Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-12 Thread Colin Marquardt 
2012/4/12 Andy Street :
> On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 17:54 +1000, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>> For reference I've marked the contributors Paul mentions are happy to
>> release under CC0. Perhaps the rest can decide on which license(s)
>> they
>> are happy to release under?
>
> I only made a minor edit but FWIW:
>
> I hereby licence my contributions to Mapnik stylesheet as CC0.

Exactly the same for me (SVN username cmarqu).

Cheers
  Colin

___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-12 Thread Andy Street 
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 17:54 +1000, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> For reference I've marked the contributors Paul mentions are happy to
> release under CC0. Perhaps the rest can decide on which license(s)
> they
> are happy to release under?

I only made a minor edit but FWIW:

I hereby licence my contributions to Mapnik stylesheet as CC0.

Cheers,

Andy


___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-12 Thread Andrew Harvey 
On 10/04/12 23:04, Paul Hartmann wrote:
> On 04/10/2012 02:28 PM, Sven Geggus wrote:
>> Hello altogether,
>>
>> with the upcoming adoption of the ODBL for OSM data the licence of common
>> Mapnik styles will definitely get more important!
> 
> I've started emailing the authors some time ago. The main contributors
> (Steve Chilton and Lennard) would license their work under the terms of
> CC0. So do the following committers: artem, nick, spaetz, tomhughes. A
> few people I haven't contacted so far.
> 
>> I strongly feel the need of a decent map style to be distributed under a
>> copyleft style licence (IMO Affero GPL would be best suited, but IANAL) to
>> make shure that any future enhancements will also be freely available.
> 
> Copyleft vs. PD is a religious debate, so it's not much use to argue
> here. Let me just point out, that I've started the licensing in order to
> ship a Mapnik style[1] with JOSM, which won't be possible with AGPL.
> 

The license affects anyone who is using the current OSM Mapnik style
(for instance anyone who runs their own tileserver using the OSM Mapnik
style). I'm affected too and would much rather a license being in place
so I can be legally confident that I host tiles styled with the OSM
Mapnik stylesheet.

My count gives the following number of svn commits by user.

229 stevechilton - CC0
171 ldp- CC0
159 jonb
 56 joerg
 24 artem - CC0
 18 tomhughes - CC0
 18 gramzon
 12 jochen
 11 steve
  9 springmeyer
  8 frederik
  6 nick - CC0
  5 zverik
  5 rodo
  4 apmon
  3 spaetz - CC0
  2 mazdermind
  2 martinvoosterhout
  2 ksharp
  2 edgemaster
  2 crschmidt
  1 yellowbkpk
  1 twain
  1 tobwen
  1 stevehill
  1 schuetzm
  1 jmckerrell
  1 isortega
  1 hind
  1 daviddean
  1 cmarqu
  1 andystreet
  1 aharvey - CC0

For reference I've marked the contributors Paul mentions are happy to
release under CC0. Perhaps the rest can decide on which license(s) they
are happy to release under?

I've made a minor commit to the stylesheet myself
https://trac.openstreetmap.org/changeset/25647/applications/rendering/mapnik
which I license CC0 (which means you can include it under any other
license you choose).



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-10 Thread Ian Dees 
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Mike Dupont  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Sven Geggus  > wrote:
>
>> Cartinus  wrote:
>>
>> > That would already be achieved with GPL. You don't need AGPL for that.
>>
>> You might be right. Given that the analogy is as follows:
>> (mapnik=compiler, stylefile=sourcecode, tile=binary)
>>
>> Distributing tiles without stylefile would be like distributing
>> binaries without sourcecode.
>>
>
> The source code of the map is the map data itself. Only rarely do the
> styles *add* information to the map itself.  and that information added is
> even more rarely something that cannot be easily replaced or rewritten. The
> map data itself is a totally different story, it cannot be replaced easily.
>
> The styles are more like inline functions that are expanded in the
> compilation stage.
> Here is a discussion on the linux kernel that covers clever and expressive
> inline functions  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2338142
> and here
> http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/03/20/1529238/rms-on-header-files-and-derivative-works
>
>
> """That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure
> definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple
> bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take
> a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros
> with substantial bodies) to do that. """
> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.html
>
> Of course the color and layout of the map might be considered a creative
> expression itself and i did not cover that in my previous posting.
> see this post on the issue of copying style :
> http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/11/post_35.html
>
> and this on the copyright of css :
> http://b0x0rz.deviantart.com/journal/Is-CSS-Copyrightable-214148624
> *"""First, a short answer to a question (for the impatient ones): "Is CSS
> Copyrightable?"*
> No. Absolutely NOT. (note: This is valid only for the CSS code itself not
> any images it may reference.)"""
>

Hi. This is a development mailing list, not a license discussion mailing
list.

Please stay on topic.

Thanks!
___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-10 Thread Mike Dupont 
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Sven Geggus
wrote:

> Cartinus  wrote:
>
> > That would already be achieved with GPL. You don't need AGPL for that.
>
> You might be right. Given that the analogy is as follows:
> (mapnik=compiler, stylefile=sourcecode, tile=binary)
>
> Distributing tiles without stylefile would be like distributing
> binaries without sourcecode.
>

The source code of the map is the map data itself. Only rarely do the
styles *add* information to the map itself.  and that information added is
even more rarely something that cannot be easily replaced or rewritten. The
map data itself is a totally different story, it cannot be replaced easily.

The styles are more like inline functions that are expanded in the
compilation stage.
Here is a discussion on the linux kernel that covers clever and expressive
inline functions  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2338142
and here
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/03/20/1529238/rms-on-header-files-and-derivative-works


"""That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure
definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple
bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take
a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros
with substantial bodies) to do that. """
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.html

Of course the color and layout of the map might be considered a creative
expression itself and i did not cover that in my previous posting.
see this post on the issue of copying style :
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/11/post_35.html

and this on the copyright of css :
http://b0x0rz.deviantart.com/journal/Is-CSS-Copyrightable-214148624
*"""First, a short answer to a question (for the impatient ones): "Is CSS
Copyrightable?"*
No. Absolutely NOT. (note: This is valid only for the CSS code itself not
any images it may reference.)"""

thanks

mike


> --

James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-10 Thread Mike Dupont 
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Cartinus  wrote:

> That would already be achieved with GPL. You don't need AGPL for that.


Well AGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html covers public propagation
and network interaction, the GPL does not. Under the gpl you would be able
to create modified styles on your own server and not publish them.

"""To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement
under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or
modifying a private copy. 

The issue here of style sheets is that they are not conveyed to the users
via the tiles. The stylesheets are not contained directly in the tiles only
indirectly, and the user does not interact with them directly only
indirectly.

I think that you can execute a private copy of a style without incurring
any copyright issues at all, except for constants contained in those styles
that are copied into the resulting map.

It is a question of the tiles are even a derived work of the styles
exactly,

lets think about this longer, but lets say, the color red is contained in
the style to show that a street is under construction. This color red is
displayed on a tile.

The color of the pixels contains data that is copied from the style, but
the rules to select that style are not, the definition of the style is not
conveyed, only the effect of that style is.
For example if were to copy trademarked strings, top secret information etc
that would be an issue. The copyright issues of styles are limited to that
which is copied into the map.  So symbols, string literals, trademarked
strings etc would all be issues to look at deeply.

Now if you are to distribute these styles in a mapcss that would be a
different issue, but I am talking here about mapnik rendering with no user
interaction with the rendering process.

This is similar to the issue of providing the output of a modified gcc
compiler that compiles the users source code, you would also not have to
provide your private modications to the compiler, I guess if the compiler
was licensed under the agpl you could not make a public webservice .

The same thing would be with providing an online web service that would
render on demand for users, maybe that in theory could fall under
propagation of a style sheet if you were provide an interactive service
that needs to use an AGPLed styles.
I am still not clear on how much interaction here would be an issue, if
your software itself is interacted with and you only read the agpled styles
as data we might have a very weak case for AGPLd protection.

mike

-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-10 Thread Sven Geggus 
Cartinus  wrote:

> That would already be achieved with GPL. You don't need AGPL for that.

You might be right. Given that the analogy is as follows:
(mapnik=compiler, stylefile=sourcecode, tile=binary)

Distributing tiles without stylefile would be like distributing
binaries without sourcecode.

Sven

-- 
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes itself,
exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet
that did not commit suicide." (John Quincy Adams)
/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-10 Thread Cartinus 
On 04/10/2012 04:06 PM, Sven Geggus wrote:
> If somebody takes the style and runs a derived style on his own
> tileserver his changes should be contributed back to the project (IMO).

That would already be achieved with GPL. You don't need AGPL for that.

---
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-10 Thread Frederik Ramm 

Hi,

On 04/10/2012 06:56 PM, Paul Hartmann wrote:

On 04/10/2012 05:31 PM, Sven Geggus wrote:

People are already doing bussiness using proprietary styles (e.g.
http://francetopo.fr/) [...]


There are also businesses publishing styles under permissive license (MIT):
https://github.com/MapQuest/MapQuest-Mapnik-Style


If I am not mistaken, many of the Stamen and Development Seed/Mapbox 
styles are open too.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-10 Thread Paul Hartmann 
On 04/10/2012 05:31 PM, Sven Geggus wrote:
> People are already doing bussiness using proprietary styles (e.g.
> http://francetopo.fr/) [...]

