Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Názor a návrhy; Was: Critical Mass for license change-over - resent after subsription to the lists
Excuse me for yet again resend, but legal list requires subscription and I have not expected to have to deal with it in the past. Some typos corrected and reasons clarified. Hello Pavel, On Saturday 31 March 2012 17:03:28 Pavel Machek wrote: Ahoj! Zdravím Pavla a ostatní přispěvatele z Čech, (Sorry ze mi to tak dlouho trvalo). thanks for reply, but I think, that affair is already lost and damage caused to community data is inevitable Scheduled service notice: OpenStreetMap database will be in read-only mode from April 1st to April 4th And I agree that you are not that who is to blame. I am in bitter mood today, because the advocate (Erik the Vicking) who contacted me (2011-02-15) with supplicate for new license and terms confirmation, expressed in his reply to my concerns that at least some of them are legitimate and that he would report them to the the OpenStreetMap Foundation board. Nothing has happended since then. I have signed the ODbL (I generally agree with reasons for layers combination, commercial use and accumulation of corrections under ODbL on layer basis) to choose smaller damage when I could not more edit my data under original rems. I am strongly against the way the Contribution Terms has been forced to new contributors. This has been undemocratic way how to over-vote existing contributors. I clicked to allow my work to be used (or even abused) under these terms only to minimize damage with frightened heart for open OSM future. If at least next CT terms changes are not codified, then only good will of people in Cloudmade and other full time and commercial users of data protects OSM again gaining of full dominance of some evil entity with aim to tighten single party lock on the data and abuse of the community. And the way CT has been forced to us shows that this hope for good will is quite weak. There are changes in CT, I have asked for more than year ago. The period of (at least) 3 months should be codified for first suggestion of future license change and initial discussion. Then period for vote should be at least 3 months. (There are people who go for long journeys with GPS or without and who do not have access or do not like to be on-line during they expeditions and their contributions could be extremely valuable for areas which are of my biggest interrest). I agree that data and community have bigger value than infinite rights of single member and that some way to deal with dead people's data and long time inactive members is necessary. But the rules are quite tight when somebody who is not 14-days on-line losing her/his rights even if she/he contributed with great amount of work three years ago. It is quite impolite (and even if she/he is only monitoring work and not contributing last year). Actual terms (paragraph 3) allows to start periodically voting for new license and CT term without any limitations and time guarantee. Terms defining a contributor (three months in year) are favoring people with full time jobs on project and those connected to related commercial activities. So whole volunteers driven OSM project can change to commercial one with paid fees for participation or even into something worse. There are demanded fees for some cloudmade services. I.e. if you do not to accept third party advertisements in your data on mobile platform. I consider that allowed when they invest to the infrastructure and that particular SW is their company closed source offer but data and community contributed SW has to be under community control and really open licenses. But rules favors paid fulltimers and foundation board to control project more easily and enforce policy to others (which has been shown by way CT has been established) and that is dangerous. I have signed CC-BY-SA in ExtraLicensing to protect usability of my (relatively small) contribution to the work to be usable for alternative (may be even open community future backup) projects. http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/ But this information is not propagated to main OSM database and not seen in JOSM. Compared to CT terms agreement shown and promoted everywhere. I still consider next way to balance profit of both ODbL proponents and people who cannot agree with CT (like Pavel Machek is) or ODbL tied future as the best solution. OSM foundation should offer (by e-mail) to all members possibility to confirm agreement with use of their future contributions even under CC-BY-SA and maintain displaying of CC-BY-SA compatible data marks in main OSM database. This step should help people from alternative non-ODbL project and they could (in return) help ODbL group by allowing their already included data to be used under ODbL. Any way, I consider all this unfortunate and I thing that there is more problem on side of the foundation proponents and Cloudmade commercial entrepreneurs than on the side of volunteer contributors who did not agree with terms change. With hope for constructive and open
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-cz] czech republic: data wrongly marked as ODbL compatible was Re: Hromadné importy změna licence
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote: Hi! So lets start by saying that I don't like ODbL and I hate CT. There are three classes of data I uploaded to osm: a) Hand created data, most important paths in the woods. CT+ODbL, is okay for those. b) ODbL compatible - mass imports. CT+ODbL is okay for those, provided data from a) are kept. Richard convinced me that CT is not meant to be evil, and I can live with that. c) ODbL incompatible mass imports. Obviously these need to be removed. I have no power to change this. Mass imports were cities from wikipedia (place=*) and railway stations from around http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/188101 187327 I hope this helps, and I'd like to see some reply, thanks, Dear Pavel, I'll ask the LWG chair to add this matter to the discussion at the next LWG meeting. I expect that LWG will send you a formal reply. Until then, I'd like to thank you personally for granting permission for some of your contributions to continue as CT/ODbL, even with your stated disagreements with some aspects of ODbL and of CTs. Thank you also, to the other members of the OSM community who have been discussing the matter with you. Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-cz] czech republic: data wrongly marked as ODbL compatible was Re: Hromadné importy změna licence
Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! So lets start by saying that I don't like ODbL and I hate CT. There are three classes of data I uploaded to osm: a) Hand created data, most important paths in the woods. CT+ODbL, is okay for those. b) ODbL compatible - mass imports. CT+ODbL is okay for those, provided data from a) are kept. Richard convinced me that CT is not meant to be evil, and I can live with that. c) ODbL incompatible mass imports. Obviously these need to be removed. I have no power to change this. Mass imports were cities from wikipedia (place=*) and railway stations from around http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/188101 187327 I hope this helps, and I'd like to see some reply, thanks, Pavel Hi, I admit that I'm pretty confused right now... Are you saying that you've changed your mind and are willing to agree to ODbL+CT, except for the changesets containing imports of incompatible data? That would be really great! If this is that case, I personally volunteer to help track down your changesets containing the incompatible imports. The only two are the wikipedia imports of places and railway stations, is this correct? Best regards, Petr Morávek aka Xificurk PS: I've added to CC rebuild@ as well, just to let the guys there know that there could be a last-minute request for keeping most of the data from Pavel. Sorry, to all that will get this mail multiple times. 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] [Talk-cz] czech republic: data wrongly marked as ODbL compatible was Re: Hromadné importy změna licence
2012/4/2 Petr Morávek [Xificurk] xific...@gmail.com: Hi, I admit that I'm pretty confused right now... Are you saying that you've changed your mind and are willing to agree to ODbL+CT, except for the changesets containing imports of incompatible data? That would be really great! If this is that case, I personally volunteer to help track down your changesets containing the incompatible imports. The only two are the wikipedia imports of places and railway stations, is this correct? Best regards, Petr Morávek aka Xificurk PS: I've added to CC rebuild@ as well, just to let the guys there know that there could be a last-minute request for keeping most of the data from Pavel. Sorry, to all that will get this mail multiple times. Hi Petr, Yes, Pavel and RichardF had a discussion on IRC a few minutes ago and Pavel came to this decision. Petr, thank you for offering assistance with the un-relicenseable data. Best regards, Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Infringements - examples, analysis and request for removal
On 03/31/2012 01:25 PM, Darko Sokolić wrote: Dear colleagues, I contributed to OpenStreetMap under CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. It was great pleasure, and I enjoyed it very much. I did not accept new Contributor Terms and new license. Also, I did not authorise anyone, in any way, to relicense or sublicense my contributions. I expect that my contributions will be deleted as part of moving to new licence. To my surprise, I see that most of my original contributions are already deleted and replaced with no noticeable difference. Looking at the details I saw that just the user attribute has changed (often Janjko and SilverSpace), timestamp is diferent, coordinates are slightly offset, ID is of course different, and there is no history data. Replacement data is therefore in CC-BY-SA terminology Derivative Work based on my original Work. This clearly infringes CC-BY-SA in at least two ways: * by erasing history and replacing author name this violates attribution requirement, * by submitting such Dertivative Work under new Contributor Terms attempt is made to license Derivative work under ODbl and DbCL. This infringing data must be removed. Alternatively, while OSM is still served to public as CC-BY-SA, this infringing data might be reverted to original data. Though I like revering data better, I cannot do it. Revertion scripts, in my understaning, run on same API for submitting new/edited data. So, if to run and of these, I need an active account, an account that accepted new Contributor Terms. By doing so, all data (re)created through revert scripts will be licensed under ODbl/DbCL. So, I cannot do it this way. I could do removal of infringing data, but this might appear like massive vandalism. Can OSMF revert infiringing changesets, or remove infringing data? This is maybe the best way, and also it will probably use server resurces in most efficient way. I also believe that OSMF has already tools to find similarities in present and historic (deleted) data. I am not aware of such tools, so I did some analysis myself, developing needed tools. Scope of analysis is limited to contributions of three users (myself, and two mentioned above, that I noticed by looking at live map tiles). I this analysis I've covered 7329 nodes. I was looking for situations where any of these nodes is deleted by another user, and then new node is created on similar location in the same changeset. Then I grouped results by positional error, that is distance between new and old node. This is what I found (grouped by author of replacement nodes): for positional error of up to cca 11 m in latitude and 7,8 m in longitude (that is 4 decimal digits in LAT/LON in OSM database): SilverSpace | 4565 nodes (62% of all analysed nodes) Janjko | 1363 nodes (19%) for positional error of up to cca 1,1 m in latitude to 0,78 m in longitude: SilverSpace | 2909 (40%) Janjko | 758 (10%) For first group we might argue that cca 10 meters is large distance and that any usual remapping would fit in (but visual comparison of rendered data reveals similarities). In the second group, where positional error is up to cca 1 m - it is very hard to defend this as not infringement. I started to analyse not only maximum deviations, but averages, and standard deviations, and also I looked into minimal positional errors. And the I found that significant number of replacement nodes are placed on the _very_same_position_ of original node (again - in the same changeset): SilverSpace | 2235 (30%!) Janjko | 260 (3,5%) We are talking here about precision of lat/lon in 7 decimal places. This is precision of about 11 mm in latitude and 7,8 mm in longitude. In 34% of sampled data. This is not a coincidence. This is intentional infringement. If anybody else suspects that his/here data is infringed in similar fashion, I am willing to share my tools and experience that I've gained during this analysis. I also indend to refine tools to cover more similaritites. So far I dealt only with nodes, their position, and with changesets in which nodes were created and deleted. DarkoS I know you didn't contact local Croatia community, but did you contact those users? It would be nice of you if you could send us/me a file with all your contributions so we can delete them from OSM(if they are the same) and solve this conflict that way. Regards, Hrvoje Bogner ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-cz] czech republic: data wrongly marked as ODbL compatible was Re: Hromadné importy změna licence
Pavel Machek wrote: If this is that case, I personally volunteer to help track down your changesets containing the incompatible imports. Thanks! The only two are the wikipedia imports of places and railway stations, is this correct? I think so. Pavel Hello, I went through Pavel's changesets and I think I've found all the tainted data. Here is what I did: 1) I went through Pavel's changesets (except the big ones already identified as ODbL compatible imports). 2) Counted the number of created or modified nodes that had tags place=* or railway=station,halt,tram_stop. This gave me 17 changesets that have at least 10 such nodes. 3) Then I checked them manually and identified the mass imports. Pavel's tainted changesets incompatible with ODbL+CT: 720911, 720263, 187327, 189654, 188101, 197352, 593595 Special case of changeset 473203: contains mostly import of forests, but also 12 place nodes from wikipedia,etc., only 3 of them (27716, 27734, 27739) are still in the database. I would suggest we keep this changeset and remove only those 3 offending nodes when the database comes from read-only mode. In the process I've found another changeset with import of places from wikipedia,geonames,etc. performed by Bilbo. This should be marked for removal as well: 312633 I would like to thank Pavel for his decision to allow the relicensing of his work and sincerely apologize for my harsh words in my initial reply. 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
Hi, I have just seen that Creative-Commons has released a first draft of their new 4.0 license suit and thought it might be of interest to others on this list. ( http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32157 ) The draft for 4.0 now explicitly licenses database rights and addresses licensing of databases. However, it does not extend restrictions through contract where copyright and database rights do not restrict usage in the first place. It also does not have the concept of produced works. The new draft furthermore addresses attribution in massive collaboration projects more flexibly than previous licenses by not having to attribute all authors if the project wishes so. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Creative-Commons-4-0-first-draft-tp5614244p5614244.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
