[OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam

[Erik Johansson]

Hi

It would be great if someone could convince the JOSM people to remove
the ODbL blurb in JOSM, people get scared and spam everyone who hasn't
agreed to the new license.

I do not appreciate getting lots of ODbL FUD spam,

-- 
/emj

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam

[Maarten Deen]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:57:57 +0100, Erik Johansson 
wrote:
> Hi
> 
> It would be great if someone could convince the JOSM people to remove
> the ODbL blurb in JOSM, people get scared and spam everyone who hasn't
> agreed to the new license.
> 
> I do not appreciate getting lots of ODbL FUD spam,

Is that what prompts people to send messages to total strangers to
accept the ODbL? I've received 4 of those already and yes, they are
quite annoying.
One was even so read in that he could claim that soon my edits would be
deleted.

Regards,
Maarten


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11/24/2010 10:57 AM, Erik Johansson wrote:

It would be great if someone could convince the JOSM people to remove
the ODbL blurb in JOSM, people get scared and spam everyone who hasn't
agreed to the new license.

I do not appreciate getting lots of ODbL FUD spam,


Are you sure this has something to do with JOSM? I mean, we've been 
saying it for half a year now on EVERY wiki page ("OSM is changing its 
license"...) and it's been on the JOSM startup page for quite a while 
now. Is it not likely that what you're seeing is the effect of a much 
more recent development, namely maps like 
http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/ where people can see which 
areas have been edited by people who haven't yet agreed to the CT/OdbL?


I would not want people to send messages to "total strangers" but if it 
is someone from an area where you have edited a lot, then I can 
understand that if they find a large section of his city or quarter not 
relicensed that they become concerned and send you a message. - When I 
map somewhere, I know that this might result in me being contacted by 
"total strangers", i.e. other members of this project who care for the 
place I've edited.


Bye
Frederik




___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam

[Erik Johansson]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/24/2010 10:57 AM, Erik Johansson wrote:
>>
>> It would be great if someone could convince the JOSM people to remove
>> the ODbL blurb in JOSM, people get scared and spam everyone who hasn't
>> agreed to the new license.
>>
>> I do not appreciate getting lots of ODbL FUD spam,
>
> Are you sure this has something to do with JOSM? I mean, we've been saying
> it for half a year now on EVERY wiki page ("OSM is changing its license"...)
> and it's been on the JOSM startup page for quite a while now
...
> I would not want people to send messages to "total strangers" but if it is
> someone from an area where you have edited a lot,

Yes I'm sure it has to do with JOSM, and it seems like you think it
should continue?

As we all know very few people care about the license, and even if
they don't care it is this message in JOSM makes people send me a mail
that is 4 sentences long stating "Hey your data will be deleted if you
don't press ok".


/Emj

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents

[Ed Avis]

Francis Davey  writes:

 Database copyright arises when the database is the author's "own
 intellectual creation". That means that some design or creativity has
 to have gone into the database - it can't simply be an assemblage of
 facts.
 
 Database right arises when there is a "substantial investment". It
 focuses on work not creativity. Lots of work in making a database
 won't get you copyright but may get you database right.

 It is much more likely that OSMF attracts database right than database
 copyright.

Thanks for clarifying this.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam

[Matthias Julius]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:51:28 +0100, Frederik Ramm 
wrote:
> I would not want people to send messages to "total strangers" but if it 
> is someone from an area where you have edited a lot, then I can 
> understand that if they find a large section of his city or quarter not 
> relicensed that they become concerned and send you a message. - When I 
> map somewhere, I know that this might result in me being contacted by 
> "total strangers", i.e. other members of this project who care for the 
> place I've edited.

I think it is way to early to become concerned about actual data loss. 
While people are given the oportunity to sign up to the CT/ODbL there is no
deadline, yet.  And if a final decision is made to switch to ODbL and to
require people to agree to the CT I would hope there will be plenty of time
to actually relicense one's stuff.  According to the implementation plan
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan)
there will be a time when edits by users who did not sign up to ODbL will
not be allowed anymore.  IMHO only after that it is time to nag people to
relicense their stuff.

I do miss a button "I won't agree" on the CT signup page with an option to
reconsider.  Then, data could be highlighted that definitely would not
survive a license change.

Matthias

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam

[Frederik Ramm]

Erik,

Erik Johansson wrote:

Yes I'm sure it has to do with JOSM


Why are you sure? Have they told you so? I still don't see what it is 
about JOSM in particular that is a problem. As I said, the license 
change is advertised in many other places too.


