[geo-discuss] Re: FW: Open Source geo data
bh at udev.org
Tue Mar 21 14:19:18 UTC 2006
David Sonnen <dsonnen at ispatial.com> :
> I am reasonably involved in open source geospatial data and am currently
> trying to communicate with that community. I'd appreciate it if you'd
> reconsider your auto-rejection.
I had the smae problem when Joe Walsh invited me to this ml, facing
problems of access for posting.
I see that the problems remains.
Can the admin solve this problem?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geo-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org
> [mailto:geo-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org]On Behalf Of
> geo-discuss-owner at lists.okfn.org
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 5:30 AM
> To: dsonnen at ispatial.com
> Subject: RE: Open Source geo data
> You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has
> been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are
> being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at
> geo-discuss-owner at lists.okfn.org.
> From: David Sonnen <dsonnen at ispatial.com>
> Reply-To: dsonnen at ispatial.com
> To: Jo Walsh <jo at frot.org>, Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com>
> Cc: geo-discuss at lists.okfn.org, geodata at geodata.osgeo.org
> Subject: RE: Open Source geo data
> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:29:56 -0800
> Message-ID: <ECELKMPIHPKOKLOADFDLGENEEOAA.dsonnen at ispatial.com>
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
> Importance: Normal
> Thanks! This is very useful. I'm still learning a lot about the complex
> issues surrounding data licensing/access. I'll find and review the
> references that you've mentioned and will incorporate those concepts into
> the paper.
> Right now, it's interesting to see the divergence of data access policy
> discussions and discussions about DRM technology. To me, its seems that the
> policy discussions are reasonably open and constructive. But, the
> discussions about DRM technology are about how to lock down rights and
> access so that a copyright holder can control all uses. The two discussions
> have to merge at some point, hopefully before arbitrary,
> technically-enforced copyright control becomes a limiting economic factor.
> Best regards,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Walsh [mailto:jo at frot.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:02 PM
> To: dsonnen at ispatial.com; Frank Warmerdam
> Cc: geo-discuss at lists.okfn.org; geodata at geodata.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: Open Source geo data
> dear David, Frank, all,
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 10:19:12AM -0500, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> > >I'm still working through a discussion paper on Open Source geospatial
> > >data.
> I'm glad to hear of papers being written on what seems like a pressing
> and topical subject, and i would look forward to seeing your when it is
> written, if it's going to be publically available.
> > >So far, the response from users and vendors has been overwhelmingly
> > >positive. In the paper, I'm getting down to a few of the specific issues
> > >that Open Source data raises. Specifically, I'd like to point to any
> > >that has been done on open licensing for geospatial data.
> I can offer you an overview of past work and recent discussion that
> may provide useful context for you, if you have not seen it.
> Daniel Faivre began work on a Public Geodata License in 2003. It is
> very strongly modelled on the GNU Public License for software. It has
> a strong clause dictating that distribuition of a "derived work" must
> be available on the same terms. Work on the license has been picked up
> by a Canadian group. http://cemml.carleton.ca:8080/OGUG/pgl
> It provides a good discussion candidate for the most "open" position.
> Richard Fairhurst of http://www.geowiki.co.uk/ recently wrote a
> worst-case-scenario essay on the impact that such a ShareAlike clause
> might have on peoples' willingness to distribute data under an open
> license. How "derivative work" with respect to geodata is defined,
> is a hard question, as Frank notes below, and there's commentary and
> discussion of this below Richard's article:
> His suggestions for resolution include a 'Lesser Public Geodata
> License' modelled on the LGPL: "Permission to use a particular library
> [data set] in non-free programs [maps] enables a greater number of
> people to use a large body of free software [geodata]." and some
> useful ideas about a "Collective Work" status.
> This part of the discussion is really only beginning; it is an area
> which i hope the OSGeo Foundation's Public Geospatial Data Project
> will be able to help formalise, and produce a discussion candidate
> LPGL model license.
> The OpenStreetmap project, probably the biggest body of ground-up
> contributor-created open geodata, uses the Creative Commons
> Attribution-ShareAlike license verbatim.
> Last year the Urban Tapestries group produced a license candidate with
> advice from Creative Commons UK, for distribution of geodata limited
> to "non-commercial" use. This isn't much use to those who want to see
> real economic value creation from open geodata, but it provides a
> relevant reference point on the open geodata licensing 'spectrum'.
> In thinking about open access to data issues drawing from a software
> licensing model, i find the terms that Rufus Pollock uses in the Open
> Knowledge Definition to be helpful: access to the work, the right to
> redistribute the work on any terms, and the right to re-use the work.
> > >Do you know of any work that's been done on data licensing that will
> > >users to: 1) add value to proprietary geospatial data without constraint;
> > >and/or 2) use or contribute that value-add data to a broader spatial data
> > >infrastructure?
> > Frank Warmerdam writes:
> > I think a license that would allow adding value to proprietary geospatial
> > data *without constraint* would be difficult to envision while retaining
> > proprietary rights to the original data. The problem being that many
> > kinds of derivative work will contain much, or all of the original data.
> > In a digital world this can be very problematic. So for instance, it is
> > difficult to publish online map images that include a proprietary image
> > dataset without having to couch the map services in legal restrictions
> > significantly inhibit it's usefulness for anything other than simple
> > interactive viewing. This is why Google Maps has an acceptable use policy
> > that inhibits use for many serious purposes.
> I must admit that the question is phrased in a way that makes it hard
> to attempt an answer. If data is proprietary, doesn't that imply that
> there must be constraints on how it can be re-used?
> I would agree with Frank, to the extent that this question can be
> answered. Google Maps is a pretty good example here. They are not a
> data collector or provider, but a "reseller" (except they are selling
> advertising, and not location services directly). The geodata license
> they have precludes them from re-offering that data in raw form, and
> means they have to place a lot of restrictions on what can be called a
> "derived work". They don't offer free address geocoding services, for
> suppliers. Where the distribution chain is so long, NavTEQ, Teleatlas
> et al don't have an incentive to offer more freedom to users of their
> data, so their users can't offer freedom downwards.
> Google Maps in the US uses a lot of aerial imagery which is public domain,
> provided by state or federal government. When they combine this with
> proprietary geodata sources, the whole offering becomes non-free, no
> matter what the licensing constraints or lack thereof in the parts.
> A lot of information can or could be extracted from Google Maps that
> would be a great deal of use to open source collaborative mapping and
> spatial annotation projects, but people have shied away from that,
> because they don't want to 'infect' their offering with copyrighted
> data. It's a shame, because there is a lot of potential value to be
> added, that is not being created. Yet this isn't really the problem of
> the map service providers, but of the data service providers, when as
> now, they tend to be different entities.
> I am not a lawyer, but i would really like to meet one and have a
> serious conversation that can be shared, about the legal meaning of a
> "derived work" in the context of geographic information.
> > I'm not sure what the answer to your second question is. Generally
> > if the source datasets have appropriate licensing and acceptable use
> > policies
> > then value-add products can be contributed back to a spatial data
> > infrastructure environment. Alternatively "value add" can be provided as
> > invokable algorithms that clients can invoke on datasets they have the
> > rights.
> > However, I am at best generally versed in these matters, so I am cc:ing
> > this to Jo Walsh. Jo has now been elected as a board member of the Open
> > Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo), and also appointed by the board to
> > chair the Public Geospatial Data Project within OSGeo.
> Thanks for nudging this onto me, Frank. I could ramble on on a
> personal basis about some of the philosophy behind this, and the idea
> of a participatory framework for spatial data infrastructures that
> would not preclude commercial re-offerings or damage state agencies'
> self-funding prospects, but that is probably best for another email,
> and i have been sitting on this factual one for longer than i intended
> to; i hope some of it may be helpful to you.
Benjamin Henrion <bh at udev.org>
<<< INSPIRE Directive will close >>>
<<< Public access to State-collected Geographic Data >>>
<<< All over Europe >>>
<<< http://publicgeodata.org >>>
More information about the geo-discuss