OpenStreetMap looks to relocate to EU due to Brexit limitations
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
In essence, EU, UK and the USA has different opinion on the ownership status and rights of databases.
EU: Databases are similar to other copyrightable works, thus you can't simply copy someones database.
UK: Like EU but with different flavour.
USA: There's no such things as database rights.
Apparently, although the positions of UK and EU are similar, since UK is no longer in the EU and there's no mutual agreement on how to make things work those who want to have their databases protected by the law need to move to the jurisdiction that fits their needs and in the case of OpenStreetMap that would be EU.
fun fact: The last time the database rights was a hot topic, it was about Google copying the database of a small company that specialises in building a database of net worth of celebrities.
You are entitled to create a similar database based on your own efforts or research. So, you could walk the streets of London with an iPad to make your own KmlxStreetMap. You just can't directly copy or transfer rows from someone else's.
This seems like a good page: https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/database-rights...
They might be useful for something like stopping someone who is in a jurisdiction where they apply from scraping your site to download a database you spent significant money collecting. But that doesn't help you if whoever is scraping your site is based somewhere else, which includes most of the world.
I wonder whether database rights would actually hold up for something like OpenStreetMap anyway. Is OSM generating new data in a creative process or investing significant effort in collecting data that existing sources? If it's the former then copyright probably does apply but database rights probably don't according to CJEU case law. If it's the latter then it's probably the other way around.
Whichever is the case, relocating your whole legal entity to the EU because of an issue like this might be a rather extreme reaction, and from the report it appears the decision here was made on the basis of many small factors and not just the issue of database rights.
If I compile a record of all temperatures for the last 10 years, How can I prevent someone from also creating a database that has temperatures for the last 10 years?
That is why in US Law facts can not be copyrighted, only "creative" works, and facts are not creative they are facts
It's not something most people need to worry about, but I expect OpenStreetMap won't be the only company affected by that.
I have a tendency for cynicism so I have noticed that the article mentions their failure to obtain charity status, which suggests that they may be looking at lowering their tax bill...
I'm not sure I follow, surely the OSM database existed before 1/1/21 thus they have no issues or does it apply to db updates?
Surely this is a problem already with the USA and the rest of the world? If this protection is not enforced everywhere in the world, it's quite useless. I just need to setup a foreign company to bypass it.
This is probably something that is "solved" with a contract: Eg. "By downloading this database you agree to abide to these rules: don't clone it or we'll sue you for X millions"
You can already download https://planet.openstreetmap.org/ completely for free. There are certain obligations for usage of the data though, you have to abide to the OpenStreetMap License: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/en
check the node density of OSM [0]. notice a pattern?
on a forward looking basis pre-empting any regulatory risk would seem quite a weighty factor. being located in the jurisdiction that reflects the majority of their user base is not a silver bullet but probably shields them from diverging UK/EU rules
[0] https://tyrasd.github.io/osm-node-density/#2/43.8/26.4/lates...
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2021-Jun...
So moving to the EU solves some problems but adds more?
Expect bank accounts in other countries (like Revolut, Transferwise etc) to be closed suddenly because "Malta".
I think that's key.
One really needs an imperative reason to move a business from the UK to France considering how much more business-friendly and, well, sensible, the UK is.
The biggest problem now is discoverability as government programs are still habitually arcane and UI/UX grammar. Some countries, I'm thinking especially of Germany, have national standards that make services appear uniform whereas in France every administration is still its own little shop.
Bureaucracy is Kafkaesque because of the complicated and seemingly random rules, because of the abundance of taxes, etc. There really needs to be a drastic reset of everything.
A good example: The attestation people had to print and fill in if they wanted to leave home during the lockdown. Why? This is bonkers even if it eventually became digital.
Another good example: Starting a business. I don't know if it can be simpler and faster than the way it works in the UK. In France, on the other hand...
Simply not true.
Admittedly, IANAL, and I don't know much about how foundations (Stiftungen) work in German law, but from experience, e.V. has the advantages of being relatively easy to set up and maintain, being super common so lots of people have experience with it, and having the option of becoming tax-exempt if you put the right weasel words into the statute and file some paperwork with the tax office.
I'm not really sure what the overall conclusion is except that choosing a suitable legal structure is not easy.
> tax-exempt if you put the right weasel words into the statute
The law lists a finite amount of ways [1] in which an e.V. can act in the public interest ("Gemeinnützigkeit") and thus become tax-exempt. Most of these items are engineered to cover existing e.V. For instance, sports clubs are explicitly covered, as are consumer protection watchdogs.
For any associations doing charitable work in the IT context, the issue is that none of these bullet points in the legal text explicitly cover such activities. There has been some support for the idea of adding free software as a charitable cause to this list, but nothing has come out of it as of yet.
I'm familiar with this topic because I'm volunteering in the Chaos Computer Club. Most local chapters are constituted as e.V. and are tax-exempt under the purpose of public education ("Förderung der Volksbildung") since that one is the easiest to get away with if you do any sort of public events that can be considered education every once in a while (like conferences or talks or such).
As someone who's done English support in France, it sounds like preconceived notions that don't match reality. The tech industry is usually literate in English, even if the rest of the country can't give a care.
