and numerous forks happen all the time on almost every project, even small ones, you just don't consider them forks because they don't amount to anything, they have no effect on the main project. Many simply remerge with the main project regularly. Many are dropped and the contributors remerge.

If someone wants to fork, because they are dissatisfied, they are likely lost to start with. If someone else follows them, then it is a sign of greater dissatisfaction. This type of forking is a way of expressing an irreconcilable difference. If it gets to this point, not forking does not fix the problem. Forking at least has the potential to. Forking is a sign of energy, it can be a great counter to apathy. If forking can kill a project, it is already dead.

why fork?

Posted Jan 24, 2011 15:21 UTC (Mon) by bblammo (guest, #72548) [Link]

Why can't two different licenses be used as two different services with the same organization as the custodian.

Two separate services with different licensing, let the data owners decide which they want. The end users can decide which they want to use as well, and add to where needed, is one falls short for some reason.

why delete?

Posted Jan 12, 2011 21:50 UTC (Wed) by giggls (subscriber, #48434) [Link]

> If you split OSM's contributor base, the winner will be Google Maps.

Google Maps is an entirely different thing than OSM. OSM is all about free geodata while Google Maps is about online map stuff only.

The strength of OSM in the area of online maps are special maps for all kinds of purposes which are simply not available in the proprietary area.

Examples in other areas are Maps for Hikers, Cyclists, Skiing and many others as well as Maps for Offline use in GPS receivers etc.

why delete?

Posted Jan 12, 2011 22:53 UTC (Wed) by jameslivingston (guest, #57330) [Link] (6 responses)

> Is the present material licensed in a way incompatible with the new regime?

Basically.

> Indeed, is it, being a compilation of facts, subject to any conditions at all? ... If not, why does it matter whether they agree to anything?

That's one of the really messy things, it greatly depends on jurisdiction. Some places you can't copyright facts, some you can if they've collection into a database. Some places you can copyright the database, some places have sui generis database rights, some have neither.

why delete?

Posted Jan 13, 2011 8:47 UTC (Thu) by mjthayer (guest, #39183) [Link] (5 responses)

>> Indeed, is it, being a compilation of facts, subject to any conditions at all? ... If not, why does it matter whether they agree to anything?

> That's one of the really messy things, it greatly depends on jurisdiction. Some places you can't copyright facts, some you can if they've collection into a database. Some places you can copyright the database, some places have sui generis database rights, some have neither.

I wonder whether they really need to have the data protected in all jurisdictions? I presume that what they want is to prevent evil people incorporating the data into their own, closed offerings. But I would have thought that if said evil people could then no longer offer what they have in some important markets they might well decide that it isn't worth it anyway.

why delete?

Posted Jan 13, 2011 15:45 UTC (Thu) by spaetz (guest, #32870) [Link] (4 responses)

> I wonder whether they really need to have the data protected in all jurisdictions?

Yes, you need that. Otherwise, evilcorp downloads a dump of the OSM data from LaxCountry where the data is in the public domain. Then evilcorp can claim full copyright over the data and make it proprietary.

Just ensuring that something stays in the public domain is very hard :-)

why delete?

Posted Jan 13, 2011 15:52 UTC (Thu) by mjthayer (guest, #39183) [Link] (2 responses)

>> I wonder whether they really need to have the data protected in all jurisdictions?

> Yes, you need that. Otherwise, evilcorp downloads a dump of the OSM data from LaxCountry where the data is in the public domain. Then evilcorp can claim full copyright over the data and make it proprietary.

But in places where it is protected, surely you would be able to say "you downloaded that data from us in a place where that was allowed, but you can't offer anyone in this place, where it isn't allowed, access to the proprietary database you included it in." Given my limited knowledge of the subject that is no more than a hypothesis of course.

why delete?

Posted Jan 15, 2011 2:12 UTC (Sat) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (1 responses)

I believe you are correct under US law. Just because you can buy a bootleg DVD in Hong Kong doesn't mean you can legally import said bootleg into the US and you would likely be in violation of US law for attempting to do so.

why delete?

Posted Jan 20, 2011 23:53 UTC (Thu) by emj (guest, #14307) [Link]

The only problem is that the US doesn't have DB copyright.

why delete?

Posted Jan 13, 2011 17:28 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

Copyright doesn't work like that. Steamboat Willie is in the public domain in many countries, but you cannot somehow launder it through a different country and then re-import it to the USA.

why delete?

Posted Jan 12, 2011 23:45 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (3 responses)

You're quite right - if indeed 'copyright does not apply' and the current licence is unenforceable, then there is no need for any complex relicensing, you can just take the existing map data and start distributing it under the new terms.

That's one reason to be sceptical of the claims that a licence change is needed.

why delete?

Posted Jan 14, 2011 1:20 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link] (2 responses)

if indeed 'copyright does not apply' and the current licence is unenforceable,

One doesn't enforce the license; one enforces the copyright. The license is a copyright holder's waiver of some of his copyright. If copyright does not apply, all we can really say about the license is that any conditions in that license are irrelevant since no one has any need for the license.

why delete?

Posted Jan 14, 2011 7:05 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (1 responses)

If copyright does not apply, all we can really say about the license is that any conditions in that license are irrelevant since no one has any need for the license.

I completely agree. If the work is not covered by copyright, no licence is necessary! The claim that 'the current licence is unenforceable' is one of the reasons given for replacing it with the ODbL, which attempts to be a click-through EULA enforcing extra restrictions on use of the work. It's not a claim that I agree with and perhaps I should have put it in quotation marks along with 'copyright does not apply' (to computer-readable map data).

why delete?

Posted Jan 14, 2011 7:28 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

All I'm saying is that "the current license is unenforceable" is gibberish. It's not something you can agree with or disagree with; it says nothing. It's like "the current pumpkin is unenforceable."

In contrast, "copyright does not apply" means something -- something which may or may not be true.

OpenStreetMap's point of no return

Posted Jan 12, 2011 22:28 UTC (Wed) by jameslivingston (guest, #57330) [Link]

From the article:
> Be that as it may, the project voted to change over to the ODBL.

No, the Foundation (which I believe has less than 300 members, and is a fraction of the contributor base) voted to proceed with the re-licensing process.

Since then there have been important changes to the contributor terms, more massive arguments, and now the Foundation Board have decided on a cut-off. The contributor terms still haven't been finalised yet.

What I see as the more serious problem, is that we're still arguing over parts of what the Contributor Terms should do. Not the legal wording, but what it should do - e.g. can you add data from a third party that may not be able to be re-licensed in the future?

(I was one of the handful of OSMF members who voted no to the current process)

Whether copyright applies to map data

Posted Jan 12, 2011 23:42 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (1 responses)

The new license - the Open Database License (ODBL) - is well understood. The ODBL is an attempt to stretch European-style database rights to the point where they cover the database worldwide. To that end, the ODBL is explicitly written as a contract - a crucial difference from most free licenses, which try to avoid contract law entirely. The ODBL must take this approach because the OpenStreetMap database, being primarily factual in nature, is not easily covered by copyright. A license which relied strictly upon copyright law would risk being unenforceable in much of the world.

In the interest of fairness the article should mention that while this is a motivating factor for changing licences, it is not universally accepted. Many point out that maps certainly are covered by copyright (indeed, they were some of the first works for which copyright was invented), and storing the map in computer-readable form does not obviously change its copyright status. Indeed, a fact is by itself not copyrightable, but reporting and recording of that fact (newspaper articles or encyclopaedia entries) certainly is.

People also point out that in the unlikely event that copyright does not apply to map data, this would in fact be excellent news for the project, because it could copy factual data such as street layout and names from other sources such as Google Maps. But this looks unlikely to be the case.

The article also has a factual mistake in saying that the project has voted to move to the new licence (as Wikipedia contributors, for example, voted to change to CC-BY-SA). There has been no such vote; more than a year ago the paid-up members of the OSM Foundation, numbering a few hundred, voted 'I approve the process' to an outline document describing how a licence change might proceed.

Whether copyright applies to map data

Posted Jan 13, 2011 6:49 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

In Russia and Ukraine maps and satellite images are not under the copyright.

OpenStreetMap's point of no return

Posted Jan 13, 2011 1:11 UTC (Thu) by mlinksva (subscriber, #38268) [Link] (56 responses)

> The new license - the Open Database License (ODBL) - is well understood.

I wonder if this is a typo? Certainly its effects are not well understood, neither directly on publishers and users (as "could be interesting" later implies), nor on the open data/content ecosystem, specifically interoperability with existing large datasets under CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or in the public domain (e.g., from Freebase, Wikipedia-derived, and government, research, and other sources) -- ODBL does have some provisions to mitigate compatibility problems for some use cases (produced works), but it isn't clearly classically compatible with other commonly used terms, except for public domain as a donor.

Creative Commons has been following this saga with great interest, both because OSM is a fantastic project, probably second only to Wikipedia in demonstrating the the utility of free-as-in-freedom terms outside of software, and because data is an increasingly important part of the open ecosystem. What we've learned from OSM informs an upcoming contemporary statement on CC licenses and public domain tools for data, as well as upcoming work on version 4.0 of the CC license suite, which will make every effort to address the needs of the open data ecosystem for which CC is the most important steward of legal tools.

We haven't said anything directly concerning OSM's possible migration to ODBL so far, both because it is up to the OSM community, and much of the debate has been about contributor terms, orthogonal to the license used. However, we have begun to work more closely with open data stakeholders, and want to take the opportunity to dispel any myth that CC licenses can't be used for data or that CC doesn't care about data -- neither could be further from the truth.

Mike
(Creative Commons)

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 13, 2011 8:42 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (46 responses)

When Wikipedia changed licences they talked to the FSF to arrange an upgrade path. Perhaps you and the Open Data Commons people should get together to thrash out an 'open map data licence' acceptable to both. It could then be published by both organizations as an upgrade to CC-BY-SA 2.0 and ODbL 1.0 respectively. The licence change problems of OSM would then disappear (and many people, like me, who have opposed the change partly because they did not want to abandon Creative Commons, would likely accept the compromise).

One root of the disagreements is an attempt to treat an online map as abstract 'factual data' like a telephone directory. It isn't quite like that, not legally, and certainly not in the perceptions of contributors, who feel they are making a collaborative work just as much as Wikipedia. For that reason a 'computer cartography licence' might be a better fit than something purely about abstract 'data'.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 13, 2011 10:24 UTC (Thu) by giggls (subscriber, #48434) [Link] (37 responses)

We are not talking about Online Maps here, we are talking about the raw data.

The fact, that the actual rendered maps (online or offline) are art and thus can be licenced under CC is undisputable.

The dispute is about our raw map data (lines,points, polygons and routing net) which a lot of people do not consider art but just facts.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 13, 2011 16:50 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (36 responses)

Yes, I am also talking about the raw data, or source code if you prefer. OSM consists of a machine-readable format with GPS-style positions and 'tags', which can be edited as XML or stored in a relational database among other ways of manipulating it. It can also be rendered into an image for printing out or display on a web page, among other uses.

Of course it describes a collection of facts about the real world, but then so does Wikipedia, and so do paper maps. Whether it is 'art' I do not know.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 13, 2011 17:15 UTC (Thu) by giggls (subscriber, #48434) [Link] (35 responses)

Talking about wikipedia, the stuff protected by copyright is _not_ the facts covered by the articles, but the (english, german or whatever language) words describing these facts.

In OSM there is no need for such a creative work, because we need no creative skills for data acquisition, quite the opposite, we even use a uniform way of fact acquisition (our data format).

While this might well be a lot of work, it is simply nothing we can earn any kind of copyright on.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 13, 2011 17:33 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (34 responses)

Copyright (and therefore CC Licenses) are for protection of creative stuff

I don't think there is anything in the statues referring to 'creative' (though I might be wrong).

Plenty of works describing mere facts are also copyrightable, and if you don't believe me, start photocopying and distributing some paper maps and see how far you get. (Online distribution of the underlying data set, for example one of the many computer-readable map products, would be equally infringing.)

Of course there is no monopoly on the fact itself - you can't sue people just for spreading the knowledge that Main Street joins on to High Road - but no licence can change that.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 13, 2011 19:07 UTC (Thu) by giggls (subscriber, #48434) [Link] (33 responses)

Last try on my site as it seems that you do not to get the point, this could well be because my English is not good enough for legal discussion...

Shure, it is not allowed to copy and distribute a paper map because of copyright law, but this is because I would copy the whole map not just
the facts. As I do actually not know if such a map _does_ display facts
only it would be also unsuitable for the production of OSM data.

In OSM analogy: Our rendered maps are subject to copyright law (no objection here), but our raw data is not!

This is the whole reason why we started the discussion about ODBL after all, because nobody could confirm that our data is in fact copyrightable.

I wonder about the original post in this thread, because at some point in the discussion it has been explained that the CC-Organisation did tell us exactly this when asked and that we should use CC0.

Think about the commercial map data providers (Teleatlas and Navteq). If there would be such a strong copyright regime on the data as you argue, they would not need to obfuscate it in such a strong way as they currently do.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 13, 2011 20:41 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (30 responses)

Shure, it is not allowed to copy and distribute a paper map because of copyright law, but this is because I would copy the whole map not just the facts.

