Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
Am 28.01.2012 08:47, schrieb Mike Dupont: > then I determined that I will not be able to accept the terms because > someone, who is a Hasardeur in my humble opinion, decided to break > compatiblity with the existing license and then, break from the idea > that I own my data and ask me to hand over them ownership. I sort-of feel responsible for "my areas" of the map, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "my data". I contribute to this map, because I want free and open Geodata, for that to occur you need to put your data into the hands of the community of which you and I are a part. So I hope you understand when I call your opinion to be quite selfish and even offensive. The so-called loss of data is lost already, because it stands in the way of many innovative and good uses of "our" map data. CC 4.0 will not solve that. > these two things, mean that I cannot accept the CT and I cannot also > understand how people reached such a decision. It also means that any > data imported under the old license must be removed. I'm not afraid of any data loss, because I know our community can deal with it, I joined the project when the community consisted of about 10k contributors and I had to start off alone in a 400k inhabitants city. It worked the first time, it will work a second time. Not with the same people probably, because some already left the project, some will be demotivated by the data "loss". but filling in gaps is really much quicker done than starting from scratch. -- Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E 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] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
2012/1/29 Dirk-Lüder Kreie : > demotivated by the data "loss". but filling in gaps is really much > quicker done than starting from scratch. +1, at least there already are tags for most things, comfortable editors and lots of experienced mappers ;-) cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
2012/1/29 Dirk-Lüder Kreie : > I sort-of feel responsible for "my areas" of the map, but I wouldn't go > so far as to call it "my data". I contribute to this map, because I want > free and open Geodata, for that to occur you need to put your data into > the hands of the community of which you and I are a part. So I hope you > understand when I call your opinion to be quite selfish and even offensive. My data or OSM community's data are vague terms in the world of free data. In practice it's everybody's data and using a free license is enough for that. Granting the OSM community special rights doesn't make it more free. I think this is what Mike says. I agree with Mike. There are so many great projects where individual contributors are the end licensors and I really love that model. It doesn't change much for the end user, but somehow it has always felt right to me and felt like the future of the crowdsourced world. I'm not sure if I would have joined OSM in the first place if it had not used this wikipedia model at this time, same as I haven't contributed (more than bug reports) to FSF or Mozilla owned projects. With disappointment I have to add OSM to my personal list of projects that are going worse and where "good times" are gone. (We all have such lists and yes, we're frustrated with one change but we fail to notice all the positive changes happening at the same time..) > > The so-called loss of data is lost already, because it stands in the way > of many innovative and good uses of "our" map data. What uses do you have in mind?? Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
I am going to explain my viewpoint on this. My understanding of copyleft is the idea that people who own the rights to their own work license it freely. Other people who license that work via copyleft are then allowed to create derived works, and adding in value create new works that are again redistributed. This is my understanding. all of my edits belong to me, they are my contributions that I then willingly share with others. If I did not own them, how could I contribute them? The community, the public are free to license my works under the give license and carry them forward. The goals of making free and open data are not affected by this ownership. I dont see any problems with this idea yet, but I am open to hearing other peoples input. Maybe I will have to correct my view. I don't see anything selfish or offensive and would appreciate that you really take the time and explain you views. It is a real shame if we cannot have a detailed discussion. I am just explaining the legal basis behind copyright and copyleft : Copyright says that I own all my work and you have no right to copy it, copyleft says you are allowed to copy it under certain conditions that are helpful to building a community. You might consider copyright to be selfish in itself or the idea of ownership in general, so please explain yourself. thanks, mike 2012/1/29 Dirk-Lüder Kreie : > I sort-of feel responsible for "my areas" of the map, but I wouldn't go > so far as to call it "my data". I contribute to this map, because I want > free and open Geodata, for that to occur you need to put your data into > the hands of the community of which you and I are a part. So I hope you > understand when I call your opinion to be quite selfish and even offensive. > > The so-called loss of data is lost already, because it stands in the way > of many innovative and good uses of "our" map data. > > CC 4.0 will not solve that. -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Critical Mass for license change-over
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Mike Dupont wrote: > I am just explaining the legal basis behind copyright and copyleft : > Copyright says that I own all my work and you have no right to copy > it, copyleft says you are allowed to copy it under certain conditions > that are helpful to building a community. > You might consider copyright to be selfish in itself or the idea of > ownership in general, so please explain yourself. But copyleft is in fact an exercise in copyright. Some people have this mistaken idea that copyleft != copyright. Copyleft exists because the copyright owner has the sole right to decide how copies of his IP can be made and that the owner has decided to freely share and let others copy his IP. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways
On 29 January 2012 09:03, Frederik Ramm wrote: > 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. > It would also be relevant if a mapper other than the creator editing the way prior to the split, and for merges too. > There are simply not so many cases of that to warrant all the brouhaha that is made. Possibly that is true, and possibly it isn't. I think the biggest problem with split ways is that we aren't really sure how much of a problem they are. Until someone writes some code to actually process the history to deal with split/merged ways, and that code is given a test run on the database (or a representative sample of it), we're all just guessing about what impact it will have. I don't think the issue is going to go away until we have some hard numbers. -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
