Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
On 25 Oct 2008, at 11:56, Frederik Ramm wrote: What I don't like about share-alike is the small-minded attempt to codify this giving away into something legally binding. To me, this is deeply based in a negativist, paranoid world view where everyone is out to cheat you. ... which is sort of the basis for the free market Which *may* be actually true but I choose to live my life on the assumption that most people are good, which makes for an altogether happier existence, or at least it worked for me so far. I think in Hogfather by Terry Pratchett there's a jingle played in a santa-like grotto for children titled wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice. If I give you a gift, there's a certain social/moral obligation for you to give me a gift too, at the next comparable opportunity. You can choose not to and you won't be sued, maybe you have good reasons, whatever. That's just game theory see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Co-Operation-Penguin-Press-Science/dp/0140124950/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1224961441sr=8-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterated_prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner.27s_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_Tat That's the way I like to do it with my work: I give it to others as a gift; no strings attached, you don't have to give something back but if you use a lot of free stuff then, unless your morals are completely fucked, you will become part of that culture and give things away as well. (There will always be some who take and don't give, but then there will also be those who give and don't take so who cares. OSM got TIGER for free, encompassing about 15 times the volume of data amassed by the community so far at the time.) Yes but we're the only people who have ever tried to improve it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons What share-alike advocates do is they give away something that looks like a gift and they keep droning on about how this is all free and cool and a culture of freedom and so on, but before you open the parcel you have to sign a contract that says you have to give something back or be sued. (I say this to keep the gift analogy; I know that share-alike only forces you to give back what you do with the gift, not something else, but it doesn't make a difference for my point.) Then don't use it, it's a free country. In a world of good people, you don't need share-alike. In a world with unicorns I would be king. You only need it once you subscribe to the they'll cheat you where they can world view. Maybe I'm just not old and grumpy enough for that yet. ... That being said, for the avoidance of doubt, I do support the ODbL/ FIL combo; if we manage to iron out some of the issues then we are likely to have something better than we have now. But that doesn't change my perception that share-alike advocates are a bunch of worrywarts. And you're an idealist... :-) Best Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
There is talk underway to do so. However, many of us feel that splitting the user base and splitting contributions would be destructive. We could produce better maps if we cooperated. Don't you agree? -J On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:47 AM, SteveC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I ever start a open project again I will put a mission statement central to it. I think I was the one who originally wrote The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways. I would add something about it being viral too as I feel strongly that that is pretty central to the success of things here. The real reason the PD folks don't go make ReallyFreeAndOpenStreetMapThisTime.org is they know it will never work. 10 people on the least signal/noise list in a project with 80,000 people in it aren't going to make the PD unicorn fly. Most people in the project that I speak to roll their eyes at this list because first it's full of ill or openly badly informed people making complex legal arguments and second that they clearly have a lot of time on their hands. I can't even make some of the people I respect most join the list! I applaud the structure that's developed recently and led to those use cases for example, but the notion that such a tiny minority would change things is about as likely as dropping all the software and moving to WFS-T. Fundamentally, if in some magic way we went PD all you will do is force the SA people to go start another project... so why can't the PD people skip all that effort and start their own? Then we can just import their stuff. We will be happy with our better dataset and our idea of freedom and the PD people will be happy dreaming about spaceships and their idea of freedom. On 25 Oct 2008, at 19:20, Joseph Gentle wrote: Steve: I'm confused. Please reconcile these two statements: On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:50 PM, SteveC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guys OSM isn't going PD... can't you go start ReallyFreeAndOpenStreetMap.org or something? Best Steve On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm a member of the foundation, but that doesn't entitle me to say something is or isn't a part of OSM. Also, if 'the community' does make decisions, whats the decision making process? Are informal email-list polls appropriate? Can we make web-based polls on the OSM wiki? How does the OSM foundation get feedback from the community? -J ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Best Steve ___ 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
Steve, SteveC wrote: Guys OSM isn't going PD... Who can say? OSM goes where the community wants it to. You were present at SOTM 07; do you remember the show of hands when people were asked what they think about PD? That the Foundation is investigating share-alike licenses and not PD is due to the fact that we currently have a small but outspoken minority in favour of share-alike. I'm all for respecting their wishes but trying to stifle discussion about PD and make these people go away is surely going too far. can't you go start ReallyFreeAndOpenStreetMap.org or something? Well they were about to, but I'd rather try and keep everything under one lid at this time. There is nothing against dual-licensing some data if people want that - I could well imagine an editor setting that, whenever you upload original data and you have the PD flag set, uploads data into two repositories at the same time. I also still think my pet project of having something like a PD view of OSM that contains only those bits not touched by a viral license is not that bad. While I do understand that the Foundation has a lot of work with the proposed new license and any PD discussion does not make that easier, I don't think that statements like yours above are helpful in any way. An osm-pd mailing list would be the right answer - let legal-talk be the forum for discussing the current as well as the proposed new license, and any PD plans continue elsewhere *within* OSM. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## 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] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:02:26PM -0700, Sunburned Surveyor wrote: From what I understand, under the new license, any dataset that we build in-house based on the geometry or tags of data in the transportation layer, which we choose to release to our client or other parties, would have to be released under a share-alike license. That is not true. As long as you base your work solely on your own data, you are free to do with it as you seek. Even after having uploaded it under the proposed license. The viral part of the license/contract only comes in play when you start building on OSM data that is not wholly owned by you. Some people may tell me that I could do this any ways, even if my data was subject to the new license, but based on the discussions I've read on this list I think it is a real gray area. Having a public domain repository takes away a great deal of the share-alike violation fears a company like mine would have. Your fears are only valid if you use data that is not you. No OSM proposed contract has an exclusivity clause in it. cu bart ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:43:17AM +0200, bvh wrote: That is not true. As long as you base your work solely on your own data, you are free to do with it as you seek. Even after having uploaded it under the proposed license. (Not taking into account how the licence sees it at all.) Not really, you have a database of OSM data, you have your data, you merge your data into your OSM database, that’s a derivative because it’s a database containing OSM data (also a derivative of the other data). You make pretty maps / routing / other from that. The case that works: You have a database of OSM data, you have your data. You don’t merge the datasets to create a new one, but your application that makes pretty maps / routing / other can take both as input. Not derivative. (Distribute both together, collective, but not derivative.) Of course, the latter is subject to some horrible ambiguities akin to the linking of programs in the GPL. Aren’t you creating a new derivative database in memory? That should probably be excluded, although… If you only ever distribute your work in memory, then you only ever have to provide the “source” in memory, which I don’t really see as much of an issue. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 07:36:08AM -0700, Sunburned Surveyor wrote: Richard wrote: One thing I really love about OSM is the pragmatic, un-political approach: You don't give us your data, fine, then we create our own and you can shove it. (I don’t see Richard’s original email, so I’ll reply here.) OSM is hardly un-political, heck, making your work PD is a political statement in itself. You’re just in the PD party, that’s all. Not: You don't give us your data, fine, then we create a complex legal licensing framework that will ultimately get you bogged down … That’s enough, really. As unserious as Richard can be this is just trolling. If you have a problem with the share-alike, you’re doing something wrong, you’re bogging yourself down. If you have a problem using the data within the intent of the share-alike then that is a problem that needs to be addressed. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
What about a yahoo discussin group for OSM-PD? Would anyone object to that? Landon On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Tom Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sunburned Surveyor wrote: Does anyone have the e-mail address for Tom Hughes so I could request the creation of a public domain mailing list for OSM? Is there a more appropriate way to handle this request? I'm not hard to find... I'm also not the right person to create mailing lists now though ;-) You want Mike Collinson for that. Is this PD thing actually OSM though, or something outside of/parallel to OSM? I don't quite understand at the moment how to whole thing is intended to work to be honest. Tom -- Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:19:50PM +0100, Brian Quinion wrote: Personally I'd be very happy to see the discussion of PD continue on the talk list but a mailing list seems a very minor resource compared to the time and effort that have gone into the creating the new license. I see the PD route as just giving up. “It’s too hard” is not a good answer for me. It’s clear that my opinion isn’t global though. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Simon Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:19:50PM +0100, Brian Quinion wrote: Personally I'd be very happy to see the discussion of PD continue on the talk list but a mailing list seems a very minor resource compared to the time and effort that have gone into the creating the new license. I see the PD route as just giving up. It's too hard is not a good answer for me. It's clear that my opinion isn't global though. My motivation for being interested in this stems from an issue I had before the license was changed. I wanted to write an iphone application to help people catch public transport in my local area. The idea was that people could pull out their iphone, point on a map where they wanted to go and it would show them which bus stop to walk to, which busses to catch, how long it would take, etc. I intended to have an overlay on my map which showed bus stops. This data would be collected from the local bus company. Under the old license, I couldn't use OSM because I couldn't share the overlay. It might not have been a problem - but I couldn't risk it. This got me wondering - what applications will never be written because of the OSM SA licensing? I think this problem has changed with the new license; but _any_ share-alike license will have similar problems. I would love to see the same free mapping data used everywhere; by tourists, local councils, proprietary satnav systems, google earth, etc. I don't think this will ever happen with the OSM data because of the share-alike requirement. It would be similar to a linux license requiring you to also GPL any software you write on your computer. I know its not _that_ bad anymore, but I got idealistic. -J Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:17:35AM +1100, Joseph Gentle wrote: I intended to have an overlay on my map which showed bus stops. This data would be collected from the local bus company. Under the old license, I couldn't use OSM because I couldn't share the overlay. It might not have been a problem - but I couldn't risk it. This got me wondering - what applications will never be written because of the OSM SA licensing? Just to make clear, I’m very much in agreement that CC-by-sa is unsuitable for OSM, and in favour of a new licence (ODbL, maybe) that will clear some of the use cases up. I’m just not about to stand down just because some people wanting to use the data in a particular way don’t want to abide by share-alike terms either. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Ian Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why can't we just be happen to produce maps and data people will want to use? Ian. We already produce maps and data people want to use. I also want the maps and data to be under a license which lets them be used. (More.) Will people contribute more if they are forced to? I don't know. IBM contributes to linux while apple contributes to FreeBSD. If history is any indicator, this argument will not be settled today. I'm sorry for my part in reigniting the flames. Clearly there are people who (for ideological and pragmatic reasons) think a pd map set would be valuable. The data will not be lost to OSM anyway. Should OSM support / host such a project? -J ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contact Info For Tom Hughes Regarding Public Domain Mailing List
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, 80n wrote: IMHO, PD weakens OSM and weakens its ability to free up other datasets. I don't see the ability to free up other datasets as central to OSM, and as such, weakening this ability does not IMHO weaken OSM. One thing I really love about OSM is the pragmatic, un-political approach: You don't give us your data, fine, then we create our own and you can shove it. Not: You don't give us your data, fine, then we create a complex legal licensing framework that will ultimately get you bogged down in so many requests by prospective users who would like to use our data and yours but cannot and you will sooner or later have to release your data according to the terms we dictate and then we will have won and the world will be a better place. Not according to the terms we dictate. The bus company can release it's data as PD if it likes. OSM is the incentive for the bus company to release it's data. And the strength of OSM is it's community. No community grew up around TIGER which existed as a PD dataset for a very long time before OSM started. I like so view OSM as a cool DIY project, not a political trick we're pulling. The problem with PD is that it permits companies to take OSM data, add their own data and benefit from result without giving anything back. Joseph's bus company could take OSM's PD data, add its own bus stops and publish the mobile app that Joseph wants. There is no incentive for them to make their bus stop data available. They gain and everyone else loses. Do you really feel comfortable about that happening? 80n Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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