This is not true. Even if you just copy factual information from such a map, you are still infringing copyright. There have been court cases upholding this (in the United Kingdom - Ordnance Survey vs AA; I would be surprised if it were different in other countries).

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 13, 2011 20:49 UTC (Thu) by giggls (subscriber, #48434) [Link] (5 responses)

IANAL, but if you where right the whole licence change would be pointless.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 13, 2011 21:57 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (4 responses)

Given that the OSM project itself has strong guidelines against copying from any other maps without permission - even if you just copy factual data - I believe that the claim 'copyright does not apply to map data' is not supported by the evidence. And yes, I do believe the licence change is rather pointless, or at least a huge overreaction to what are relatively minor problems with the current licence. (CC-BY-SA is not perfect, but it is well understood, fairly simple, and interoperable with the wider community of CC-licensed content.)

Copyrightability of maps

Posted Jan 14, 2011 18:00 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link] (3 responses)

I don't think there is anything in the statues referring to 'creative' (though I might be wrong).

Well the statutes are a tiny fraction, a mere whisper, of the law. Written court opinions use "creative" a lot. They actually prefer "original," but that is practically a synonym.

Ones I've seen also like to stress that copyright covers expression of facts, as opposed to facts. It provides writers a way to get paid for their writing by the people who benefit from it, but doesn't provide researchers a way to get paid from their research by the people who benefit from it.

There is a major case in this area in the US from 1991: Feist vs Rural Telephone Service Co. Feist copied all the names, addresses, and phone numbers from Rural's telephone directory into a compilation of directories. The court said Rural could do nothing to stop that. It said that a writing has to cross a certain threshold of originality to trigger copyright, and that alphabetical order is not sufficiently original. So Rural's telephone directory was not copyrightable.

I can see this apply to some maps. Telling someone the shape of a coastline by drawing a scale picture of it is the least original way imaginable to do that. I can also see how a more elaborate map could cross that threshold. But by the same token, looking at that fancy map and making another one with the same information shown another way probably wouldn't violate that copyright.

Copyrightability of maps

Posted Jan 18, 2011 8:29 UTC (Tue) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (2 responses)

That's an interesting argument, but I'd be surprised if you can find any court case stating that you can copy a map without violating copyright. In the USA, the Copyright Act of 1790 specifically included maps and charts (they were not included in the equivalent British statute of the time).

I'd further suggest that putting the map into computer-readable form does not change its copyright status, not even if you start calling it a 'database'.

Of course the underlying facts themselves are not under the control of anybody, but that does not mean you can copy the representation of them. Similarly, anybody can photograph the Statue of Liberty, but it is not allowed to take somebody else's photo and copy it without their permission. You can certainly use it to learn some facts, such as 'the statue has a spiky hat', but it's not safe to make a copy of the representation of those facts without some clean-room process.

Copyrightability of maps

Posted Jan 26, 2011 0:42 UTC (Wed) by jrochkind (guest, #72573) [Link] (1 responses)

You can not copy the map. But you can take all the street names and locations off of it and draw your own map. If you use exactly the same colors and fonts and smoothings, that might be problematic. But you can use the basic information to draw your own map.

Copyrightability of maps

Posted Jan 26, 2011 16:02 UTC (Wed) by an+h0ny (guest, #72530) [Link]

"You can not copy the map. But you can take all the street names and locations off of it and draw your own map."

Correct. But if you're going to do that, you might as well go back to the aerial photos and/or GPS traces and/or public domain data which the OSM map was created from.

To successfully extract all the public domain information out of OSM, you'd almost have to do as much work as just starting from scratch.

It's similar to the fact that you could, in theory, extract all the raw facts out of Wikipedia and then use them to recreate your own encyclopedia, which wouldn't be subject to the copyleft requirements.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 19, 2011 9:40 UTC (Wed) by Doctor_Fegg (guest, #72359) [Link] (22 responses)

Not that simple. The UK has the strongest protection of any jurisdiction for factual information - the "sweat of the brow" in collecting the facts is protected, not the facts themselves - and even then OS vs AA relied on "trap streets". In the US, by contrast, there is significant case law that facts are not protected - from Feist vs Rural onwards - and this is being followed in several other countries, most recently Australia.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 19, 2011 14:05 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (21 responses)

I agree that facts are not copyrightable in many countries, but I don't think it follows that maps and their underlying data are freely copyable. Not even if the map is stored in a computer system. Feist vs Rural refers to a telephone directory, not to cartography; maps are specifically included in copyright statutes from 1790 onwards. For these reasons I do not believe that 'copyright does not protect facts' can be taken to mean 'copyright does not protect map data'.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 19, 2011 16:50 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link] (20 responses)

Map data is nothing but facts, so "copyright does not protect facts" is a strict superset of "copyright does not protect map data". A map is not just the facts it expresses--the map data--but a visual rendition of those facts, which may or may not comprise an original expression. It is the original, creative expression which qualifies a work for copyright privilege, regardless of the form of the work. Original expressions of facts, including the more creative maps, are within the domain of copyright; the facts they express are not.

I would further argue that a programmatically-rendered map is no more original than the raw data it was made from, and consequently should not qualify for copyright either. Certainly a fresh rendition of the map data is not actually a copy of any other map, even if they happen to be identical.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 19, 2011 19:52 UTC (Wed) by jthill (subscriber, #56558) [Link] (19 responses)

Maps have historically been copyright. The selection of detail and symbolism goes beyond just compilation. If I was going to speak for a Judge I'd say even computer-generated ones qualify as copyright whoever did the selection. Making different selections, different road widths or symbols or font sizes or whatnot, doing enough of that would make it not infringe. But I'm not going to speak for a Judge, so I didn't say that ;-)

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 19, 2011 23:42 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link] (18 responses)

I did not mean to imply that it would be impossible to use a program to render raw data into a map containing sufficient originality to qualify for copyright. The software aspect does not nullify whatever creativity may be present, but--importantly--it does not *add* to it, either. Simply using third-party software to render all available raw data, or an unoriginal, mechanical subset thereof, with the default settings would not be enough to qualify, IMHO. The more you tweak the selection of data to render and the manner in which it is displayed the more originality there is in the resulting map, and the more likely it is to qualify.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 20, 2011 10:14 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (17 responses)

You are using 'map' to mean 'a rendered image of some raw data'. Then while the rendered map (on paper or whatever) is clearly copyrightable, you believe that the underlying cartographic data is not.

On the other hand, I believe that the data is the map; it is in computer-readable form (as well as being human-readable and human-editable, as OSM shows) but it remains a map. Similarly, a musical score kept in computer-readable form in a music editor program remains music, and is copyrightable in just the same way as a printed music sheet or a sound recording.

In general, copyright status does not change when putting something into a computer or taking it out. Nor just because you express it in a novel form which can be manipulated by computer. That is why electronic books are copyrightable the same as paper books, MP3 files the same as vinyl records, a computer dictionary system the same as a paper dictionary - and, I suggest, a computer-readable map just as much as any other map. As others have pointed out, maps are specifically and explicitly *included* in copyright legislation.

Now perhaps some part of the OSM data set is outside the bounds of what has traditionally been considered a map, and so might be treated by the courts as more like a telephone directory (which is not copyrightable in some countries) rather than like a map (which clearly is). Another poster mentioned that turn restrictions on streets might be an example of this. But the truth is we don't know. I think it would be very unwise for anybody to start copying such information from OSM or from any other map (whether in computer-readable form or otherwise) and hope to rely on the 'just facts' defence in court.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 20, 2011 16:15 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link] (16 responses)

The difference between the raw map data and an actual map has nothing to do with whether either form is stored in a computer. The computer is irrelevant. The difference is that, barring some original selection or arrangement, raw map data is nothing but an unoriginal collection of facts. A map based on that data at least has the potential to employ an original form of representation, whether the result is stored on paper or as a digital image.

Note that a "book full of nothing but facts", e.g. a telephone directory, is no *more* copyrightable in digital form than it is as a printed book--despite the fact that books are included at least as explicitly in copyright legislation as maps. The map data under discussion is no different than the entries in that phone book. The form of the work (book or map) is not enough to qualify; the expression must be *original* as well. It is the creative expression which copyright covers, not the facts. If all you have is facts, with no creative element, then copyright does not apply.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 20, 2011 18:46 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (15 responses)

I think that the reason why maps are copyrightable is not because they 'at least have the potential to employ an original form of representation', but for the simpler reason that the statute declares them to be copyrightable. Whether or not they are just pure facts, whether or not they have any originality or creative input, the copyright law says that it applies to maps, therefore it applies to maps.

Further, the copyrightability of maps is not based on surface details like the rendering, but on the information they contain. You cannot get round copyright on maps by making a copy that uses different colours or highlighting. Otherwise, copyright on maps would be completely pointless and would never have been explicitly introduced.

That means that when considering the question of whether map data is copyrightable, the important question is not whether it has creativity, but whether it is a map. If the courts treat a collection of digital map data as a map, then it will fall within the explicit copyrightability of maps. If it in the eyes of the law it is not a map, then the situation is murkier.

Note that a "book full of nothing but facts", e.g. a telephone directory, is no *more* copyrightable in digital form than it is as a printed book--despite the fact that books are included at least as explicitly in copyright legislation as maps.

That's exactly the point I am making. Putting it into digital form does not change the copyright status. Since a paper telephone directory is not copyrightable in some countries (which we know from case law), a digital version is not either. Equally, since a paper map is copyrightable (which we know from both case law and statute), a digital version is copyrightable too.

I agree that putting something into a computer-readable form doesn't magically add copyrightability. It doesn't magically strip it away either.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 21, 2011 19:50 UTC (Fri) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link] (14 responses)

"If the courts treat a collection of digital map data as a map, then it will fall within the explicit copyrightability of maps."

That's kind of the whole point; a collection of map data, digital or otherwise, is a *database*, not a map. It may be used to *make* a map, but it is not a map by itself. It's entirely possible that a court could rule otherwise--it wouldn't be the first brain-dead copyright decision to come out of the courts, by far, starting with permitting copyright in the first place--but monopolizing a collection of facts without any original creative element is in no way compatible with the purpose or spirit of copyright.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 22, 2011 12:45 UTC (Sat) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (13 responses)

That's kind of the whole point; a collection of map data, digital or otherwise, is a *database*, not a map. It may be used to *make* a map, but it is not a map by itself.

I think we will have to agree to differ on that. To my mind you could equally say that an electronic dictionary (as supplied with a word processor, for example) is a database, not a dictionary, although it may be used to make a dictionary. The contents of Wikipedia (when downloaded as the raw data) is a database, not an encylopaedia, though it can be used to make one. A vector graphics file such as SVG is a database which can later be used to make an image. Even program source code is a structured database which can be used to generate a program (by compiling it).

All quite true points, but in my view they do not affect copyrightability, and do not affect the general principle that a map is a map, and music is music, no matter whether using computer-readable or dead-tree storage. It would be most odd if just adding '...but on a COMPUTER storing the result in a DATABASE' to any activity caused the copyright status to change. Although many business method patents have shown just that, so there is a chance you could be right.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 22, 2011 18:33 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (4 responses)

a phone book includes addresses, which is map data, according to you, this is as good as bing a map.

however, it's been ruled by the courts that phone books are not copywritable because they are just unoriginal listings of facts.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 23, 2011 20:19 UTC (Sun) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (3 responses)

a phone book includes addresses, which is map data, according to you, this is as good as bing a map.

I don't think a list of addresses is really anything like a map. A map is a schematic representation of certain chosen features of the real world (whether physical features, or conceptual ones like political boundaries), transformed into an abstract geometric space (most commonly a 2-d plane) using a fixed projection.

A phone book doesn't really contain any map information, nor can you extract map information from it. So I don't think it is a map, and that is why it does not fall under the copyrightability of maps.

I didn't mean to imply that any collection of facts about the real world or about addresses or location of objects is automatically considered a map.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 24, 2011 1:17 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

a map as you define it 'a schematic representation of certain chosen features of the real world (whether physical features, or conceptual ones like political boundaries), transformed into an abstract geometric space (most commonly a 2-d plane) using a fixed projection.' is copyrightable, nobody is disputing that

however, what is in doubt is if a list of the 'chosen features of the real world' without the 'schematic representation' or the step of being 'transformed into an abstract geometric space' is copyrightable

the OSM database isn't the representation, it's the list of features of the real world. in other words, a list of facts

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 24, 2011 11:28 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

Have a look at the OSM data, perhaps as an XML download. You will see that it has a schematic representation, in this case a series of abstract 'tags' which are used to represent concepts such as a road, a building or access rights. It also uses an abstract geometric space, in this case a two-dimensional plane, where points on the earth's surface are mapped onto the plane using the WGS84 coordinate system.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 24, 2011 15:13 UTC (Mon) by an+h0ny (guest, #72530) [Link]

"however, what is in doubt is if a list of the 'chosen features of the real world' without the 'schematic representation' or the step of being 'transformed into an abstract geometric space' is copyrightable"

While I believe epa answered this question (OSM *does* have these things), I also have to beg to differ that a list of chosen features of the real world is not copyrightable.

Copyrightability requires creative arrangement *or* selection (*or* both). A selection of facts about the world which are useful for creating a map would, in itself, be copyrightable in the US, because it takes human creativity to decide which facts are useful and which are not.

Now, that said, go back to epa's answer and take a look some time at OSM. Or just take a look at the database schema (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Database_schema). The basic building blocks of the OSM database are not "facts", they're "nodes" (points), "ways" (lines), and "relations" (which, among other things, can represent polygons). Go to http://www.openstreetmap.org/ and edit things a bit. The software (Potlatch) does not ask for a list of facts, it provides a canvas on which you can draw things.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 23, 2011 7:01 UTC (Sun) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link] (7 responses)

Once again you have latched onto irrelevant details while ignoring the real point, which (for the reading-comprehension-impaired) is as follows: raw map data is not properly copyrightable because it consists of *nothing more* than a set of facts. Not because it is digital, or on a computer, or because it can be used to make a map, but because, being nothing but raw, unoriginal, uncreative facts, it contains no original creative expression, which is the foundation of any copyright claim.

The claim that a map may have to copyright rests on the fact that a map can contain more than just the raw facts--in particular that it can contain some element of original creative expression. Copyright applies only to the creative element; another map containing the same facts, but *not* the original aspects, would not be in violation. Program source code is the same way: copyright does not grant exclusive rights over the program's formulas or processes--the raw facts--but only to the particular way in which they are implemented. A second program which computes the same results or performs the same actions but does not copy any of the creative expression from the first implementation would not be infringing.

In short, if you want to argue that copyright has any relevance to the OSM database you need to show that it contains some original selection, arrangement, or annotation, which are within the domain of copyright, in addition to the plain facts, which are not.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 23, 2011 8:00 UTC (Sun) by jthill (subscriber, #56558) [Link]

Consider that making a map requires selecting a small subset of a really massive amount of data, and not merely listing the facts it contains but highlighting the most relevant information, in a way which makes it easy to find what that map's users are looking for. None of that is needed for a phone book. Phone books are data dumps. Maps are intelligently-constructed renderings. Phone books are not copyright. Maps are. You can say should and shouldn't until the cows die of old age, brainless work isn't protected.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 23, 2011 13:49 UTC (Sun) by HamishB (guest, #72529) [Link]

> In short, if you want to argue that copyright has any relevance to the
> OSM database you need to show that it contains some original selection,
> arrangement, or annotation, which are within the domain of copyright, in
> addition to the plain facts, which are not.

[reposted from the Australia/New Zealand OSGeo mailing list thread on this topic; Sept 2010]

fwiw, I consider my work on OSM to be a useful art- the map data is not
truth, a map is an abstract representation of reality. The cartographer
(or data entry monkey) can and does take a lot of artistic license in
designing and placing their data points, be it in the density of vertices
or the decision of what to include and what not to include.

the telephone number is not an abstraction of a telephone number, it /is/
the data. the page layout is the copyrightable thing there.

in this way the OSM database has a lot more copyrightable work in it than
say Google Map's satellite view (c) DigitalGlobe etc., who's only claim
to artistic work is the placement of the satellite and the elevation
correction algorithms.

also, without a ShareAlike-style license, for my part I doubt I'd bother
to contribute very much to OSM beyond perhaps fixing errors in my local
neighborhood to make backyard BBQ invites less confusing for my friends;
same as the corrections I've pushed upstream to Google Maps. I've little
interest in becoming an unpaid employee of MegaMap Int'l, Ltd.

2c,
Hamish

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 23, 2011 16:23 UTC (Sun) by an+h0ny (guest, #72530) [Link]

"raw map data is not properly copyrightable because it consists of *nothing more* than a set of facts."

First of all, OSM is not merely "raw map data". It is not "nothing more than a set of facts". OSM is the source code for a map, which, when combined with a stylesheet (e.g. http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/applications/render...) and a compiler (e.g. Mapnik), produces a map.

Secondly, "a set of facts" *is* copyrightable, if there is selection or arrangement of those facts. OSM is a selected, organized, cross-linked set of facts expressed in a non-human language.

If you are going to claim that OSM is "*nothing more* than a set of facts", then you should be able to provide a simple and obvious explanation of what category of facts OSM covers. For instance, the white pages is "a listing of the name, address, and phone number of every person in a certain geographic area".

What is OSM? "A listing of all geographic facts about the world"? Certainly not. What is it? What is the *idea*, which you are saying can be merged with the *expression*.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 23, 2011 20:27 UTC (Sun) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (3 responses)

If I understand you rightly you are saying that the copyright subsisting in maps (in countries such as the USA) is only in such creative element as the map contains. A consequence of that would be that it is not infringing copyright to make a copy of a map, provided you only copy the factual data and not any of the creative part. In other words you could buy a tourist map of New York City and trace over it to extract out purely factual information such as street layout, and make your own map provided you didn't copy the typography or colours or recommended restaurants or other creative element.

If that is the case, then I thoroughly agree that doing the same process using a computer and a computer-readable representation of the same map would not be any more copyrightable.

However I don't think it is the case, because maps are explicitly covered by copyright law, and I don't believe this coverage is hedged with anything like 'but only the creative part, not the factual part'.

I don't mean to imply that making a map of an area grants an absolute monopoly over the facts it contains. Anyone else can go out and independently survey the same area. But I don't think they can simply copy the map somebody else produced, even if they just copy the facts such as the position of objects or their names. If that were so, then all maps would be pretty close to being in the public domain, and projects such as OSM would be either unnecessary or trivially easy to complete by copying from existing maps.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 24, 2011 4:41 UTC (Mon) by an+h0ny (guest, #72530) [Link]

"A consequence of that would be that it is not infringing copyright to make a copy of a map, provided you only copy the factual data and not any of the creative part."

This is correct. "The protection that each map receives extends only to its original expression, and neither the facts nor the idea embodied in the maps is protected." (Mason v. Montgomery Data, Inc., http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/fulltext/masonmontgome...)

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 24, 2011 4:59 UTC (Mon) by an+h0ny (guest, #72530) [Link]

By the way, I recommend you read Mason v. Montgomery Data, Inc. in its entirety. Yes, copyright does not restrict the copying of facts, but lines on a map, which represent facts, are not necessarily facts in themselves (and I see no reason that digitally encoded lines should be any different from printed ones).

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 26, 2011 0:46 UTC (Wed) by jrochkind (guest, #72573) [Link]

Nope, you probably can't _trace_ it, because the exact lines and curves are probably copyrightable.

But you can look at where the streets are, and redraw it yourself. Or use the street names to fill in blanks on the map you drew seperately. Etc.

In the U.S. This discussion has a lot of people mentioning "the statute" without saying what statute in what country! In the US at least, the actual bounds of copyright are (and have been for 100 years) defined more by case law than statute.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 26, 2011 0:40 UTC (Wed) by jrochkind (guest, #72573) [Link]

It is different in other countries. There have been court cases in the US saying the opposite. You can't photocopy someone elses map, but you can indeed take all the street names and locations off of it and draw your own. That wasn't always the law in the US, but has been for about 20 years.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 15, 2011 0:17 UTC (Sat) by mlinksva (subscriber, #38268) [Link] (1 responses)

This is alluded to in other posts, but most directly here, so will answer here:
> I wonder about the original post in this thread, because at some point in the discussion it has been explained that the CC-Organisation did tell us exactly this when asked and that we should use CC0.

This would have been someone from 'Science Commons', a brand of Creative Commons intended to speak to ... science, where it was deemed a more normative approach (public domain only!) was needed. That stance wasn't intended to apply to all fields, though lack of statements from CC on use of CC licenses for data doubtless helped create the impression that public domain only without nuance was CC's universal recommendation.

In the meantime, lots of projects were using CC licenses for data (including OSM, and some really old ones such as MusicBrainz, which has split its data between what it considers purely factual and in the public domain, and user contributed annotations, which are under BY-NC -- for better or worse -- approximately from the very beginning of CC) and CC did not pay adequate attention, at least publicly, to those users. I apologize for that.

We are just starting to rectify that with regard to data -- or I probably wouldn't be posting in this thread; also watch the series starting with http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/26016 -- and we've also learned some things about avoiding messaging confusion. Over the course of 2010 we retired both our education (ccLearn) and science (Science Commons) brands because the Creative Commons brand is more powerful and speaking with a unified voice forces us to be more rigorous and less confusing -- please spank us if we fail at this. :)

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 21, 2011 0:04 UTC (Fri) by emj (guest, #14307) [Link]

The Science Commons statement that ODbL should be CC-0 instead, was hurtful for the license debate in OSM. Considering it seamed like it came from Creative Commons making it even more confusing when CC later on said they would do a license for facts.

So thanks for retiring the Science Commons brand.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 14, 2011 23:27 UTC (Fri) by mlinksva (subscriber, #38268) [Link] (2 responses)

ODBL and CC-BY-SA are different enough that it would probably be difficult to declare compatibility in either direction. ODBL isn't much used yet, so the easiest way to maintain interoperability in the world is for people to continue to not use and/or ODC to retire it. :) That said, CC is happy to have any discussion predicated on maximizing the value of the commons. Certainly that's how we intend to approach development of version 4.0 of the CC license suite.

I'd recommend any non-software copyleft project participate in CC-BY-SA 4.0 discussions and keep an upgrade path to that license open. It may well be that OSM contributor terms could provide that path, as could a highly custom negotiation as provided by FDL 1.3 (which provided a brief window for massively collaborative projects like Wikipedia to migrate to CC-BY-SA), but utilizing those paths are much more costly and time consuming than a version upgrade of the same license.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 15, 2011 20:47 UTC (Sat) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (1 responses)

ODBL and CC-BY-SA are different enough that it would probably be difficult to declare compatibility in either direction.

They are a fair bit different, but given that ODbL is little used so far and the OpenStreetMap project is the only major source of content to consider it, the intent is the same. The reason why some in OSM wish to use the ODbL is that it is 'CC-BY-SA without the problems' as one put it. I don't agree with that judgement, but it's the reason why the licence is being considered: we want to have something which is like CC-BY-SA, but that 'does not apply' for our project, therefore let's use this other more complex licence.

Given that, a one-off FDL-style relicensing clause could help people achieve what they want, if the 'problems' with CC-BY-SA are resolved in a future version. It would also allow all sides to save face if there were some public reconciliation and group hug between CC and ODC about the way forward for works such as online maps. An optimistic vision, I know...

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 18, 2011 17:48 UTC (Tue) by mlinksva (subscriber, #38268) [Link]

I think a group hug is eminently possible, whichever of the several possibilities are used to get there. :-)

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 14, 2011 23:53 UTC (Fri) by mlinksva (subscriber, #38268) [Link] (4 responses)

I meant to reply to this part as well:
> One root of the disagreements is an attempt to treat an online map as abstract 'factual data' like a telephone directory. It isn't quite like that, not legally, and certainly not in the perceptions of contributors, who feel they are making a collaborative work just as much as Wikipedia. For that reason a 'computer cartography licence' might be a better fit than something purely about abstract 'data'.

Lines between facts, arrangements of facts, creative expressions of facts, and lots of variations between aren't super clear and vary among jurisdiction. A question is how much there is to gain from having a bunch of licenses customized to address these variations, or one that does pretty well across them (of course this matters most when copyleft is involved). It's not at all clear that a niche 'computer cartography licence' wouldn't cause more problems (lack of interoperability and wide understanding) than it would solve; same thing for a data-specific license.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 15, 2011 19:36 UTC (Sat) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (3 responses)

I don't particularly want a proliferation of different licences either, and I was happy to use the standard Creative Commons tools to deal with computer-based cartography. I meant to say that of the two evils (a specific map licence versus using a general 'data' licence) I think something particularly about maps is the lesser. The ODbL, whether or not you think a 'data licence' using contract law is a good idea, is an awkward fit to the OpenStreetMap project; it relies on an odd distinction between 'database' and 'database contents' which does not seem to exist in reality, as well as being a little bit unclear about what is a 'produced work' and what is a 'derived database'. So while I would prefer using standard CC-BY-SA most of all, if forced to pick some other licence, I would try to make one that speaks directly about maps and map data.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 18, 2011 17:58 UTC (Tue) by mlinksva (subscriber, #38268) [Link] (2 responses)

Of course the items you call out as 'awkward', 'odd', and 'unclear' are exactly those intended to address perceived problems with CC-BY-SA. I appreciate the attempt made by ODC/ODBL -- the intention (strong copyleft for data with provisions for some interoperability) seems noble. I'm sure a computer cartography licence developed by the right people would also be well intentioned. The problems are hard ones.

Reconciliation between CC and ODC

Posted Jan 19, 2011 14:09 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (1 responses)

Of course the items you call out as 'awkward', 'odd', and 'unclear' are exactly those intended to address perceived problems with CC-BY-SA.

They address perceived problems with CC-BY-SA applied to abstract idea of a database which can be considered separate from its database contents. They are not such a good fit for maps or computer-based cartography, in my opinion. Nobody seems able to define which part of OpenStreetMap's data is the database and which part is the content. That distinction matters, since the project plans to use different licences for each part.

database/database contents

Posted Jan 19, 2011 17:24 UTC (Wed) by mlinksva (subscriber, #38268) [Link]

As far as I could tell the DbCL under which database contents are intended to be licensed post-move is intended to be a no-op, but I agree it is kind of confusing. Condition 2.2 of http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/ says "You must comply with the ODbL" and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License#... says "This effectively means that end users of data published by the Foundation need to study only the ODbL rather than worrying about any special copyrights on individual elements of the database."

To what extent contents would effectively be covered by the ODbL and what that might mean in practice, I don't know.

Thanks for pointing this out. I thought I had some understanding of database/contents separation under ODbL/DbCL, but apparently not. Always good to learn of one's ignorance. :-/

OpenStreetMap's point of no return

Posted Jan 13, 2011 16:58 UTC (Thu) by Doctor_Fegg (guest, #72359) [Link] (8 responses)

Mike's comment is interesting.

Applying the existing CC 2.0 licenses to data, as extensively documented, has significant problems for OpenStreetMap, among them:

1. "leaky" in jurisdictions where factual data may not be unambiguously copyrightable;
2. inconsistent, inequitable or unpredictable scope of share-alike terms;
3. unclear attribution requirements.

3 was partly addressed in CC 2.5 but 1 and 2 remain as issues. If CC is prepared to address them in CC 4.0, that's very welcome; at present ODBL is the only share-alike license to consider these issues, via its contract/database right approach (1) and its Produced Work terms (2). ODBL is an excellent license but is of course not the only possible answer.

CC's approach thus far has of course been to mandate public domain for all data. This is clearly preferable for the scientific community, where attribution is volunteered at any rate. However the geospatial data market is predominantly commercial, and many therefore feel the case for requiring share-alike and attribution through terms is stronger.

The "public domain only" approach is also inconsistent with CC's attitude elsewhere, which encourages you to licence on your terms. If CC is stepping away from this, that would be a welcome development.

OpenStreetMap's point of no return

Posted Jan 13, 2011 18:18 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (1 responses)

I agree with CC that public domain is the best approach for scientific data; I also agree with many OSM contributors that share-alike terms are best for an online map (whether in human-readable or machine-readable form). This is because cartographic data (being the result of human judgement about what to include, how to tag it and how to simplify complex real-world things into abstract concepts like 'point of interest' or 'routable intersection') is not really mere 'data'. If it were just like a telephone directory or rainfall measurements, I don't think anyone would be that concerned about enforcing share-alike on it.

I think that the CC people and the ODbL/ODC people need to realize that they're essentially talking about the same thing, but in different terms: you can call it a 'database', a 'map', or even an 'XML document' or 'source code' depending on which aspect you wish to concentrate on.

By the way, I don't believe that the ODbL's contract-law provisions are a terribly good idea. Apart from the ethical issue of whether a licence should try to impose extra restrictions on people beyond what the law specifies, a contract is much harder to enforce and the range of possible remedies much narrower. The GPL, for example, is a pure grant of permission; you cannot try to argue in court that it is in invalid or you didn't accept it, because if so you do not have a licence to distribute the software. Holding someone to a click-through contract is much harder.

OpenStreetMap's point of no return

Posted Jan 15, 2011 1:30 UTC (Sat) by mlinksva (subscriber, #38268) [Link]

> By the way...

Yes. CC licenses (and our messaging about them) make clear that they don't impose restrictions beyond what copyright imposes. Doing so would make them an instrument of evil (or at least arguably such an instrument). This doesn't mean that licensing nearby restrictions, such as sui generis database restrictions, is ruled out (this would still be a permission grant), but it rules out using contract to impose additional restrictions.

It is at least conceivable that this approach is wrong -- that imposing additional restrictions would maximize the value of the commons. However, one must consider the global costs of doing so, as well as evaluate the non-theoretical benefits -- and at present it isn't clear that there are many. If the concern is "leakiness", contract is a pretty weak plug against bad actors.

OpenStreetMap's point of no return

Posted Jan 15, 2011 0:49 UTC (Sat) by mlinksva (subscriber, #38268) [Link] (5 responses)

I believe the documentation referred to is http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is... ; I'm not going to attempt to address here, but in general I'd say CC will address all such questions regarding how current licenses work and/or in the version 4.0 process.

As mentioned above, the CC approach is not to mandate public domain for all data, but it's easy to see where that impression could be obtained; apologies for that.

I actually think the CC attitude is neither one of mandating a single solution, nor one of licencing on your terms. The former means we could eliminate all but one instrument, or at least only recommend one instrument per use case, and the latter means we'd proliferate licences like crazy -- maybe we did a bit of the latter early on, see http://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses

I think the current and hopefully longstanding CC attitude is that a goal of maximizing the value of the commons requires not just one solution, as use cases do vary, but a small set of them, as a large set facilitates lots of content/data silos, which drastically under-realize the potential of the commons. I hope that this is fairly strongly implied by our recently updated mission statement, featured on our recently updated home page and http://creativecommons.org/about

OpenStreetMap's point of no return

Posted Jan 18, 2011 11:36 UTC (Tue) by TomH (subscriber, #56149) [Link] (1 responses)

Well if the CC approach is not to mandate public domain for all data then it is news to most of the OSM people that have been following this debate because that is precisely what we have repeatedly been led to believe is the CC position.

Consider, for example, this message to our legal-talk list:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-...

Which says:

"But, I would remind everyone that the current official CC policy on CC licenses and databases - indeed, on any legal tools other than PD for databases - is the science commons protocol on open access to data, which calls for the PD position only."

There have been many other messages along similar lines - that was simply the first one I came across.

OpenStreetMap's point of no return

Posted Jan 18, 2011 18:05 UTC (Tue) by mlinksva (subscriber, #38268) [Link]

I think that email (and similar) overstated the scope (science) of CC PD-only policy even in 2008, but that's a CC communication error, as described in other comments. I apologize for this error and recognize that OSM has acted in good faith based on limited information coming from CC.

OpenStreetMap's point of no return

Posted Jan 19, 2011 9:35 UTC (Wed) by Doctor_Fegg (guest, #72359) [Link] (2 responses)

Mike, it's great that you're looking at this. I think three years ago if you'd offered an upgrade path within CC then OSM would have snapped your hands off. But the OSM situation has moved on a lot in these three years and I hope you'll take some comments from a friendly OSM licence activist.

Time is not on your side. OSM's change to ODBL is proposed to take place by 1st April. If it happens (and if it doesn't it'll be the fault of the Contributor Terms, not ODBL itself) it will, in practice, make upgrading much harder. I know the CTs have an upgrade clause, but the community will not stand for this whole argument all over again. This time round there's a sense of "we didn't know what we were doing when our founders chose a creative works licence five years ago". There won't be that excuse next time.

So you need to issue a public statement of intent as soon as possible, and it needs to cover the major areas - and cover them in a way acceptable to a data project like OSM. I'll go through them here.

-------

Firstly, how the data is protected. You need a clear statement of how CC 4.0 will use the sui generis EU database right as well as, much harder, the Feist vs Rural problem. I accept that you won't use contract under any circumstances, and that's fine, but you do need to say how you would tackle this - whether it's SC-style Community Norms or whatever.

Please don't be confused by talk of a "computer cartography licence" in this thread; it's a distraction. No-one is seriously arguing that the cartography (the art) can't be covered by a current CC licence: it's the one thing that unequivocally is. But OSM is a data project, not a cartography project. We want to protect our data dump (planet.osm), not the map tiles which are a convenient demonstration of the project.

In particular, the challenge is the part of our data that correlates to Feist vs Rural: big networks of street geometries and their basic, factual properties (name, road type, turn restrictions etc.). It's the most commercially valuable part of OSM, the most work to gather, and the least likely to be protected.

-------

Secondly, attribution. I believe you've gone a long way towards this in CC 2.5 and subsequent but you need to communicate this to the OSM community (and the community, as you can tell from this comment thread, is not always perfectly aligned with the Foundation). People need to understand CC's mechanisms for attributing thousands of contributors (or not!), and for preserving attribution for imported data from CC-BY sources or similar - for example, the UK Ordnance Survey OpenData.

-------

Thirdly, the Produced Work issue. This is essentially derivative/collective (or adaptation/collection to use your newer language) as applied to data. There are two related problems here.

a) Current CC-BY-SA does not preserve access to the source data. If someone produces a map from OSM data plus significant additional data of their own, and publishes that map under CC-BY-SA as required, OSM does not get access to the additional data. Rather, we are required to 'reverse engineer' it from the produced map, which at certain scales and renderings may not be possible at all. This is obviously a severe problem for data projects.

b) Inconsistent scope. Because current CC-BY-SA is a creative works licence, its copyleft 'infects' classic creative works made with OSM data, but not (say) software made with OSM data. This leads to some bizarre situations: a highly artistic, cartographic printed map will be caught within SA, as it will if it's served as a JPEG to a web browser. But if you deliver the same map data, cartographic styling, and map display applet to a browser as three separate components, then combine them on the browser, the cartography will not be caught within SA. Bad luck, print cartographers!

Again, as OSM is a data project, this means that the stuff we don't want (artistic cartography) is caught within SA although we have no use for it. This is a serious disbenefit for OSM: above all, we want people to use our data. Much as we don't require software using OSM data to be GPL-licensed, we shouldn't require art using it to be SA-licensed.

ODBL's concept of a Produced Work is a neat solution. You have the opportunity to do something similar in CC by using the adaptation/collection distinction. In other words, adding to or augmenting CC-licensed *data* would be an adaptation. Incorporating it as part of another, non-data work is a collection.

-------

Finally, over and above these three issues, the public statement needs to come across as "we're listening and we want to work with you". Earlier Science Commons-flavoured statements to OSM in favour of the public domain had an element of "we know what's good for you and it's nothing like what you've been doing". I accept they were well-intentioned but they had the effect of dissuading even the PD-minded people within OSM. I'm not trying to go over old ground here - simply offer a suggestion as to how you can go forward with OSM.

OpenStreetMap's point of no return

Posted Jan 19, 2011 14:17 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

Thanks Doctor_Fegg for your good summary of the issues; I hope something can come of it. I will see if I can contact the ODC people (Jordan Hatcher) and see if there is any interest from their side.

I agree that a separate 'computer cartography licence' is not the way forward. I would far prefer to use one of the standard CC licences.

OpenStreetMap's point of no return

Posted Jan 19, 2011 17:45 UTC (Wed) by mlinksva (subscriber, #38268) [Link]

That's a great summary, all points well taken. I hope to follow up on all of them publicly soon.

License for raw data?

Posted Jan 13, 2011 12:56 UTC (Thu) by exadon (guest, #5324) [Link] (1 responses)

I suggest a new feature for the Linux Kernel: For each number, store the associated license. The result of a system call then depends on the license clearance of the calling process.

License for raw data?

Posted Jan 13, 2011 19:13 UTC (Thu) by giggls (subscriber, #48434) [Link]

In Europe it is possible to have a copyright on databases but not on individual dabase entries. The ODBL is an attempt to expand this copyright to countries where this is not possible.

Vote with your Feet

Posted Jan 14, 2011 11:16 UTC (Fri) by flohoff (guest, #32900) [Link]

I am a steady contributer since 2008 and i have not been asked if i think a new license is a good thing or if i would like to have a shared alike license. The first time i have been asked is now to acknowledge the license which up to now i didnt and i probably wont.

I dont belive in strict licenses and any restriction or even complexity in the license makes the dataset more complicated to work with or might even make the dataset irrelevant. I even more dont believe in somebody stepping up and sueing all the abuse with the data.

I have more than once written to talk and talk-de that i'd prefer to put the dataset out in the public domain or the equivalent in those jurisdications where this is not possible. Make it PD and put a Social Contract on it like the Debian people did.

Or for simplicitys sake: Acknowledge that CC-BY-SA is defect by design for our use and take the CC-BY-SA as a moral or social contact and be done.

Flo

OpenStreetMap's point of no return

Posted Jan 20, 2011 17:37 UTC (Thu) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link]

Using contract law for redistributable digital property is kind of stupid. It runs straight into informed consent and Privity of Contract:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity_of_contract

Basically, the legal basis of a contract is the fact that the parties agreed to be bound by it, and you can't have a valid contract unless you know who the parties to it _are_. If you have no record of who they are and no proof they consented to the thing, you haven't got much to enforce.

Copyright attatches to the work, and triggers upon the creation of copies. It "breaks closed", so if you don't have a license granting you permission to create the copy then you've infringed upon the copyright on the work. If you didn't agree to the license, your copying was an infringing action. The copyright holder doesn't have the burden of showing that the copyright applies to you, just that you're in posession of a copy of the work which by _default_ is unlicensed unless you can show otherwise.

Contract law breaks open. If you aren't a party to the contract, nobody can have standing to enforce it against you. So the burden of proving it even APPLIES to you is on the person pursuing an enforcement action.

The only way I can see to apply contract law here is to have a central distribution point that records everybody it gives copies to, and to forbid redistribution. And even then, your enforcement would be against the person who redistributed it, not against the recipient who wasn't bound by the contract. (Maybe you could get them on tortious interference (inducing breach of contract), but what if the second person hands it off to a third persion? Perhaps "receipt of stolen goods" or something? But not directly on violation of a contract they weren't a party to.)