There are also businesses publishing styles under permissive license (MIT):
https://github.com/MapQuest/MapQuest-Mapnik-Style

Paul

___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-10 Thread Paul Hartmann 
2012/4/10 Mike  Dupont :
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Komяpa  wrote:
>>
>> If mapnik sytlesheet will become AGPL we'll have to get rid of our
>> local instance
>
> or keep the old version that has a different license, which is unknown.

There is no such thing as a different unknown old license. At the
moment there simply seems to be an informal understanding, that the
authors of the OSM-Mapnik style don't sue their users, especially OSM.
:)

But if any author insists, you'll have to remove their contributions
from your local copy or stop using the style.

Paul

___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-10 Thread Sven Geggus 
Komяpa  wrote:

> If mapnik sytlesheet will become AGPL we'll have to get rid of our
> local instance, just to make sure our stylesheet won't be affected.

I have not been talking about changing the (unknown) licence of the original
mapnik stylesheet but of our germanstyle which is a derivative.

I'm certainly not willing to invest any time in some public domain thing
which anybody could just use and fork into a proprietary version.

Probably there is a better copyleft type licence than AGPL for this kind of
stuff.

> Too viral licenses are hard to deal with and should really be avoided
> unless you've got a really really good reason.

Hm, I did not intend to start a BSD vs. GPL Flamewar :(

People are already doing bussiness using proprietary styles (e.g.
http://francetopo.fr/) which is fine for me as long as they do not include
my own work.

Sven

-- 
Das Internet ist kein rechtsfreier Raum, das Internet ist aber auch
kein bürgerrechtsfreier Raum. (Wolfgang Wieland Bündnis 90/Die Grünen)

/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-10 Thread Mike Dupont 
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Komяpa  wrote:

> If mapnik sytlesheet will become AGPL we'll have to get rid of our
> local instance
>

or keep the old version that has a different license, which is unknown.
mike


-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-10 Thread Komяpa 
> If somebody takes the style and runs a derived style on his own
> tileserver his changes should be contributed back to the project (IMO).

If mapnik sytlesheet will become AGPL we'll have to get rid of our
local instance, just to make sure our stylesheet won't be affected.
Too viral licenses are hard to deal with and should really be avoided
unless you've got a really really good reason.


-- 
Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
OSM BY Team - http://openstreetmap.by/
xmpp:m...@komzpa.net mailto:m...@komzpa.net

___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-10 Thread Sven Geggus 
Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> The shields are mine, and I think the core highway colours (motorway, trunk,
> primary, secondary) might be too, and I'm happy to see them go under WTFPL.
> (But, AGPL, ugh.)

The reason why I have been thinking about AGPL ist that Mapnik stuff is
usually deployed as a webservice and what I would like to achieve is the
following:

If somebody takes the style and runs a derived style on his own
tileserver his changes should be contributed back to the project (IMO).


Regards

Sven

-- 
If you can spend five minutes on the Internet and do not run Linux,
you're a genius. (Dirk Hohndel)

/me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web

___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-10 Thread Richard Fairhurst 
Paul Hartmann wrote:
> I've started emailing the authors some time ago. The main 
> contributors (Steve Chilton and Lennard) would license their 
> work under the terms of CC0. So do the following 
> committers: artem, nick, spaetz, tomhughes. A few people 
> I haven't contacted so far.

The shields are mine, and I think the core highway colours (motorway, trunk,
primary, secondary) might be too, and I'm happy to see them go under WTFPL.
(But, AGPL, ugh.)

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Licence-of-the-Mapnik-style-tp5629768p5629893.html
Sent from the Developer Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Re: [OSM-dev] Licence of the Mapnik style?

2012-04-10 Thread Paul Hartmann 
On 04/10/2012 02:28 PM, Sven Geggus wrote:
> Hello altogether,
> 
> with the upcoming adoption of the ODBL for OSM data the licence of common
> Mapnik styles will definitely get more important!

I've started emailing the authors some time ago. The main contributors
(Steve Chilton and Lennard) would license their work under the terms of
CC0. So do the following committers: artem, nick, spaetz, tomhughes. A
few people I haven't contacted so far.

> I strongly feel the need of a decent map style to be distributed under a
> copyleft style licence (IMO Affero GPL would be best suited, but IANAL) to
> make shure that any future enhancements will also be freely available.

Copyleft vs. PD is a religious debate, so it's not much use to argue
here. Let me just point out, that I've started the licensing in order to
ship a Mapnik style[1] with JOSM, which won't be possible with AGPL.

Also the authors obviously have the last word on this.

[1]


Paul

___
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev