LWN: Comments on "OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing"

There are yet another side to all this

wookey — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:14:43 +0000

The greeks are paranoid about maps too, and appear to treat them as weapons. I don't know the actual law, but I do know that high-res maps are pretty-much unobtainium (or were a few years ago), and that you could get into trouble for distributing them (we were cavers that needed a good map - the only way we could even look at one was to find a freindly person at a road-building company who could show us his (but definately _not_ hand it over).

And recall what happened to some UK plane spotters a few years back for a general idea of the paranoia level. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greek-cour...

You can see the remnants of this 'maps are military' meme in the UK, where the mapping agency is still called the 'Ordnance Survey' (ordnance is bombs and missiles). Mapping was once an almost exclusively military activity. A few countries haven't quite got past this to accept that it's incredibly useful for everyone and that military/state control of mapping is no longer possible.

Don't even need a GPS receiver

Eliot — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:09:54 +0000

A minor nit about "All you need is a GPS receiver and some time"?

All you need is a web browser connected to OSM, local knowledge, and some time. Much useful mapping can be done without a GPS by using available satellite imagery and local knowledge.

See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapping_techniques#Sat...

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

dvdeug — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 04:43:23 +0000

Standards for copyrightability vary around the world. The UK is generally believed to admit copyrights for stuff the US won't. Under US law, a copy of a PD painting, no matter how skillful, laborious or judgement-requiring, does not permit of a new copyright. Likewise, a phonebook doesn't get a copyright, nor does the listing of cable companies. Only creative works get a copyright; and the whole point behind something like this is not a new creative work, it's a recording of the physical facts of the world in a mechanical manner.

Stange - I can see it clearly.

khim — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:15:28 +0000

Have you really expected BLACK hole? Oh, silly me. It's GRAY. Big difference there. See "ulitsa Tihonravova"? See buildings across the street? On other side - there are numbers 28,30,32,36,38/2, 40, 42. On the other side... On satellite there are over 20 building of different sizes. On the map... nothing. Huge gray blob. WHY these buildings are not marked? Yup: that's top-sikrit object in question. MCC to be exact.

Just like another example it's pointless and stupid. Yet it's law.

Fact & precision ? Multiple contributors ?

lacostej — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:29:42 +0000

Some ideas that probably mean not much...

How precise need a fact to be so that it becomes a fact ? The GPS positionning is precise up to a certain limit. Plus there are potential issues (hardware, user errors, etc..) that make the data in the database unique.

Think about a group of painters trying to reproduce a landscape, each with different tools. Althought the end result might be very similar to the reality (the facts), it could be slightly different enough to be seen as a creation. Futhermore, as the work is always in progress and uses so many contributors make it a special case. It's not like the creation was directed/controlled and the current result (a sub set of the reality) is some sort of community art. Or do we need changes in the law to manage those community gathered 'facts' ?

Finally: what about using colors to represent the GPS positions ? :) Or losing some precision/introducing small errors voluntarily in order to make the result a creation ?

404 - black hole not found...

hummassa — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:54:34 +0000

I think your tup-sikrit installation is not a lot tup-sikrit anymore, because I can't see any black holes, not in Google Maps, and not in Yandex...

There are yet another side to all this

Creideiki — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:01:19 +0000

Almost correct. SFS 1993:1742 6§ says you're not allowed to distribute aerial photographs or detailed maps without permission. There are only a few areas (see AIP ENR 5 2.2.1, or any TMA map) where photography in itself is forbidden.

Interestingly, SFS 1993:1742 7§ explicitly exempts pure satellite images from the permission requirements. How high resolution are the best satellite images commercially available nowadays?

WW II road signs in rural England

Hawke — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:54:20 +0000

I would assume the GP was talking about the road signs being useless anyway...

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

giraffedata — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:01:54 +0000

Why not just make OSM "public domain", so no license would be required at all?

A significant part of the article covered that question. It's the same question as why don't we put the Linux kernel in the public domain: The idea is that copyright is valuable property and rather than give it away completely, the owners can trade it for other people giving up some of their copyright. E.g. if I let you distribute my map layer, you have to let everyone distribute yours.

According to the article, some people believe in this with respect to OSM and others believe there's not enough out there to trade for, so it's just not worth the legal trouble.

WW II road signs in rural England

giraffedata — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:49:27 +0000

as someone who grew up in a rural area of England, I can attest to that gesture being largely superfluous...

Superfluous how? It didn't make it harder for Germans to get around, or Germans weren't going to be there?

There are yet another side to all this

flewellyn — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:20:25 +0000

Yes, but given the state of race relations in Australia (not much better than the US), I imagine his real crime was being Muslim.

There are yet another side to all this

gdt — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:49:34 +0000

There was a conviction of Faheem Khalid Lodhi in Australia in 2003 for "possessing things connected with terrorist acts". The "thing" was a map of an Australian state's electricity grid. See Regina v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 691.

Lodhi's map was not a street map, but major transmission links and substations could well appear in OpenStreetMap as they are particularly good reference points in rural areas.

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

spaetz — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:45:31 +0000

> Consider a map: it is a mapping to paper of a physical layout, and there are a number of known and popular projections when mapping the surface of a planet to flat paper.

We are not talking about not being able to copyright the map. Of course a map is copyrightable. The choice of colors and other issues makes it an expression of creativity.

The database that contains those "facts" is a different beast though. It is just that: a collection of facts. And copyright does not apply to facts.

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

k3ninho — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:53:42 +0000

Our Editor's comment about not being able to copyright facts seems a USA issue; the idea seems to me a legal fiction because there are many ways to embody a fact. Consider a map: it is a mapping to paper of a physical layout, and there are a number of known and popular projections when mapping the surface of a planet to flat paper.

I'm unsure about other jurisdictions but, in the UK, Copyright in an original work requires expenditure of more than a trivial degree of independent skill, labour and judgement. In the case preparing the maps for OSM, it's arguable that the skill required in operating the GPS device and converting its recorded information, the labour in travelling the journeys required to make the survey, and the judgement in editing the map data before upload would ensure that the embodiment of information justifies protection by copyright. Does the Berne Convention not mean that these criteria apply internationally?

I believe that copyright subsists in the OSM data. There will further be a database right in EU. Is there an assignment of copyright when you upload map data? If not, that's a slipup. But the real issue is that OSM may take on GIS providers whose datasets are extremely expensive. That will require some clear thinking about how to ensure that the community retains access to their mapping.

There are yet another side to all this

lysse — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:12:32 +0000

Although as someone who grew up in a rural area of England, I can attest to that gesture being largely superfluous...

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

lysse — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:10:10 +0000

Not necessarily facts at all, in some cases. They're definitely covered by copyright. ;)

Exaggeration? Yes, but not a big one.

khim — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:41:49 +0000

Heh. That's bisuness model of Geocentre Consulting: they check licenses of firms who offer maps and if they don't have proper licenses - they are going to them and demand to sign an agreement. Alternative is not pretty: high penalty or jail time. You may be true as far as actual jail time is concerned: it gives nothing to extorters so I can not recall any recent cases where it actually happened. But fines are fine :-) They can be used with great "otkat" technology to produce actual money.

So if you are talking about problems for pesonal use - it's probably Ok (too much hassle for too little gain), but shops who'll offer CDs with OSM... that's another story :-)

There are yet another side to all this

dottedmag — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:27:25 +0000

You're disinformed. It is no longer the truth in Russia.

It's not legal to OWN map - it's illegal to CREATE map

khim — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:23:12 +0000

Map ownership is not restricted. Map creation is. It's kinda hard to point to someone who owns the license (granted by Russian government) for OSM... All other maps (especially printed ones but also Google Maps or Yandex Maps) have pointer to someone who owns the license.

That being said I'm pretty sure induvidual users will not be jailed, but Linux distributors who include OMS data on the CD... that's another question altogether :-)

There are yet another side to all this

filipjoelsson — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:15:51 +0000

To throw in a bone: In Sweden it is still illegal to publish a non-authorized map. The authorization step is a military guy removing any of our mobilization stuff from the map.

Nevermind that it is quite stupid - all you need to do to find military mobilization stuff is to compare aerial photography with recent maps (stuff that's in the photo but not the map tends to stand out) - it's quite illegal anyway. So is photographing from the air (plane or tower) without a permit, btw.

Is it obvious we've spent hundreds of years being afraid of the Russians, or what?

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

ewan — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:14:58 +0000

Would it actually be much of a loss if OSM was to lose copyright
protection on the grounds that it's just a big bundle of facts, since any
such decision would surely also destroy the copyright on existing
proprietary mapping databases, and get to the end goal of Free maps that
much quicker?

Not very well at all - it does not mean you'll not be jailed

khim — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:26:01 +0000

Compare this and this. Note: both maps contain kind of "black hole" in the middle of the town. Sure: it's some kind of top-sikrit object. I'm pretty sure appropriate Google search reveal which object exactly - but it does not mean you'll not be jailed for possesion of map of that object.

It does not work as military precaution but it works very well indeded if you want to punish someone :-)

There are yet another side to all this

afalko — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:18:46 +0000

Correct me if I am wrong, but I would assume that maps of all sorts were legal in the USSR, except to be considered fact they would have to be made and authorized by the state. If you happened to make a map of a military secret, you'd probably vanish into thin air at the hands of the KGB, but that is a different matter.

Today in Russia, I would except you to be allowed to use OSM and OSM's license would likely be enforced to the furthest extends of the law (which IMO would not be a great extent). However, you probably will get in deep trouble if you submit gps mappings containing perceived military secrets.

If you use openssh in Russia, then legally you are committing a crime, as you are not allowed to use encryption tools without permission from the government. Once again, it comes down to enforcement. From what I know, just about every corporation in Russia skimps on taxes. The government does not really care much unless you get out of line, in which case you're going to find yourself behind bars for the tax evasion everyone commits.

Anyway, back on topic, you should be OK submitting maps to OSM in Russia, but just don't start submitting GPS mappings of your attempts to find Nuclear warheads :).

Posession? No. Mapmaking? Yes.

khim — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:17:21 +0000

If the map has proper licenses it's not illegal anymore. But if you did it yourself and included wrong type of information... treason is not an easy charge to repell.

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

dankamongmen — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:31:45 +0000

it was my understanding that "sweat-of-the-brow" arguments protected databases whose construction required significant initiative/expense/ingenuity.

wow, cs4001's term paper came in handy. who'd have thought?

There are yet another side to all this

felixfix — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:24:51 +0000

In this age of global information networks, how well does censorship work?

Why you would expect any dictatorship to be modern and up to date in their thinking is beyond me.

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

butlerm — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:24:18 +0000

That won't work. The sine qua non of copyright is creativity. A usable machine generated natural language representation of a database of facts would not have this property.

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

pabs — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:16:45 +0000

I'd love to see them use CC0 - an enhanced version of a public domain dedication, that includes a license for countries that do not allow living persons to transfer their works to the public domain. It is done by the Creative Commons folks and is under development.

There are yet another side to all this

flewellyn — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:57:17 +0000

Sure, but in this age of satellite imaging and global information networks, how well would such measures actually work?

There are yet another side to all this

felixfix — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:56:00 +0000

Military secrets. It is a widespread rumor that maps in the Soviet Union were illegal for civilians, and it certainly seems plausible. Britain in WW II took down or misdirected road signs in rural areas to make it that much harder for German invaders to find their way around.

There are yet another side to all this

flewellyn — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 02:40:02 +0000

I'm a bit confused...why would possession of a street map be a jailable offense in any jurisdiction?

There are yet another side to all this

clugstj — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 02:23:07 +0000

Uhh, nothing. Data and licenses/contract cannot correct governments.

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

pj — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 02:09:39 +0000

They should put their database into readable english text then use the GFDL on *that* for redistribution. Any machine translation of that is a derivative work, so that's protected via the GFDL as well, by the same logic that translating a .wav into a .mp3 is still protected via the copyright.

Legal vs. technical content at LWN

JoeBuck — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:55:59 +0000

I suggest just skipping the content that you aren't interested in. Like it or not, these issues do matter; it's OK if you don't care, but many do.

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

corbet — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:22:01 +0000

Proprietary additions would probably be completely different types of data. On the list there was a discussion of a city's database of bus stops, for example.

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

dlang — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:37:53 +0000

as a community we ridicule the companies that try to protect databases of facts (phone books, etc)

as such I think it's wrong to turn around and try and protect databases of facts that we accumulate (this map data is a very good example)

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

jengelh — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:00:11 +0000

What's much more interesting, assuming you had an appropriate license how would you detect proprietary additions? "Look ma, that street corner ain't in OSM, it must be prop!" Happy searching within the number of street corners in the world.

In other news...

denf — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:33:22 +0000

... in some countries, possession of marijuana can bring you to jail. What
can be done about that?

On a serious note, I believe this is not the case anymore. With GLONASS
being pushed to public use accurate maps have to be legal in Russia.

There are yet another side to all this

khim — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:47:51 +0000

In Russia or China, for example, posession of the OpenStreetMap on your laptop can bring you to a jail (probably not right now as maps of Russian are pretty rudimentary in OSM). What can be done (if anything) about that?

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

adegeus — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:11:42 +0000

Why not just make OSM "public domain", so no license would be required at all. Then we, "the world". would really own our own map, and anybody can do anything with it he or she likes. E.g. also put it in to a propreitary box.