Re: [mkgmap-dev] Question on license for style-file

[Torsten Leistikow]

Felix Hartmann schrieb am 21.01.2010 02:31:
>   I already had quite a few ideas/concepts copied by Garmin map 
> compilers (e.g. using assymetric transparent lines - which was so 
> forgotten by Garmin or not intended that they stopped supporting it 
> until copying many parts for the Garmin Transalpin - if you look at 
> their typfile it really shows many traces of the typfiles I used when 
> starting my then called "mtb maps" on the osm wiki, or first versions of 
> my "openmtbmap".).

I can't really understand your "problem".

For once, in my the eyes the ideas/concepts your are mentioning not so
groundbraking, that nobody else is able to think of them. (Today they might
still be good enough for a patent :-) I really admit your work, but i think the
greatest part is not getting the ideas but getting everything done.
So I would not say that somebody copied your ideas/concepts, i would rather say
that they were inspired by your work.
Above you write, that some of your concepts were forgotten by Garmin. So
actually you are also copying their ideas :-)

And as a second point, why do you worry about someone copying your work as
closed source? It is certainly not nice, but is it really a problem? If you give
away your maps for free (free beer as well as really free), what would change,
if Garmin would sell identical maps for money? They will make some money, but
you will not loose any money. I do not care if anybody earns some money with the
aid of my free contributions, as long as my work is still available for free to
other people.

It migth look different, if you want to earn some money yourself with your maps.
But then the problem would not be, to stop other companies yousing your work in
a closed source manner, but to stop other people using your work at all.

By the way, I think you could earn some money (not much but at least some), if
you would sell ready to use flash-cards with your maps on ebay. You could sell
them with the recquired free-to-copy license, since most buyers wouldn't bother
about copying, if they could by an actual map for perhaps 10 or 15EUR.

Gruss
Torsten
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Question on license for style-file

[Felix Hartmann]

On 21.01.2010 08:30, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
> Hi Felix,
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:31:19AM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
>
>> My main concern is that Garmin map publishers (like Onroute) use large
>> parts of my style-file to have better autorouting and produce closed
>> source commercial maps. They currently do many things wrong (even though
>> Onroute is the only one that ever gave autorouting for cyclists some
>> thought).
>>  
> Copyright only covers more or less verbatim copying, but not the copying
> of ideas.  Patents would offer wider protection, but they are a very
> controversial topic ("software patents") and out of the reach of anything
> but deep-pocket corporations that can afford patent attorneys.
>
>
I do know that. However they can cover some ideas but not a complete 
concept.
>>I already had quite a few ideas/concepts copied by Garmin map
>> compilers (e.g. using assymetric transparent lines - which was so
>> forgotten by Garmin or not intended that they stopped supporting it
>> until copying many parts for the Garmin Transalpin - if you look at
>> their typfile it really shows many traces of the typfiles I used when
>> starting my then called "mtb maps" on the osm wiki, or first versions of
>> my "openmtbmap".). I also assume Garmin map producers will start using
>> invisible routable lines (which I first used) or even several invisible
>> routable lines to overcome the shortcoming of the garmin
>> turn-time-penalties.
>>  
> They can be copying ideas from this mailing list already.  I don't think
> that there is any way to prevent the copying.  You would need an army of
> lawyers for that.  Only big corporations can afford that.  All we can do
> is to compete by quality.  The general public is becoming increasingly more
> aware of OpenStreetMap and the independence from proprietary map vendors.
> I hope that it is a positive feedback loop: the map is good enough for some
> users, users will make it even better, it becomes good enough for even more
> users, and so on.  Proprietary maps will never get accurate coverage of
> minor paths and the like.  Not even cycleways, at least not here.  So, most
> cyclists here should know to avoid buying maps. :-)
>
>   Marko
> ___
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>

___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Question on license for style-file

[Marko Mäkelä]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 09:30:26AM +0200, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
> Proprietary maps will never get accurate coverage of minor paths
> and the like.