Very noticeable change vs the first time I visited in the early 90's.
The 'left' part of copyleft is about distribution or dissemination, and other rights bestowed. It doesn't challenge copyright at all.
You cannot grant rights for works without ownership, so PD has left the chat, so to speak.
One “important reason”, Rischard said, was the failure of the UK and EU to agree on mutual recognition of database rights. While both have an agreement to recognise copyright protections, that only covers work which is creative in nature.
Whereas if, from first principles, the rights of the license holder are recognised, then it's much easier to have your rights enforced.
If the work isn't protected by copyright, you can still write that license, but you have no means of enforcing said license.
These are pertinent concerns for which I have never found a definitive answer.
It acknowledges software license (the GPL in that case) as a contract granting obligation to both parties and enforced it as a contract. The claims around copyright/counterfeit were pretty much dismissed (you can't pursue on both copyright and contract grounds in France because they are different legal responsibilities).
Since it's possible to make contracts on pretty much anything between two companies (but not for consumers), there's a chance that the openstreetmap contract has grounds irrelevant of the database rights.
It still doesn't make sense to me, because even if it is a contract, then the only reason for me to enter into that contract is because I have to do so in order to use the software (or database), due to the fact that it is protected by copyright.
If the software/data is not protected by copyright, I am free to use it without entering into any contract with anyone.
Reviewing the OSM Legal FAQ, it appears that they are very much based on copyright and licensing.
If the website/data is clearly associated with a contract (a license is a contract), it is in that case:
As a consumer, maybe it doesn't matter because there are many exceptions and loopholes for consumers (similarly to how EULA are void for a variety of reasons).
As a company however, company don't get consumer exceptions and are not given the benefits of the doubt, if a company decides to source data/software from somewhere, the company must have done the groundwork to ensure it can use the data and under what conditions. (In case I'm not clear, that means the company automatically read and agreed with the contract when using the data).
>>> due to the fact that it is protected by copyright.
Careful here. I think you might do the mistake of assuming that it's all about copyright and it might be wrong. (One angle is to try to void the contract, claiming that the data/database can't be subject to copyright and the contract has no ground).
Contracts like the GPL and Openstreetmap are not (only) about copyright. They are full fledged contracts with many pages, many clauses, that put obligation on both parties. They really are complicated contracts. They have a variety of grounds inside and outside of copyright.
The Appeal court and CJEU basically dismissed copyright/counterfeit claims in the first precedent few months ago, saying it's a contractual matter (short version, there's some nuances to it).
>>> Reviewing the OSM Legal FAQ, it appears that they are very much based on copyright and licensing.
License is a US legal concept that doesn't exist in Europe. In Europe there are only contracts, US licenses are interpreted as contracts (and if they don't satisfy the local requirements to form a contract they are void).
If the data is there, I can just take and copy it. In fact, in order to display the data in my browser, multiple copies have already ben made.
The only reason that there's a limit to what I am allowed to do with that data, vs. what I can do with that data, is copyright. So if the data is protected under copyright, you can limit my copying and, for example, require me to agree to a contract in order that I may be allowed to copy it (and thus use it).
However, if the data is not protected under copyright, there is nothing stopping me from doing all the things to the data that I can, and so I can just ignore the contract you would like me to agree to.
> Contracts like the GPL and Openstreetmap are not (only) about copyright.
But they are based on copyright. Without copyright protection, nobody needs to enter into that contract.
> License is a US legal concept that doesn't exist in Europe.
This is not true. https://www.brennecke-rechtsanwaelte.de/Lizenzrecht-eine-Ein...
There is a possible strategy where you try to say that the data cannot be subject to copyright and you try to void the contract. You understand that. I think that's what you're talking about?
I am trying to tell you that there is a good chance that this strategy doesn't work. You're not gonna manage to void the contract like that.
The first case just passed in appeal court in France on the GPL. The court pretty much dismissed all copyright claims, they decided it's a contractual matter because there is a contract, the contract takes precedence over all copyright claims. (In the end they got some damages for "parasitism", it's a thing in French law where a company is profiting from work/investments taken by another company.)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitisme_(droit)
> This is not true. https://www.brennecke-rechtsanwaelte.de/Lizenzrecht-eine-Ein...
Further clarifications then. In the US there are licenses and contracts, which are two separate fields of law.
In the EU (in France at least which I am more familiar) there are only contracts.
If you want to allow somebody to manufacture and sell some paintings for you (for example), you can draft a contract to allow them to do that. The contract could be called a licensing contract or a distribution contract. It's a regular contract, it's not a separate thing.
This causes a lot of confusion for US readers because they hear about licenses in EU and think it's the same as in the US but it isn't. That type of license is a contract governed by contract law. There is no separate license law like in the US.
My German is not good enough to comprehend all of that. It seems your link is talking about drafting contract for specific purposes (license to manufacture, license to distribute, license to use). It doesn't say that licenses aren't contracts.
Database protection is the biggest reason for moving, but not the only one.
A. In most jurisdictions, you can't copyright facts (nor should you be able to, IMO).
B. I can't see why OpenStreetmap has to rely on copyright.
C. OSM data is provided by the public. It shouldn't be any kind of "property".