Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing the license
On 12/12/11 16:08, Michael Collinson wrote: > We have had a request for another big open organisation to re-use our > contributor terms [1] and summary [2] . > > Both the terms and the summary are by default already published under > CC-BY-SA 2.0. However, my initial thought it that it is more practical > to (also) offer them under a license that does not require attribution. > Legal pages get confusing when they contain text not completely to the > point, particularly to non-native language readers. PD0 springs to > mind. Does anyone think this is a bad idea and if so why? It's a very good idea. CC0 might go too far (I don't know), possibly something like "you can copy and modify as you wish but don't claim it's the original" would be better. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I am not going to remove any old node in my hometown
One of three things can happen with the contributions you added on an element which was created initially by somebody else: - Somebody will 'remap' it instead of you before 1st of April - You will 'remap' it yourself before 1st of April - It will simply be removed wholesale on the 1st of April and somebody will have fun readding it from scratch in (probably) a slightly different way, maybe less complete, but it'll all be all right in the (very) long run. Let's call it growing pains on the way to adulthood of the project. Annoying and time consuming/wasting, but supposedly necessary, or we can call it an exercise in futility or some sort of therapy to keep us all happy and content. What I do: when I edit something, I check whether it may disappear in the future. If so, I replace it and at least my effort won't be wasted. Of course, I check to make sure I'm not dragging bits and pieces of information that were contributed by a naysayer/unreachable along to the new objects I'm creating. Unfortunately this checking requieres a lot of effort in itself though, but the tools are getting better. Jo 2011/12/12 > After watching the License Change View on OSM Inspector, I have decided > not to change any of the few red dots and ways marked in the OSM inspector. > Some ways have one old version by an anonymous or undecided author and up > to seven versions by me. That's enough to keep them and if you want to > delete MY edits even though I have agreed to the CT, you may do that, but > remapping them would ignore my editing history. As I have contributed about > 81% of all nodes in my hometown area, it's rather me who has the moral and > legal right to decide what may be kept or not, not the right of a > single-node mapper who draw two ways in 2007. > > There is only one correct location for an intersection and if another > maspper has already occupied this location with his node, there is no > sensible reason to recreate it on the same location. There is no copyright > on single nodes, there is no copyright on moved nodes and there is no > copyright on street names that have already passed the comparison with > municipal government's street list. As I have contributed about 81% of all > nodes in my hometown area, it's rather me who has the predominant copyright > on this map and not the less-than-1% one-node contributors. > > Some of the marked edits are mechanical work requiring neither local > knowledge nor genius: correcting spelling mistakes (e.g. Grade2>grade2), > debugging keepright fixmes, deleting created_by, etc. > > There should be a functionality to mark their nodes and ways as checked, > verified and absolutely insignificant concerning copyright. There is > absolutely no case in history where a one-node mapper, even an anonymous > one-node mapper, was able to claim a copyright based on his less-than-1% > contribution. > > If you want to delete or vandalize the whole map just for pleasing a > non-responding anonymous single-node contributor while destroying the work > of a 150,000-node contributor, you may do that. I am not going to replace > any of the vandalized nodes. As they are often located on important trunk > roads, sometimes even on intersections, their removal might prevent > efficient routing for many years. > > Maybe the license change is just a sociological experiment (like the > Milgram experiment) to check how stupid people are if they are told to > remap existing nodes. > > Cheers! > -- > NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie! > Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone > > ___ > 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Licensing the license
We have had a request for another big open organisation to re-use our contributor terms [1] and summary [2] . Both the terms and the summary are by default already published under CC-BY-SA 2.0. However, my initial thought it that it is more practical to (also) offer them under a license that does not require attribution. Legal pages get confusing when they contain text not completely to the point, particularly to non-native language readers. PD0 springs to mind. Does anyone think this is a bad idea and if so why? Mike LWG [1]http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms [2]http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I am not going to remove any old node in my hometown
I think you may have misunderstood the whole point of the exercise. While there may be protectable IP in individual contributions depending on jurisdiction, maybe even joint rights in the whole database and we can be fairly sure that the OSM DB would lead to rights wrt EU DB protection legislation (we're just not quite sure who owned them pre-CTs), we are going through this process because the OSMF promised that it would not continue to distribute individual contributions against the mappers will (example at hand ABS2006 import in Australia). How much finesse we use to determine exactly what gets deleted and what not is being discussed as you know, but the basic principle is not being questioned and insofar any protest and outcry based on ones personal interpretation of IPR is just misguided. IMHO Simon Am 12.12.2011 14:58, schrieb fk270...@fantasymail.de: After watching the License Change View on OSM Inspector, I have decided not to change any of the few red dots and ways marked in the OSM inspector. Some ways have one old version by an anonymous or undecided author and up to seven versions by me. That's enough to keep them and if you want to delete MY edits even though I have agreed to the CT, you may do that, but remapping them would ignore my editing history. As I have contributed about 81% of all nodes in my hometown area, it's rather me who has the moral and legal right to decide what may be kept or not, not the right of a single-node mapper who draw two ways in 2007. There is only one correct location for an intersection and if another maspper has already occupied this location with his node, there is no sensible reason to recreate it on the same location. There is no copyright on single nodes, there is no copyright on moved nodes and there is no copyright on street names that have already passed the comparison with municipal government's street list. As I have contributed about 81% of all nodes in my hometown area, it's rather me who has the predominant copyright on this map and not the less-than-1% one-node contributors. Some of the marked edits are mechanical work requiring neither local knowledge nor genius: correcting spelling mistakes (e.g. Grade2>grade2), debugging keepright fixmes, deleting created_by, etc. There should be a functionality to mark their nodes and ways as checked, verified and absolutely insignificant concerning copyright. There is absolutely no case in history where a one-node mapper, even an anonymous one-node mapper, was able to claim a copyright based on his less-than-1% contribution. If you want to delete or vandalize the whole map just for pleasing a non-responding anonymous single-node contributor while destroying the work of a 150,000-node contributor, you may do that. I am not going to replace any of the vandalized nodes. As they are often located on important trunk roads, sometimes even on intersections, their removal might prevent efficient routing for many years. Maybe the license change is just a sociological experiment (like the Milgram experiment) to check how stupid people are if they are told to remap existing nodes. Cheers! ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] I am not going to remove any old node in my hometown
After watching the License Change View on OSM Inspector, I have decided not to change any of the few red dots and ways marked in the OSM inspector. Some ways have one old version by an anonymous or undecided author and up to seven versions by me. That's enough to keep them and if you want to delete MY edits even though I have agreed to the CT, you may do that, but remapping them would ignore my editing history. As I have contributed about 81% of all nodes in my hometown area, it's rather me who has the moral and legal right to decide what may be kept or not, not the right of a single-node mapper who draw two ways in 2007. There is only one correct location for an intersection and if another maspper has already occupied this location with his node, there is no sensible reason to recreate it on the same location. There is no copyright on single nodes, there is no copyright on moved nodes and there is no copyright on street names that have already passed the comparison with municipal government's street list. As I have contributed about 81% of all nodes in my hometown area, it's rather me who has the predominant copyright on this map and not the less-than-1% one-node contributors. Some of the marked edits are mechanical work requiring neither local knowledge nor genius: correcting spelling mistakes (e.g. Grade2>grade2), debugging keepright fixmes, deleting created_by, etc. There should be a functionality to mark their nodes and ways as checked, verified and absolutely insignificant concerning copyright. There is absolutely no case in history where a one-node mapper, even an anonymous one-node mapper, was able to claim a copyright based on his less-than-1% contribution. If you want to delete or vandalize the whole map just for pleasing a non-responding anonymous single-node contributor while destroying the work of a 150,000-node contributor, you may do that. I am not going to replace any of the vandalized nodes. As they are often located on important trunk roads, sometimes even on intersections, their removal might prevent efficient routing for many years. Maybe the license change is just a sociological experiment (like the Milgram experiment) to check how stupid people are if they are told to remap existing nodes. Cheers! -- NEU: FreePhone - 0ct/min Handyspartarif mit Geld-zurück-Garantie! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
Hi, I've added a world-wide license change map to OSM Inspector: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-1.80469&lat=35.88371&zoom=2&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_line_created This is based on the per-object data I have on wtfe.gryph.de, combined with a current planet file. The view is updated nightly. There's also statistics on the number of objects here: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/munin.html I'm not sending this to talk/twitter/blogs etc just yet; I was hoping that some of you might want to try it out and perhaps uncover a bug or two before we release it to a wider public. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
