Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database

2011-11-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2011/11/23 Frederik Ramm :
> But I think that the specific example under discussion here actually falls
> short of even this lowered bar. It is quite possible for me to grab a whole
> Way in JOSM and move it one metre to the left (which makes me the last
> editor of, potentially, hundreds of untagged nodes). I don't think that this
> action would nullify the rights of the original contributor of the way, and
> therefore if the original contributor does not agree to the license change,
> we should remove this data.


Yes, I agree. But if there once were 4 nodes stretching over 30 km
(I'm slightly exaggerating), tagged just highway=tertiary, and now
these initial 4 nodes became 500 nodes or 5000 nodes, distributed now
in 20 different ways with lots of attributes, routes running over
them, etc., how much of the initial 4 nodes is still there?

Just bad luck for us? Or is there a limit where original rights have fainted?

cheers,
Martin

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database

2011-11-23 Thread John Smith
On 24 November 2011 05:09, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> But I think that the specific example under discussion here actually falls
> short of even this lowered bar. It is quite possible for me to grab a whole
> Way in JOSM and move it one metre to the left (which makes me the last
> editor of, potentially, hundreds of untagged nodes). I don't think that this

Which would be derived from cc-by-sa, so it'd still be under copyright.

> action would nullify the rights of the original contributor of the way, and

Perhaps you should test this theory by copying content from wikipedia,
indenting it to the left one metre.

Also placement of nodes aren't a fact, they are an interpretation of facts.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database

2011-11-23 Thread Richard Fairhurst
80n wrote:
> It's not like it's going to be hard to recreate all this stuff.  It 
> didn't take long to create in the first place and remapping it 
> is going to be a lot of fun isn't it?

Yep, exactly. It's actually surprisingly easy, especially with features such
as railway lines that are easily visible in Bing.

I've been doing a bunch of remapping recently in an area where the original
mapper has indicated they're never going to agree to the CTs. A moderate
area can be polished off very quickly and there's a satisfying feeling as
you see the little red lights go out. :)

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-The-detrimental-effects-of-database-tp7024478p7025537.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] The detrimental effects of database

2011-11-23 Thread Jo
>> It's not like it's going to be hard to recreate all this stuff.  It
>> didn't take long to create in the first place
>
>
> ... when we had a fraction of the community we have now, less accurate
> aerial imagery and no secondary data sources to compare against. Re-mapping
> not only removes the license baggage, it also has the potential to improve
> quality. I agree - let's rather invest a little more work now and have a
> solid foundation for the future, than build on sand just to get it done
> quicker.
>
I was going to say something in the same vain. So I'll refrain from doing that.
I do have a suggestion to help identify which tags/properties are the
ones contributed by somebody who declined or who can't be reached. Now
I have to go an dig in the history to check who added names and other
properties, when recreating ways and nodes. I'd prefer for this time
consuming task to be automated. Is there a way to accomplish that? I
understand the full history of an object is needed to do it, so it'be
supplementary to what the license change plugin does already. Maybe
you could point me in the right direction in the JOSM code and I could
try to do it myself.

I would need to know how the history is stored after it is DL'ed and
where; how I can fetch it programmatically.

Jo

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database

2011-11-23 Thread Frederik Ramm

Hi,

On 11/23/2011 06:22 PM, 80n wrote:

I don't see how it could be in anyone's interest to taint the map by
leaving in nodes that could, just possibly, be claimed to infringe
someone's rights.


I part agree, part disagree with that.

I don't think that our bar should be "no data that could, just possibly, 
be claimed to infringe...". That would be too high; even today, under 
CC-BY-SA, we have a lot of data where people have claimed infringement 
and the claims have turned out to be insubstantial.


I think the bar must be "no data that could *reasonably* be claimed to 
infringe...".


But I think that the specific example under discussion here actually 
falls short of even this lowered bar. It is quite possible for me to 
grab a whole Way in JOSM and move it one metre to the left (which makes 
me the last editor of, potentially, hundreds of untagged nodes). I don't 
think that this action would nullify the rights of the original 
contributor of the way, and therefore if the original contributor does 
not agree to the license change, we should remove this data.



It's not like it's going to be hard to recreate all this stuff.  It
didn't take long to create in the first place


... when we had a fraction of the community we have now, less accurate 
aerial imagery and no secondary data sources to compare against. 
Re-mapping not only removes the license baggage, it also has the 
potential to improve quality. I agree - let's rather invest a little 
more work now and have a solid foundation for the future, than build on 
sand just to get it done quicker.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  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] The detrimental effects of database

2011-11-23 Thread 80n
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 2011/11/23 Frederik Ramm :
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 11/23/11 15:16, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote:
> >>
> >> Currently, the LWG intends to delete all nodes ever created by
> >> decliners or non-responders.
> >
> > That is correct as far as I know.
>
>
> Would it legally be possible to keep those nodes that don't have tags
> on them, and whose position was changed in the meantime? In these
> cases isn't it safe to assume that there is no information from the
> original (declining) mapper left?
>
> Martin,
I don't see how it could be in anyone's interest to taint the map by
leaving in nodes that could, just possibly, be claimed to infringe
someone's rights.

The whole point of OSM is to produce a map that is usable under a clear and
legally certain license.  If it contains a lot of tainted data then that
principle is violated and the usefulness reduced.

It's not like it's going to be hard to recreate all this stuff.  It didn't
take long to create in the first place and remapping it is going to be a
lot of fun isn't it?

80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database

2011-11-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2011/11/23 Frederik Ramm :
> Hi,
>
> On 11/23/11 15:16, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote:
>>
>> Currently, the LWG intends to delete all nodes ever created by
>> decliners or non-responders.
>
> That is correct as far as I know.


Would it legally be possible to keep those nodes that don't have tags
on them, and whose position was changed in the meantime? In these
cases isn't it safe to assume that there is no information from the
original (declining) mapper left?

cheers,
Martin

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The detrimental effects of database

2011-11-23 Thread Frederik Ramm

Hi,

On 11/23/11 15:16, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote:

Currently, the LWG intends to delete all nodes ever created by
decliners or non-responders.


That is correct as far as I know.


There is no contributor who has ever contributed even a 50% majority
of nodes on these routes. However, they would be destroyed by
deleting those nodes which have been created by decliners or
non-responders.


The assumption that an 11,000 node route is "destroyed" when a few 
hundred nodes are removed from it is however *not* correct. The route 
just becomes less precise, or in the worst case it may have a few holes 
here and there where a way was lost. But even that does not "destroy" a 
route.


Your argument about joint authorship does not work because the person 
combining these bits into a country-spanning route has usually done so 
without the knowledge of the individual contributor who has just mapped 
a little stretch of road.


That's like saying that Popstar #1 has to allow Popstar #2 to distribute 
his work because they both appeared on a sampler created by a third 
entity and that sampler now constitutes a jointly authored work.


Bye
Frederik

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk