Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
On 25 December 2011 21:05, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:48:24 + >> 4. Well-meaning new (therefore agreeing) mapper sees the node, notices >> the cuisine tag in the history and reapplies it without having >> personal knowledge to back this up. odbl=clean is still set. > > To me, this is on par with "well-meaning new mapper copies data from > Google believing it is ok". It is something where we have to make a > good effort to explain to people that they shouldn't do it, and if it > turns out somebody has misunderstood, or made a mistake, then we have > to fix that. > > I don't see *many* people using history to look for extra features to > re-animate. OK, that's fine by me - I like that answer, because it allows us to respect odbl=clean in all cases. I also agree that anybody rummaging in the history for lost tags can be expected to know better than to re-animate tainted tags. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
On 24 December 2011 23:03, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Dermot McNally wrote: >> Another mapper walks by, notices that the place is a pizzeria and adds >> back an identical tag. Are we clean or dirty now? > > Dirty, because the very same situation could arise with a non-agreeing > mapper adding "cuisine=pizza", the agreeing mapper "cleaning" the > object and a third mapper reverting that last action. I have no way of > telling apart a revert to the non-agreeing mapper's version and a true > remapping from original sources. I'm open to suggestions but I can't > see an easy way out. Yes, I see the problem - I pose the question because it's interesting given that the desired end-game is a node that is both clean _and_ has cuisine=pizza. But you go on to cover this case... > These changes carry with them the slight complication that they make > tainted-ness dependent on the current version of the way. This means > that an object that was previously untainted could now become tainted > again, by exactly the process that you outline above (re-adding of the > cuisine tag). That would be a very good use case for odbl=clean, or > maybe we could introduce something that users can place in their > changeset comment saying "all edits in this changeset are remapping > from original sources", or we could even say: Whenever the changeset > has a source tag we consider this to be original sources... This was the issue I had in mind, and yes, odbl=clean will fix it. For anybody who hasn't read the LWG minutes, LWG is in favour of respecting odbl=clean come the switchover phase. We've asked for community feedback on this (and on the principle that moving-nodes-cleans-their-position, which we also favour) since we want the decision to be an accountable one having regard to all valid legal and ideological points that should be considered. Now for a horrid twist to the thought experiment - odbl=clean is, as you have described its use above, a nice solution to the problem of wanting to cleanly reapply cuisine=pizza without wiping history. But what if things happen like this?: 1. Agreeing mapper maps the restaurant and names it 2. Non-agreeing mapper adds the cuisine tag 3. Agreeing mapper removes the cuisine tag and sets odbl=clean. He or she does not have enough information to assert the cuisine tag and chooses, on balance, to lose the tag for now. 4. Well-meaning new (therefore agreeing) mapper sees the node, notices the cuisine tag in the history and reapplies it without having personal knowledge to back this up. odbl=clean is still set. This is very similar to the case where the cuisine tag is reapplied without us having odbl=clean set. Certainly, we can point out that we expect good faith and due diligence from mappers. But if we are prepared to consider the object clean in this case, why not also in the case where the cuisine tag has just had a temporary "holiday" from the object even if odbl=clean has not been set? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
On 24 December 2011 19:32, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to > > * treat untagged nodes as clean if moved by an agreeing mapper Nice > * treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if > these tags are not present any more in the current version Also nice - two clarifications would be useful, if you could briefly give them: 1. This would, I suppose, mean that a formerly "tainted" node which has both been moved and stripped of any "tainted" tags would also be considered clean. Is this so, or is the moved node rule implemented as a special case that can only every apply to untagged nodes? 2. Consider the case of a node that is mapped by an agreeing mapper as a restaurant. A non-agreeing mapper comes along and adds cuisine=pizza. An agreeing mapper "cleans" the object by removing this tag. Time passes... Another mapper walks by, notices that the place is a pizzeria and adds back an identical tag. Are we clean or dirty now? > * treat any nodes added to a way by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless > if these nodes are not present any more in the current version of > the way Excellent. So this will have the effect of ignoring the edit by the non-agreeing mapper in the _way's_ history, right? Thanks for the clarifications. Indeed, thanks for this awesome resource. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are objects still tainted when they are edited from a better source ?