I don't think we should stop informing people of the upcoming license 
change just because this makes some people send messages to others.


It's not that JOSM says "please write messages to everyone who hasn't 
yet signed up".



and it seems like you think it should continue?


On the whole, I think it is better if people are asked to relicense by a 
fellow mapper than if they get an email from OSMF. Of course I wouldn't 
like to get several such emails per day either. The problem we currently 
have in this regard is that you cannot publicly make a final decision 
"no, I won't relicense and I'm ok with my data being replaced". Thus 
some people, when finding lots of "red" areas, might decide to write an 
email to the mapper in question (maybe he simply hasn't yet heard of the 
license change). Once we have such a public "no, certainly not" option, 
the same mapper can simply start fixing the "red" stuff rather than 
wasting time with emails.


Bye
Frederik

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

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam

[Erik Johansson]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Erik,
>
> Erik Johansson wrote:
>>
>> Yes I'm sure it has to do with JOSM
>
> Why are you sure? Have they told you so?

Yes.

And I'm very disappointed that people think mass mailing is ok, it's
not informing people in any useful way.

My proposed  action list is this:
1. remove spam inducing JOSM blurb
2. move to phase 4
3. give the finger to all people anti ODbL

The current action list is currently the same but start at number
three and go up.

/Erik anti ODbL, but so fed up with the "change process".

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam

[John Smith]

On 25 November 2010 09:30, Erik Johansson  wrote:
> 3. give the finger to all people anti ODbL

At least you are being honest, which is more than Frederik seems to be
capable of, you don't make any pretense that there was ever any kinda
of democratic process going on and the whole thing is a sham and a
white wash to push through what ever agendas are in play...

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam

[John Smith]

On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait  wrote:
> Frederik is a generous and respected contributor to the OpenStreetMap
> community. His record speaks for itself and he doesn't need me or
> anybody else to stand up for him.

Regardless of other deeds, he has been less than forthcoming about the
license issue, he even admitted previously about not giving other
parties all details about what the license change over means (lie of
omission).

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam

[Grant Slater]

On 25 November 2010 02:10, John Smith  wrote:
> On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait  wrote:
>> Frederik is a generous and respected contributor to the OpenStreetMap
>> community. His record speaks for itself and he doesn't need me or
>> anybody else to stand up for him.
>
> Regardless of other deeds, he has been less than forthcoming about the
> license issue, he even admitted previously about not giving other
> parties all details about what the license change over means (lie of
> omission).
>

[citation needed]

/ Grant

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam

[John Smith]

On 25 November 2010 12:14, Grant Slater  wrote:
> On 25 November 2010 02:10, John Smith  wrote:
>> On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait  wrote:
>>> Frederik is a generous and respected contributor to the OpenStreetMap
>>> community. His record speaks for itself and he doesn't need me or
>>> anybody else to stand up for him.
>>
>> Regardless of other deeds, he has been less than forthcoming about the
>> license issue, he even admitted previously about not giving other
>> parties all details about what the license change over means (lie of
>> omission).
>>
>
> [citation needed]

You could have found it faster than replying to that email...

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alists.openstreetmap.org+%22lie+of+omission%22

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam

[Richard Weait]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:22 PM, John Smith  wrote:

How charming that you use selective quoting to fabricate a lie of
omission.  Viewing the original shows no lie.  And that your
fabrication failed to gain traction the first time you trotted it out.

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-September/053903.html

You are entitled to your anonymity and your pseudonym.  Even though it
wraps your every word in a lie of omission.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam

[Grant Slater]

On 25 November 2010 02:22, John Smith  wrote:
> On 25 November 2010 12:14, Grant Slater  wrote:
>> On 25 November 2010 02:10, John Smith  wrote:
>>> On 25 November 2010 12:05, Richard Weait  wrote:
 Frederik is a generous and respected contributor to the OpenStreetMap
 community. His record speaks for itself and he doesn't need me or
 anybody else to stand up for him.
>>>
>>> Regardless of other deeds, he has been less than forthcoming about the
>>> license issue, he even admitted previously about not giving other
>>> parties all details about what the license change over means (lie of
>>> omission).
>>>
>>
>> [citation needed]
>
> You could have found it faster than replying to that email...
> http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alists.openstreetmap.org+%22lie+of+omission%22

Are you being seriously? To call Frederik a lier based on this email?
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-September/053903.html

Quoting from:
http://blog.nestoria.co.uk/geofabrik-wins-the-best-elevator-pitch-award
(State of The Map 2010)
"Geofabrik was voted and acclaimed as the Best Elevator Pitch. Voters
appreciated the straightforward business proposition: "pay me money to
save to a lot of time". Frederic delivered an *impressive and honest
pitch* and this was reflected on the poll count." emphasis my own.

/ Grant

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam

[John Smith]

On 25 November 2010 12:45, Grant Slater  wrote:
> Are you being seriously? To call Frederik a lier based on this email?
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-September/053903.html

Calling a spade a spade, why is he so afraid to tell the whole truth?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam

[John Smith]

On 25 November 2010 12:41, Richard Weait  wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:22 PM, John Smith  wrote:
>
> How charming that you use selective quoting to fabricate a lie of
> omission.  Viewing the original shows no lie.  And that your
> fabrication failed to gain traction the first time you trotted it out.

Nice attempt at distraction, but it doesn't refute the point that he
didn't tell the whole truth and was at least a little deceptive about
the whole thing.

> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-September/053903.html
>
> You are entitled to your anonymity and your pseudonym.  Even though it
> wraps your every word in a lie of omission.

Are you planning to call anyone that ever used a pen name a liar as
well, at least I'll be in good company I suppose...

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact,
along with the other details.
Facts cannot be copyright. Creative Commons licences are not designed
for factual information.

[] 
I agree with that, and no facts can be protected by any law.

Creativity is used in the above data. Whereas on the rendered map
http://tile.osm.org/18/130828/87084.png I would argue that creativity
has been used to choose the icon, position the text/icon and create
the "halo" around the text/icon, which is all contained in the mapnik
stylesheet.


[] as you say, the style sheet is protected, and possibly the
resulting
map (paper, png or jpeg). I personally think that the result (a graphic
map)
has not the same level of creativity, nor protection, as the method
(stylesheet).

Regards,

Gert Gremmen



Regards
 Grant

___
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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

>1) I am in the camp of those who don't care as long as the data is open
and free. (You can see my reasons on the wiki page when I ran for the
foundation).
>2) I don't believe that CC-BY-SA would protect the project legally

>Regarding 1), I am pragmatist, and people initially have chosen a share
alike licence and therefore it would be very difficult to switch to a PD
or an attribution licence. In any case, I >don't particularly care but I
will respect the spirit of the initial licence (i.e. SA).

>Emilie Laffray



I agree, and i want to add:

 

3) I don't care if anybody copies our data for any reason, because any
other

company will do the same, and possibly we will ourselves.

4) I am a pragmatist (and to some extend anarchist ;<)) in that we are
not able

and not willing to challenge any data theft in court.

5) Any license choosen conflicts with  the  OPEN  &  FREE concept, the
basis of OSM , and

the most important  reason why it became successful.

 

Gert Gremmen

-

 

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)

P Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

 

 

 

<>___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

>If you think the position of this restaurant is a fact then you really need to 
>watch the Horizon documentary where Alan Davis tries to measure the length of 
>a piece of string: 

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00574dv 
>  



Any fact has a margin of error, an "error in representation" is something else 
as creativity.

 

Gert Gremmen

-

 

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)

P Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

 

Van: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org 
[mailto:legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens 80n
Verzonden: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 3:15 PM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents

 

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Grant Slater  
wrote:

On 23 November 2010 13:23, Grant Slater  wrote:
> On 23 November 2010 13:04, Ed Avis  wrote:
>>
>> As always, the standard reality check applies: if you believe that maps or 
>> the
>> data they represent are not covered by copyright, please start large-scale
>> photocopying of some commercial maps, or copying the information from them 
>> into
>> another format that you then publish.
>>
>
> Here is some data:
>
>  changeset="6058195" user="Walter Schlögl" uid="78656" visible="true"
> timestamp="2010-10-16T14:40:13Z">
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> The position is a fact, name is a fact, cuisine they serve is a fact,
> along with the other details.


If you think the position of this restaurant is a fact then you really need to 
watch the Horizon documentary where Alan Davis tries to measure the length of a 
piece of string: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00574dv



> Facts cannot be copyright. Creative Commons licences are not designed
> for factual information. 

>
> Creativity is used in the above data.

Typo, creativity is *NOT* used in the above data.


>Whereas on the rendered map
> http://tile.osm.org/18/130828/87084.png I would argue that creativity
> has been used to choose the icon, position the text/icon and create
> the "halo" around the text/icon, which is all contained in the mapnik
> stylesheet.
>
> Regards
>  Grant
>

___
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