[OSM-legal-talk] whitewashing nodes without tags
I know that some variants of this topic already have been under discussion, but I'd like to add another version to it, where I believe that indeed there will be no copyright left by the declining mapper. Three mappers Ac1, Ac2 (acceptors) and Dec1 (decliner) edit an object: 1. Ac1 creates a highway or any other way (i.e. a way with nodes and tags on the way). 2. Dec1 adds nodes to the highway/way (no tag modification) 3. Ac2 moves the nodes of the way (interesting for us only the ones from Dec1) For all nodes that Ac2 has touched (moved or added tags to them) I would expect that it doesn't matter if Dec1 had created them, because anyway there is no information from him left. This might be interpreted differently if Dec1 would have also created the way, and surely if he added tags, but if he only added nodes, and they are no longer on their original position because Ac2 has moved them, what would be copyrightable from this? cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] whitewashing nodes without tags
Q: what would be copyrightable from this? A: Nothing (imho). Copyright protects (a specific) form, not an idea (or so I was taught at IPR 101 at my university in Finland; in case the country matters in this case). And even the form must meet originality the criteria (if that's the proper term in English). Surely some could argue that Dec1 had the idea of nodes (in that area, or something) but that is hardly of any originality within a mapping project, or outside of it for that matter. But copyright wouldn't protect that anyways. Someone (such as Dec1) such as could also claim that Dec1 did a heck of a job collecting data on that way and Ac2 only moved his/her nodes to remove the copyright. I'd ask: source tags (on the objects or changesets)? But is hard work (of collecting geo data / converting it database entries) copyrightable)? This brings us to _one_ of the core reasons of changing the license (unless I've completely misunderstood something, of course)! And that is that: In a global project like OSM we must be able to get whatever protection it is we want to get everywhere and not just in one(/some) place(s) -- and copyright doesn't do that because what is copyrightable varies from country to country. Cheers, -Jaakko Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -- Mobile: +509-37-26 91 54, Skype/GoogleTalk: jhelleranta -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:13:00 To: Licensing and other legal discussions.legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] whitewashing nodes without tags I know that some variants of this topic already have been under discussion, but I'd like to add another version to it, where I believe that indeed there will be no copyright left by the declining mapper. Three mappers Ac1, Ac2 (acceptors) and Dec1 (decliner) edit an object: 1. Ac1 creates a highway or any other way (i.e. a way with nodes and tags on the way). 2. Dec1 adds nodes to the highway/way (no tag modification) 3. Ac2 moves the nodes of the way (interesting for us only the ones from Dec1) For all nodes that Ac2 has touched (moved or added tags to them) I would expect that it doesn't matter if Dec1 had created them, because anyway there is no information from him left. This might be interpreted differently if Dec1 would have also created the way, and surely if he added tags, but if he only added nodes, and they are no longer on their original position because Ac2 has moved them, what would be copyrightable from this? cheers, Martin ___ 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] ODbL implementation plan - extra phase proposal
Hello, currently we're at phase 4 of Implementation Plan for ODbL and closing on the final data cut-off. Database currently contains the mix of ODbL+CT (in)compliant data and it is possible to edit them all. And that's unfortunate, because when the final cut-off is done, we lose not only data from contributors that did not agreed to the new CT, but a lot of work from currently active users (that did agreed) as well. The problem arises from the fact that even though the user has accepted ODbL+CT, the edits he makes on the object that is incompliant will have to be thrown away. What's worse is that the user may not even be aware of this fact. This is bad for two main reasons: - After final cut-off, this will certainly demotivate certain users - seeing their work gone even though they did nothing wrong is a pretty good reason to stop contributing. - We're piling up the amount of work that will have to be re-done after the final cut-off. In a recent discussion on talk-cz Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) have suggested it would be good to have an extra phase (couple of months) in which only untainted edits would be accepted. This would prevent users to put their time into something that will be gone after final cut-off and it would probably accelerate the remapping efforts in problematic regions. In the end the whole transition to ODbL+CT database would be more seamless, no drastic cut-off that would (at least in some regions) totally crippled the consistency of the data. Although this suggestion might seem as last-minute (current plan says we have 2 months to the final cut-off), I would like to hear, what others think about it. I've mentioned several pros of this suggestion. What cons do you see, besides the fact that we would need to postpone the final cut-off date (which might be a good idea anyway as I'm looking at some regions at cleanmap). Best regads, Petr Morávek aka Xificurk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL implementation plan - extra phase proposal
Petr, In a recent discussion on talk-cz Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) have suggested it would be good to have an extra phase (couple of months) in which only untainted edits would be accepted. This would prevent users to put their time into something that will be gone after final cut-off and it would probably accelerate the remapping efforts in problematic regions. There is nothing fundamentally wrong or impossible about that. But it does introduce more work for us (because we would have to implement a way for the API to reject changes to tainted objects). I am unsure if adding such an extra phase of, say, three months would really bring a lot of benefit compared to the - much easier - potential decisions of delaying the planned changeover for three months. Or, in other words, do you have reason to believe that a three-month only edits to non-tainted objects accepted phase would actually make people re-map more and better compared to the phase we are in now? And if so, why? 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] ODbL implementation plan - extra phase proposal
Frederik Ramm wrote: Or, in other words, do you have reason to believe that a three-month only edits to non-tainted objects accepted phase would actually make people re-map more and better compared to the phase we are in now? And if so, why? Can we agree on the fact, that some of the recent edits are done on tainted objects that will go away in the final cut-off (together with those fresh edits)? I don't know all the reasons why people do these kind of edits, presumable they don't know that the object is tainted (and that it means their work is deemed to be deleted in the final cut-off), or they simply refuse to believe that OSMF will delete so much data in their region. And even if you know about this stuff, it's not always easy to exactly identify the problematic objects and be really sure that your edit will survive the cut-off. Furthermore the identification of problems requires certain amount of human work, which seems quite irrational - why should we waste precious human time for something that will be done algorithmically by machines in the end anyway? The extra phase would tell all of the contributors trying to edit tainted objects something like: look, this data will soon go away together with your current work, so either try to remap it to a compliant state, or don't bother at all. It will bring more articulate warning to contributors in problematic regions and the rest can be at least really sure that their work won't be for nothing. It's definitely better than a user going to bed one day with a good feeling about their recent edits and waking up the next morning seeing them gone. In some regions people will be upset about not being able to do simple edits, but I still think it's a better solution then the alternative. Best regards, Petr Morávek aka Xificurk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways
Hi, On 01/28/2012 11:08 PM, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote: Thank you very much for the wise decision to postpone the license change until all open problems are solved. Citation needed? Generally, - if the second-oldest node of a way is older than the way itself, the way probably was split. Its v1 belongs to the changeset where the second-oldest node was created. - if the second-oldest node of a way is younger than the way itself, the way was probably re-created by other mappers and cannot be considered property of the v1 mapper. Thus, it would make sense to assign copyright ownership to the v3 mapper (who has contributed the second-oldest node). There's no reason for such vodoo logic. A way split or merge can be determined from looking at a changeset. A changeset in which a chain of nodes is removed from one way and added to another, new way denotes a split. It is possible to determine these automatically, without comparing the date of nodes; the only difficulty is that it requires looking at a full history file sorted by changeset rather than by object ID which means that considerable processing is required, for an outcome that is worth relatively little. I'm sure it is going to be tackled one way or the other but it really isn't the big issue some people seem to make of it. Splitting ways is a common thing but it is only relevant for the license change if an agreer splits a way created by a decliner and vice versa. There are simply not so many cases of that to warrant all the brouhaha that is made. 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
