Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is an object created by a non-agreer always tainted, even if all info has been deleted/changed by agreers?
OK, so spelling corrections could be viewed as not removing the taint, because we can't tell if the agreer making the change used a odbl/CT-compatible source for the change or not. Thinking about it, other edits done by "bots" to normalise the tagging into a "standard" (e.g. changing something like leisure=swimming_pool into sport=swimming [that's a made-up example off the top of my head!]), could also be viewed as not removing the taint, because we also can't tell if the agreer used an odbl/CT-compatible source or not. However, we could add something to the taint checking that would ignore the taint of specific tags if changes of specific tag values from one "official" value to another "official" value had been made. It seems that it is quite difficult to imagine all of the different scenarios though, so it sounds as if such tests would need to be very specific (e.g. 'A change of the highway tag from one official value to another official value, removes the taint from that tag). There are probably other specific tags, for which we could define similar specific changes which would remove the tag. Maybe for the name tag, the taint checking could check to see if the new value is just a spelling variation or a completely different value (using some kind of fuzzy string matching?) - with a completely different value resulting in the taint being removed from that tag? It's obviously a bit more complicated than it first appears, but I think that there must be some additions that could be made to the taint checking to remove the taint in specific, well-defined situations, which would hopefully reduce the amount of supposedly-tainted data a bit (how much. I'm not sure). -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Is-an-object-created-by-a-non-agreer-always-tainted-even-if-all-info-has-been-deleted-tp5450719p5452068.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is an object created by a non-agreer always tainted, even if all info has been deleted/changed by agreers?
On 2 February 2012 13:43, Woll Newall wrote: > What is the consensus on the legal status of an object that has been created > by a non-agreer, but all of the nodes and all of the tags have been > deleted/changed by agreers? > > i.e.: > 1) Non-agreer creates a way with tags 'name=A' and 'highway=tertiary', and 3 > nodes (with no tags). > 2) An agreer then deletes 1 node and moves the other 2 nodes, and changes > the tags to be 'name=B' and 'highway=secondary'. > > Is that way now clean or still tainted? I think that it is clean. That example probably would be, but how would you distinguish it from the following: 1) Non-agreer creates a way with tags 'name=Main Rd.' and 'highway=tertairy', and 3 nodes (with no tags). 2) An agreer then deletes 1 node and moves the other 2 nodes, and corrects the tags to be 'name=Main Road' and 'highway=tertiary'. While the route of the way may now be clean, the tagging is clearly a derivative of the original mapper's work. (Ok, so individual facts like a road name and classification may or may not attract copyright, but enough of these facts make a database, which could well be protected.) > However, I think that there was a discussion about this a while ago, where > someone argued that, if the new nodes/node-positions were derived in some > way from the original nodes, then they would still be tainted.However, > surely we are trusting agreers to only use odbl/CT-compatible sources to > enter those new nodes/node-positions, so they can't be tainted? If the > agreer was actually creating a completely new way, we are also trusting that > they only use compatible sources to position the nodes, so it is equivalent > surely? You might hope that that's the case now (though I'm not sure we've really had enough publicity to guarantee it). However, I don't think there's much chance of this being the case before the license change procedure got into full swing. For example, I'm sure lots of mappers have replaced POI nodes with building outlines from aerial imagery, and copied the tags across, using the original node as the source, rather than having an independent source of their own. Not that there's much we can do about that particular type of copying from OSM to itself now though... -- Robert Whittaker ___ 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 2 February 2012 15:11, Robert Kaiser wrote: > andrzej zaborowski schrieb: >> Yes, of course, I think it is Mike DuPont who said "give away". But >> obviously we're talking about the grant of rights. > > > Yes, every open soruce license is a grant of rights, as that's the basic > definition of "open". If there wouldn't be a grant of any rights, no license > would be needed at all, as copyright law in various countries covers not > being able to use other people's work pretty well. All we are about is being > able to use other people's work, though. Yep. But then I don't understand what your point is, I think we agree about the terms. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Is an object created by a non-agreer always tainted, even if all info has been deleted/changed by agreers?
What is the consensus on the legal status of an object that has been created by a non-agreer, but all of the nodes and all of the tags have been deleted/changed by agreers? i.e.: 1) Non-agreer creates a way with tags 'name=A' and 'highway=tertiary', and 3 nodes (with no tags). 2) An agreer then deletes 1 node and moves the other 2 nodes, and changes the tags to be 'name=B' and 'highway=secondary'. Is that way now clean or still tainted? I think that it is clean. My thoughts: Tags I think that the changing of those tags makes the tags clean. The existence of the 'name' and 'highway' tags (separate from the actual tag values) is not "creative". The values of the tags could be "creative", but the values have been changed. I guess that it could be argued that the existence of some other obscure tags might be "creative" enough. Can anyone think of any tags whose mere existence on an object (but with a different value) carries enough "ownership" to make the way tainted? Nodes I think that the nodes are also clean. However, I think that there was a discussion about this a while ago, where someone argued that, if the new nodes/node-positions were derived in some way from the original nodes, then they would still be tainted. However, surely we are trusting agreers to only use odbl/CT- compatible sources to enter those new nodes/node-positions, so they can't be tainted? If the agreer was actually creating a completely new way, we are also trusting that they only use compatible sources to position the nodes, so it is equivalent surely? Another thought - What if the scenario is actually: 0) Agreer creates a way with 3 nodes and with tags 'name=Z' and 'highway=residential' 1) Non-agreer changes tags 'name=A' and 'highway=tertiary', and moves all 3 nodes. 2) An agreer then deletes 1 node and moves the other 2 nodes, and changes the tags to be 'name=B' and 'highway=secondary'. is the way tainted or clean?I think that it must be clean. Is this conceptually any different from the first scenario? The only difference in scenario 2 is that the way was originally created by an agreer rather than a non-agreer. If we accept that all of the agreers must be using odbl/CT-compatible sources, then surely both scenarios must result in a way that is clean? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
