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.
another fun fact: only the UK, EU and Russia have "database rights". No other country has anything similar. And I'm guessing a good reason why no one else has this has to do with free use and research.
Basically, in the EU, UK and Russia I can't even reconstruct your database piece by piece.
This is partly about "mutual recognition of database rights": "since Brexit, any database made on or after 1 January 2021 in the UK will not be protected in the EU, and vice versa".
It's not something most people need to worry about, but I expect OpenStreetMap won't be the only company affected by that.
It would have been useful for the article to summarise the situation on this between the EU and the US and between the UK and the EU, as this looks like a global issue.
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...
So once OSM moves to Europe I can clone OSM database without worries just by residing in the UK?
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"
> The increased importance of the EU in matters of tech regulation also played a role
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
> The move may still not happen if the foundation can’t find a suitable country to relocate to. Ireland is out, because of a requirement for directors to be residents; France too, because of the difficulty in guaranteeing English-language services.
So moving to the EU solves some problems but adds more?
The idea that the Foundation wouldn’t be able to find English language services in France is a bit of a stretch. I’ve been working in tech here in France for a while now and whether in startups, tech companies, or independently, I’ve never had any trouble conducting business almost entirely in English if I (as the customer) preferred to.
>France too, because of the difficulty in guaranteeing English-language services.
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.
I don’t understand the concern about database rights. OpenStreetMap is open (you can download it from https://planet.openstreetmap.org/), so why would they be concerned about copyrights?
Most open licences work by manipulating copyright. If you entirely relinquish the rights (a la CC0 or other "public domain" declaration), you can't enforce attribution or share-alike, which OSM wants to do.
I can't imagine this is much more than a set of paper work exercises. It would have no meaningful effect on anyone who uses or works for OpenStreetMap, other than perhaps if someone had a dastardly plan to copy their database and sell it for their own purposes.
It's not really clear to me what the problem is. Doesn't the Open Database License applies everywhere, brexit or not? I never thought that where an "open source" project is physically located as any impact on the license it uses.
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.
I think if someone abroad is abusing your license, the nuclear option is to sue them in their own country. If that country deems that there's nothing wrong in what is being done, then at the very least you are on a much weaker standing.
Whereas if, from first principles, the rights of the license holder are recognised, then it's much easier to have your rights enforced.
I don't understand the problem either. If they're worried someone in the EU is going to clone their database, moving there just means someone in the UK can now do it. And Americans have apparently been free to do it from the start.
The license of a project grants the consumer additional rights they didn't have before. Like allowing someone to use your copyrighted code (which they normally couldn't) under certain rules. The license and what it stipulates is useless if what it protects can be freely obtained other ways not binding one to the license agreement.
It applies everywhere. The protection in it is in multiple ways, and the database protection has been quite useful in the past. It's always good to have more than one string to your bow.
Database protection is the biggest reason for moving, but not the only one.
mrtksn|4 years ago
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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24105465
kmlx|4 years ago
bloak|4 years ago
It's not something most people need to worry about, but I expect OpenStreetMap won't be the only company affected by that.
mytailorisrich|4 years ago
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...
123pie123|4 years ago
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?
jokethrowaway|4 years ago
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"
streamofdigits|4 years ago
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...
adamjb|4 years ago
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2021-Jun...
CodeGlitch|4 years ago
So moving to the EU solves some problems but adds more?
docdeek|4 years ago
Bayart|4 years ago
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.
Markoff|4 years ago
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
Someone|4 years ago
jaywalk|4 years ago
Doctor_Fegg|4 years ago
VBprogrammer|4 years ago
skywal_l|4 years ago
bildung|4 years ago
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.
rich_sasha|4 years ago
Whereas if, from first principles, the rights of the license holder are recognised, then it's much easier to have your rights enforced.
matthewmorgan|4 years ago
matsemann|4 years ago
stereo|4 years ago
Database protection is the biggest reason for moving, but not the only one.
mpweiher|4 years ago
If the work isn't protected by copyright, you can still write that license, but you have no means of enforcing said license.
Proven|4 years ago
[deleted]
archsurface|4 years ago
[deleted]
denton-scratch|4 years ago
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".