On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:58 AM, 80n wrote: > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Eric Jarvies <e...@csl.com.mx> wrote: > > On Sep 8, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Sam Larsen wrote: > > > Eric, > > > > Unless you post the details of this edit on the list - then all this info is > > useless for the rest of us reading it. As you can see there are way too > > many > > emails on this list for any sane person to keep up with & this is just > > adding to > > the overload. If you have provided the details to the data working group - > > then > > that is great, and from our point of view they are the best people for you > > to > > continue this investigation/discussion with. > > > I sent the way/info to the suggested OSM email address/people at OSM(read > previous dialog in this thread) earlier today after having been advised(by > Richard and 80n I believe) to do so. > > Eric, to be clear about what I advised - you should take this up directly > with Google, as you are the copyright holder. The OSMF and the Data Working > Group might be able to support you but they are not the copyright holder - > you are. >
Ok. But I really have no desire to do so at this point. Instead, if after a period of time, this currently 'assumed/speculated/non-substantiated' activity continues, then I would of course send them an email reminding them to attribute and adhere to the OSM license, and go from there. Right? You seem fairly knowledgeable in these subject matters... perhaps you could share some wisdom/informal advise of a legal nature pertaining to copyright/license/etc. Much of the data I am posting to OSM now, over the past years I have licensed it out to various companies/persons for monetary gain, wherein they could not resell, etc. the data. Now that I am posting some of this same data of mine here in OSM under share alike/attribution license, what happens to the status of my original data? I can still license independently, correct? For example... i will be posting properties to OSM, but I will not be posting property owner names, property owner histories, etc., because I still actively sell/license that data to third parties... but in doing so, I always provide them with the geometries. After I post these geometries to OSM, and I later sell/license some data to someone, and provide them with the geometries from my source data, like in PostgreSQL or shapefile format, does that in any way conflict with the same data I have previously posted on OSM under an entirely different license? I am under the current understanding that there is no problem with with... I can contribute to OSM some of my data, and that data then becomes subject to the CC by SA license terms, whilst at the same time I can license the same data differently to someone else... is this right? Thanks! Eric Jarvies > > > Eric Jarvies > > > Sam > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: Eric Jarvies <e...@csl.com.mx> > >> To: Licensing and other legal discussions. <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> > >> Sent: Tue, 7 September, 2010 19:52:22 > >> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Google MapMaker and OSM data... > >> > >> > >> On Sep 7, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Eric Jarvies <e...@csl.com.mx> wrote: > >>>> On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > >>> > >>>>> Also, as more data sets are opening up it is possible that Map Maker > >>>>> and OSM editors are using similar sources. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, I understand this and the context you are explaining it in. But > >>>> how > >> does this apply to the edit I made to the OSM data? This edit was not > >> some > >> recently made available source that was provided to OSM, Google, and > >> others, it > >> was a just a newbee screw up by yours truly, that resulted in a very > >> unique and > >> deliberate edit to an existing OSM coastline, that subsequently ended up in > >> Google's data, as is clearly(to me) being rendered now. I was just > >> shocked to > >> see that Google had inherited my screwed up edit of an existing OSM > >> coastline, > >> and that shock turned into interest, which is why I asked here if they > >> are now > >> using OSM data. In short, there really is no other 'similar source' in > >> this > >> case... they either got the coastline/way directly from OSM, or got it > >> from > >> someone else who got it directly from OSM. > >>> > >>> Dear Eric, > >>> > >>> It is hard for me to say what happened. What you describe above does > >>> make it sound like a GMM contributor used OSM as a source after your > >>> edit, but before you repaired it. If I haven't overlooked something; > >>> perhaps a GMM contributor made the same newbee mistake? > >> > >> Well, this is what aroused my interest... after the initial shock of > >> seeing my > >> mistake for a second time... first on OSM, and then now on Google > >> MapMaker(I'm > >> talking a considerable stretch of coastline), I then looked at what is > >> and what > >> is not possible to edit on Google MapMaker... and coastlines are NOT > >> possible > >> to edit by contributors, or at least my user account will not allow it. > >> > >>> And if there > >>> is no other innocent explanation; you didn't make the edit on GMM > >>> yourself did you? ;-) > >> > >> No, I have never contributed data to the MapMaker repo. > >> > >>> Then 80n's description above is correct. > >>> Infringement is much more likely to be a result of ignorance rather > >>> than malice. It is still infringement but it might best be resolved > >>> with a please and thank you than with a nasty-gram. > >> > >> I was merely curious if Google had started using OSM data, simply because > >> I > >> was painfully reminded of that terrible coastline screw-up I made, that > >> was the > >> bane of my initial OSM editing experience(not knowing that the coastline > >> is not > >> rendered immediately/regularly). So apart from the initial shock of > >> seeing it > >> replicated on Google's MapMaker a week or two after the initial incident > >> occurred, I was just downright curious why it would be there, as I thought > >> Google did not use OSM data. So this was a curious fact finding mission > >> wrought from a screwed-up coastline editing experience... nothing more. > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> I do still recommend that you share the location and details with > >>> OSMers you trust with more experience than you have; you did describe > >>> yourself as a newbee. > >> > >> I emailed the way to the email address you provided me previously, thank > >> you. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> You might, as 80n described, decide to pursue this with GMM yourself. > >>> I'd probably try to reach the GMM contributor who made that edit, > >> > >> I could not find indication of this... I was not allowed to edit the GMM > >> coastline whilst logged into Google... perhaps other users are able to do > >> so... > >> but I doubt it. > >> > >>> if > >>> that information is available. Or, you may decide to ask somebody > >>> else in the community to do that for you. Perhaps somebody at your > >>> local OSM meetups, mapping parties or local chapter. > >> > >> I am my local chapter :( > >> > >>> Or you can > >>> report this to the Data Working Group though they prefer if you have > >>> made some initial attempt at contact on your own. > >> > >> No, this was not my objective... I merely wanted to know if GMM was now > >> an OSM > >> user, and if not, I just wanted folks at OSM to be made aware, if for no > >> other > >> reason then to be made aware. > >> > >> > >> > >>> If GMM does not > >>> provide a method to contact editors, the idea of contacting Google Map > >>> Mapker as a whole does sound a bit daunting. > >> > >> I have contacts at Google, specifically in their data acquisitions > >> department, > >> as I've had dealings with them in the past pertaining to my own data, so > >> contact would not be difficult, but as stated, that was not my intention. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> I think your point about not publishing the location is worth > >>> considering. In past, other contributors have provided links to > >>> examples. That might make an interesting discussion on this list > >>> outside of the context of this specific edit. > >>> > >> > >> In what sense? > >> > >> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> legal-talk mailing list > >>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > >>> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> legal-talk mailing list > >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > >> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > legal-talk mailing list > > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