On 15 December 2011 15:17, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > When I use high-resolution imagery to improve areas formerly mapped from > low-resolution imagery, I change the source tag on the objects I touch - > i.e. from "Yahoo low resolution satellite" to "Microsoft Bing satellite". > Since my edit is correlated with a change of source, can it still be > considered as a tainted derivative ? What you describe seems to me a reasonable argument for considering the _geometry_ clean. In particular, many of us are strongly of the view that an untagged node which is moved can be deemed clean by virtue of the fact that no aspect of the node endures from any previous unclean state. You haven't indicated whether, in these cases, you would have moved every single node, though that seems not to be the main weakness in your scenario... What about non-geometric aspects of the way? Perhaps it has a name, a highway type, a lanes tag or whatever. If these tags have a clean history, once again, I would be in favour of considering the object clean. But you can't really deem the entire way clean just by recreating the geometry if you also retain unclean tags. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyprotection for OSM based material
On 25 November 2011 11:07, Nic Roets wrote: > I will go even further and say this is already happening by people who have > already agreed to the ODbL. (Should I point out the examples that I know of > ?) From where we stand now, they are doing nothing wrong, since ODbL does not yet apply to the database. Now, you can of course claim that what those people are doing now represents a good indication of intent for when ODbL does kick in... Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On Friday, 17 June 2011, Olaf Schmidt-Wischhöfer wrote: > Please note that the CT do not guarantee a 2/3 majority of the community. Only > a part of the community is entitled to vote. I read your other mail on that topic. I don't personally have any objection to addressing weaknesses in the definition of "active contributor". Given the likely slight impact on the outcome of any vote I wouldn't even object to including a time-limited right to vote for all past contributors (though see below), though we would need to be careful then about whether we would require 66% of former contributors to say yes or just 66% of those who ultimately cast a vote. The former would become unworkable as more and more inactive mappers became unreachable. As to the definition of "former contributor" - in a post-CT-adoption OSM that would probably mean excluding those never to have agreed to the CT (in other words, restrict voting rights to those who still have data in OSM). It remains to be seen whether the difference will prove a significant one. > Shortly after I wrote these words, a respected community member attacked me as > being "blinded by ideology". He never apologised, and no one contradicted him. > This personal attack is the main reason why I am now completely unwilling to > accept the CT as long as I see peoblems in it. With reference to Rob's reply on this issue, and assuming his quote to be in-context (it certainly matches my recollection), I agree with his interpretation. The quote does not attack you as "blinded by ideology". As such, that post, which I also agree to be well-argued, should have no bearing on your attitude to CT. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
On 16 June 2011 11:00, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Does that not effectively rule out any future relicensing because the burden > of checking existing data is just too high? I mean, how would one even > *begin* to perform such a check, given that nobody is actually obliged to > tell us what license restriction his externally-sourced data might be under? Not quite, based on what Richard is saying. It would allow future relicensing but only if the new licence remained compatible with the terms seen to be required by the OS (currently attribution, if I've understood correctly). It's an unfortunate limitation, certainly, but not quite the same as condemning us to ODbL or CC forever. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On 7 June 2011 15:20, Anthony wrote: > "Of 8,402,321 people eligible to vote, 8,357,560, or 99.5%, cast > ballots--8,348,700 of which favored Hussein, the government said. > There were 5,808 spoiled ballots." Luckily our licence vote is more transparent. Details on who said yes and no are available, so any irregularities will easily be found. Happy hunting! Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On 7 June 2011 14:35, Anthony wrote: > A 2/3 majority of what? When was a poll held? Your next paragraph suggests that you know when. > Do you really think it's a valid poll where, for months, you're only > allowed to say yes, and then even after you're allowed to say no, you > can switch your mind until the answer is yes (at which point you can't > change it back)? Yes, I do. And the numbers suggest that most people agree with me. > This is besides the fact that the question being asked is not the > right question in the first place. It is up to those asking the question to determine what question they would like to have answered. In this case, the people asking for a mandate to change the licence/copyright terms of the database we host are those directly involved in the hosting of said database. They have a right and duty to consider these issues and the mandate they seek will not prevent any of us from making use of today's data set in any way we were already permitted to do so. > And besides the fact that I haven't been allowed to vote. In the old days they might have been plucking chickens and boiling up the tar. These days antisocial behaviour just gets you banned. > There was no vote. Over 32000 mappers have agreed to a proposal. 387 have disagreed. If you choose not to consider this a vote, fair enough, but any longtime readers have had plenty of chances to form an opinion of your brand of logic. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On Tuesday, 7 June 2011, Ed Avis wrote: > > The process is pretty simple really: > > - decide what licence you want without bothering to hold a vote A lot of thought and consultation went into the proposed licence and polls were taken to back up the conclusions. Of course, the fact that the process took years has led to plenty of mappers who can claim not to have been asked. They've all been asked now, though, and the results speak for themselves. > - get everyone to sign up to new contributor terms allowing that licence Indeed. Asking people seems like an excellent way to address your "no vote" concern. > > - block anyone who says no from contributing > > and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors. Such an approach could possibly work, albeit at the cost of losing the community if the community held the process to be unfair. The fact is, though, that people who said no have not yet been blocked from contributing and the 2/3 majority has already been reached. The wrong kind of majority, perhaps? I'm reminded of an argument I was drawn into at the Munich Oktoberfest last year. Smoking is now banned indoors in Bavaria, and one chap, who claimed to be a lawyer, was intent on having a smoke regardless. He considered the law undemocratic. It had been brought in by a referendum forced on the government by a citizen's petition. The referendum was carried. This guy reasoned that lots of smokers abstained from voting because the result was a foregone conclusion, therefore a non-democratic result. How shall we define democracy in OSM? I'm heavily drawn to a model where the course of action endorsed by 99% of those voting can be deemed legitimate. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
