[osgeodata] Re: Open Source geo data

[Allan Doyle]

On Mar 21, 2006, at 01:01, Jo Walsh wrote:

> 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.
>
>

[discussion on various license schemes elided]

>>> Do you know of any work that's been done on data licensing that  
>>> will allow
>>> 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 that
>> 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.

Isn't this what mashups are about? The careful layering of  
information onto other information without violating the terms of the  
various data holders. Chicago Crime Maps adds value to both the  
Google map that is underneath and to the public data that goes on  
top. In fact, Google invites this kind of thing because by adding  
value to the Google map *in accordance with its license* it makes it  
more likely that people will see any advertising Google decides to  
include.

You might also want to take a look at the materials that come up in  
response to this query:
http://lab.nap.edu/nap-cgi/discover.cgi?term=onsrud&restric=NAP

>
> 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
> example, because that would contravene their own terms of use with  
> their
> 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.

Google's acceptable use policy probably is there to protect its right  
to layer in the advertising and is also probably there to protect it  
against suits for damages that might arise from uses it deems  
inappropriate (e.g. real-time tracking). And their license is  
probably also influenced heavily by the most stringent requirements  
of the data providers. They could possibly have different licenses  
based on whose data happens to be visible at the time, but that would  
be confusing to the end-users.

>
> 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.

You should contact Harlan Onsrud at the University of Maine, Orono  
who is a lawyer who would be more than willing to have a serious  
conversation. He's heading up a project right now that's relevant to  
this group:
   http://www.geodatacommons.umaine.edu/

>
>> I'm not sure what the answer to your second question is.   
>> Generally speaking
>> 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.
>
>
> jo
>

-- 
Allan Doyle
+1.781.433.2695
adoyle at eogeo.org