But they can get news coverage more easily than us. :-(
A local news outlet just reported that 
"users of Nokia smart phones will get free maps
according to Reuters and San Francisco Chronicle".

That would be free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-freedom, of course.
Nokia bought Navteq a couple of years ago.

Marko
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Question on license for style-file

[Marko Mäkelä]

Hi Felix,

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:31:19AM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
> My main concern is that Garmin map publishers (like Onroute) use large 
> parts of my style-file to have better autorouting and produce closed 
> source commercial maps. They currently do many things wrong (even though 
> Onroute is the only one that ever gave autorouting for cyclists some 
> thought).

Copyright only covers more or less verbatim copying, but not the copying
of ideas.  Patents would offer wider protection, but they are a very
controversial topic ("software patents") and out of the reach of anything
but deep-pocket corporations that can afford patent attorneys.

>   I already had quite a few ideas/concepts copied by Garmin map 
> compilers (e.g. using assymetric transparent lines - which was so 
> forgotten by Garmin or not intended that they stopped supporting it 
> until copying many parts for the Garmin Transalpin - if you look at 
> their typfile it really shows many traces of the typfiles I used when 
> starting my then called "mtb maps" on the osm wiki, or first versions of 
> my "openmtbmap".). I also assume Garmin map producers will start using 
> invisible routable lines (which I first used) or even several invisible 
> routable lines to overcome the shortcoming of the garmin 
> turn-time-penalties.

They can be copying ideas from this mailing list already.  I don't think
that there is any way to prevent the copying.  You would need an army of
lawyers for that.  Only big corporations can afford that.  All we can do
is to compete by quality.  The general public is becoming increasingly more
aware of OpenStreetMap and the independence from proprietary map vendors.
I hope that it is a positive feedback loop: the map is good enough for some
users, users will make it even better, it becomes good enough for even more
users, and so on.  Proprietary maps will never get accurate coverage of
minor paths and the like.  Not even cycleways, at least not here.  So, most
cyclists here should know to avoid buying maps. :-)

Marko
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Question on license for style-file

[Felix Hartmann]

On 20.01.2010 08:01, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
> Hi Felix, all,
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:18:18AM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
>
>> I am going to publish my style-file (and dual license the rest like
>> typfiles), but I would like that
>> a) any works that build upon it, have to give attribution to openmtbmap.org
>> b) any maps generated by using the style-file or large parts of it have
>> to give attribution to openmtbmap.org
>>
>> Which license does fit here. Is GnuGPL v2 compatible with my intention
>> or is b) not possible?
>> Would CCBYSA 3.0 be better?
>>
>> Hope someone knows a bit better what I should choose. I don't really
>> understand how b) is treated by open-source licenses.
>>  
> I spent some thought on this last weekend.  I would choose GPLv2 by default,
> but I am not sure if it is compatible with the OpenStreetMap license
> .
> To my knowledge, the GPL is not compatible with any attribution clause,
> so it is not what you are looking for.
>
That is what I figured out myself too. The intention of GPL is more to 
provide a copyleft framework to be forever able to freely use something. 
No need for attribution. Also I think maps produced using that 
style-file could then be published under any license (well if OSM data 
is used the license is anyhow more or less fixed, my problems are much 
more related to Garmin copying many of my ideas and innovations in their 
own maps )
> You might want to read about the DFSG
> 
> and especially on the GFDL resolution.
>
> It could be reasonable to release all TYP files under the same license
> as the OpenStreetMap data.  Currently, this would be the CCBYSA 2.0.
>
The problem with CCBYSA is, if I'm correct that anyone subsequently 
using the style-file would only have to put the produced map/product 
under CCBYSA too and mention the original author (me)
but would not be obliged to opensource his style-file too. Mainly facing 
the same problem (or not depending on opionion) openstreetmap is facing 
currently too. (except that there is no unclear situation whether all 
contributors have to be attributed or not).
> I believe that the mkgmap built-in styles can be licensed by any license
> (currently the GPLv2).  This is OK because the styles are not copied to
> the output, but they are only rules for generating the output.
That is also my point of view here. Neither are the style-files copied 
to the output nor are they internal to mkgmap (they are called up 
dynamically). Otherwise it wouldn't be legal to distribute maps and 
keeping the style-file closed source.
>But as
> soon as we start to distribute TYP files and other files that are literally
> copied to the output, it would be reasonable to use a different license
> or to grant a license exception, similar to what exists for the built-in
> run-time libraries of GCC (libgcc) and code generators such as compiler
> compilers (Flex, Bison, ANTLR, ...).
>
As long as the maps are distributed in seperated parts with an 
installer/program to assemble them for use the TYP file can be put under 
any license (the maps work without the TYP file too, and also another 
TYP file could be used instead).
I think I will publish the style-file under CCBYSA 2.0 - even though I 
would prefer reuse to opensource their style-files too.

My main concern is that Garmin map publishers (like Onroute) use large 
parts of my style-file to have better autorouting and produce closed 
source commercial maps. They currently do many things wrong (even though 
Onroute is the only one that ever gave autorouting for cyclists some 
thought).
  I already had quite a few ideas/concepts copied by Garmin map 
compilers (e.g. using assymetric transparent lines - which was so 
forgotten by Garmin or not intended that they stopped supporting it 
until copying many parts for the Garmin Transalpin - if you look at 
their typfile it really shows many traces of the typfiles I used when 
starting my then called "mtb maps" on the osm wiki, or first versions of 
my "openmtbmap".). I also assume Garmin map producers will start using 
invisible routable lines (which I first used) or even several invisible 
routable lines to overcome the shortcoming of the garmin 
turn-time-penalties.

thanks for your comments,
Felix
>   Marko
> ___
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>

___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Question on license for style-file

[Marko Mäkelä]

Hi Felix, all,

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:18:18AM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
> I am going to publish my style-file (and dual license the rest like 
> typfiles), but I would like that
> a) any works that build upon it, have to give attribution to openmtbmap.org
> b) any maps generated by using the style-file or large parts of it have 
> to give attribution to openmtbmap.org
> 
> Which license does fit here. Is GnuGPL v2 compatible with my intention 
> or is b) not possible?
> Would CCBYSA 3.0 be better?
> 
> Hope someone knows a bit better what I should choose. I don't really 
> understand how b) is treated by open-source licenses.

I spent some thought on this last weekend.  I would choose GPLv2 by default,
but I am not sure if it is compatible with the OpenStreetMap license
.
To my knowledge, the GPL is not compatible with any attribution clause,
so it is not what you are looking for.

You might want to read about the DFSG

and especially on the GFDL resolution.

It could be reasonable to release all TYP files under the same license
as the OpenStreetMap data.  Currently, this would be the CCBYSA 2.0.

I believe that the mkgmap built-in styles can be licensed by any license
(currently the GPLv2).  This is OK because the styles are not copied to
the output, but they are only rules for generating the output.  But as
soon as we start to distribute TYP files and other files that are literally
copied to the output, it would be reasonable to use a different license
or to grant a license exception, similar to what exists for the built-in
run-time libraries of GCC (libgcc) and code generators such as compiler
compilers (Flex, Bison, ANTLR, ...).

Marko
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

[mkgmap-dev] Question on license for style-file

[Felix Hartmann]

I am going to publish my style-file (and dual license the rest like 
typfiles), but I would like that
a) any works that build upon it, have to give attribution to openmtbmap.org
b) any maps generated by using the style-file or large parts of it have 
to give attribution to openmtbmap.org

Which license does fit here. Is GnuGPL v2 compatible with my intention 
or is b) not possible?
Would CCBYSA 3.0 be better?

Hope someone knows a bit better what I should choose. I don't really 
understand how b) is treated by open-source licenses.
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev