[OSM-talk] Traveling Salesman - version 0.9.5 released

[marcus.wolschon]

Version 0.9.5 of the Traveling Salesman navigation-system for
OpenStreetMap has just been released.

* With an improved plugin-system we now have an optional speechPack to add
voice-output.
  (Note that higher quality voices and phonems for other languages can be
installed later.)
* Thanks to your help in the OSM-Wiki
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sample_driving_instructions)
  we now not only have much improved driving-directions but also the first
  translated driving-instructions. 
* There are some major speed-improvements in the reference-implementation
of the OsmBin
  file-format and the LODDataSet (automatic Generation of simplified low
zoom-levels).
* You can now file feature-requests, bug-reports and complains via the
help-menu.
* Testing without a GPS-device has become much easier with the new gpx-file
-controlpanel
  reachable from the debug-menu. (fast forward and slow down in gpx-files)

As we want to REACH VERSION 1.0 BY THE 23.3.2009 with the introduction of
the
OpenStreetMap API 0.6 we need YOUR HELP. We NEED BUG-REPORTS, feedback,
ideas
but also patches, plugins and feature-request.
Tell us what needs improvement!
Tell us what we did wrong!
Tell us what needs better documentation!

http://apps.sourceforge.net/phpbb/travelingsales/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=29
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=203597

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

[OSM-talk] OSM embedded into a mataverse

[olivier auber]

Twinverse is a P2P metaverse based on maps

Now with openstreetmap

http://www.twinverse.com

IMHO, incredible features

Possibly usefull for OSM contributors meetups?

-- 
Olivier Auber

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "There Is No Cabal"

[Dave Stubbs]

2009/3/4 Ulf Möller :
> Frederik Ramm schrieb:
>
>>> then it emerges that this was an intentional change requested by the OSM
>>> Foundation.
>>
>> I haven't seen this emerging anywhere. (In fact, the OSM foundation,
>> represented by their board of directors, seems to have been remarkably
>> un-involved as we have heard from 80n who serves on the board.)
>
> True. Re-reading the message at
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-March/26.html, the
> change request is attributed to the Foundation's lawyer, not to the
> Foundation itself.
>
> However, it is described as "an effort to simplify some of the licensing
> issues around being able to use a database to produce a work when
> using other sources", and not as an accident.
>

But when you read the use cases on the wiki it's quite clear that the
lawyer who answered those (when he answered those, whenever that was)
believed that SA was in place. Which puts it back into the realms of
unintended side-effect and cock-up.

Dave

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mirroring planet.openstreetmap.org

[Grant Slater]

Milenko wrote:
>
> I’m bring my mirror (planet.king-nerd.com) of planet.openstreetmap.org 
> back up to date. I currently use a script with several wget commands 
> due to the redirects to ftp.heanet.ie  when 
> downloading from the planet. This works fine, except that the 
> heanet.ie site is quite slow here most of the time. I’m currently 
> getting speeds of 20 – 50KB/s, which will take weeks to get the last 
> couple planets. Is there a way I can sync directly with 
> planet.openstreetmap.org either without the redirects, or via some 
> method other than http (rsync, etc)?
>

We are unable to offer rsync:// or ftp:// from planet.openstreetmap.org 
due to port filtering outside our control.
Let me know the IP address (offlist) used for downloading the planet 
files and I'll add it to the mirror redirect exclusion list.

Alternatively pass "?nomirror" to the url to not be redirected eg:
eg: http://planet.openstreetmap.org/planet-090218.osm.bz2?nomirror
Please try use the mirror if at all possible.

If the above is still not acceptable... chat to me (offlist). 
rsync+ssh:// is an option, but it has its own drawbacks.

Regards
Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[MP]

> It would be great to require that only free software could use OSM
> maps.  I saw other peoples agreement on this when we discussed
> someone's 3D viewer for OSM data, and the #1 comment on this mailing
> list was "we shouldn't glorify the use of non-free software".
>
> Proprietary routing software on OSM data was seen as something outside
> of this community, not necessarily unacceptable of itself, but
> certainly something that needed to be discarded and replaced with a
> free alternative.

We have now tool to convert OSM data to garmin format (Mkgmap). The
tool is opensource. Garmin can do routing (at least I assume it can, I
don't posses any garmin devices or software myself) and is closed
source. Would the new license make mkgmap unusable/illegal with odbl'd
data? What about distributing maps converted to garmin format
(assuming they are still under ODbL). If that would be allowed, then
it won't prevent using closed-source SW for routing over OSM data, as
anyubody can simply get converted maps and upload them to their garmin
device.

Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[MP]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 23:47, Roland Olbricht  wrote:
> And what to users who do not log in with a browser?

Send them email. If they don't respond in some time (few weeks?) by
visiting their account, deny them access to uploading new data. That
will make them look in their acount and try to figure out what is
wrong.

Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Richard Fairhurst]

MP wrote:
> We have now tool to convert OSM data to garmin format (Mkgmap). 
> The tool is opensource. Garmin can do routing (at least I assume it can, 
> I don't posses any garmin devices or software myself) and is closed
> source. Would the new license make mkgmap unusable/illegal with 
> odbl'd data?

No. Not at all.

I don't know where this idea is coming from. ODbL does _not_ insist that the
data can only be accessed by open-source programs or in open formats.

A couple of people appear to have suggested that _their_ ideal licence would
require this; but given that a) they haven't actually proposed such a
licence, b) nor have they argued for the easy and obvious step of
browser-sniffing to prevent IE/Safari/Opera users from using osm.org (well,
exactly), I suggest said suggestions are politely ignored until they do.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22327489.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[MP]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 23:50, Gervase Markham  wrote:
> On 03/03/09 18:39, Matthias Julius wrote:
>> It is not that simple.  What if those 5% is half of South Africa?  You
>> certainly can not interpolate overall OSM growth to re-surveying South
>> Africa.
>
> ...which is why this is an unanswerable question. Let's go through the
> exercise, see what the percentage actually is and where the data is, and
> then decide what to do.

Thayt is the worst thing - now you don't know who will agree to new
license and who don't (unless you have some magic crystal ball). So
you don't know which data are going to be removed and how much of them
would it be until the last moment. You can only guess or estimate
that, though once we start gathering consent for new license, we'll be
having lower bound for the estimate - we will know for some data that
these will stay there for sure (data for people wioth consent for new
license) and the rest maybe yes, maybe no.

I thought of one improvement - in addition to allowing people to
consent to new license, allow them also to (completely voluntary)
agree to Public domain their contributions. Some of the people on
wikipedia (though not nearly a majority) does that for their
contributions and many photos on wikimedia commons are under PD, so I
assume some contributors may like it here too - then give them the
possibility. Some tools to extract only PD subset of data could be
added later if necessary (export list of users agreeing to PD would
make this possible).
And as wikipedia offers their complete dump with entire history, we
maybe can offer planet dump with entire history in it too, so it could
be easier to pick up only the PD contributions (or basically to dig
through history for any reason without querying the main server)

Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[MP]

> If we follow the rule of reverting incompatible changes only 2 is
> reverted to 1 (A’s scribble gets added back in).  3 is considered an
> independent change.  We end up with both a scribble and a neat road in
> the same area.  This situation likely won’t be easy to detect until
> after the changes, when validators will gleefully litter the map with
> warnings about overlapping ways.

That is perhaps worse than "we'll just delete/revert 5% of data".
Because this revertion/deletion would cause another perhaps 20% of
data (and it won't be always easy to spot them in the remaining 95%)
to be left in more or less inconsistent state that would need some
work to get consistent again.

Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Ed Avis]

MP  gmail.com> writes:

>>Try this thought experiment: suppose a user imported data from Google
>
>Well, this is disallowed completely in first place.

And so is importing the CC-BY-SA contributions into a new map which is not
licensed CC-BY-SA.  If one is disallowed then so is the other.
 
>Also, technically, when "mixing licenses", we won't have mashup of
>cc-by-sa and odbl, we will have mashup of cc-by-sa without consent to
>relicense later under odbl and cc-by-sa with consent to relicense
>later under odbl.

I guess that would work.  The resulting collection would be distributable under
CC-BY-SA only.  If all of the old work without the extra consent is deleted, and
all work derived from it (see earlier discussion), then you could distribute the
result under the ODbL.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting

[Ed Avis]

You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a non-relicensing
contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept.

In the worst case, in the event of a dispute, do you really fancy trying to
convince a court of law that the elaborate heuristics you applied are sufficient
to make the map completely independent of the work of the users who said 'no'?

The only sound rule that can be sure to stand up in court is to delete all data
from the contributors who didn't give explicit permission, and all data that
depends on it.  Period.

You may think this is unnecessarily paranoid.  Indeed it is: but if the
relicensing exercise doesn't put the project on a legally unassailable footing,
it is not worth doing.  At the moment we can say with certainty that 100% of the
contributors have clicked 'yes' to an agreement to distribute their changes 
under
CC-BY-SA.  Any legal niceties tidied up by a move to a different licence are 
good
to have, all other things being equal, but are hugely outweighed if the data
becomes a questionable mishmash of contributions that have agreement, and those
that don't have agreement but pass some odd set of rules we invented ourselves 
to
convince ourselves that we didn't need to get permission.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting

[80n]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:

> You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a
> non-relicensing
> contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept.
>
> In the worst case, in the event of a dispute, do you really fancy trying to
> convince a court of law that the elaborate heuristics you applied are
> sufficient
> to make the map completely independent of the work of the users who said
> 'no'?
>
> The only sound rule that can be sure to stand up in court is to delete all
> data
> from the contributors who didn't give explicit permission, and all data
> that
> depends on it.  Period.
>
> You may think this is unnecessarily paranoid.  Indeed it is: but if the
> relicensing exercise doesn't put the project on a legally unassailable
> footing,
> it is not worth doing.  At the moment we can say with certainty that 100%
> of the
> contributors have clicked 'yes' to an agreement to distribute their changes
> under
> CC-BY-SA.  Any legal niceties tidied up by a move to a different licence
> are good
> to have, all other things being equal, but are hugely outweighed if the
> data
> becomes a questionable mishmash of contributions that have agreement, and
> those
> that don't have agreement but pass some odd set of rules we invented
> ourselves to
> convince ourselves that we didn't need to get permission.
>


I believe this is a wise approach.  OSM is traditionally very conservative
about using any data not from a know clean source.  On the grand scale its
relatively easy to capture map data, the value of a clean database far
outweighs the risks associated with infringing anyone's copyright.  We
should apply the same degree of conserativism to our CC-BY-SA licensed data
as we would to any other copyrighted data.

Perhaps we are thinking about this all wrong.  If we considered the ODbL to
be a license fork of the project (albeit a friendly from the inside fork)
then it makes it much easier to think about how all this should happen.

80n




>
> --
> Ed Avis 
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License to kill

[Tom Chance]

Hi Steve,

Just to say - thanks for writing out this funny long email.

I've been involved with debates over Creative Commons licenses and, boy,
people love to stick their oar in where it doesn't belong! I also know
Jordan, I had beers with him in Dubrovnik a couple of years ago, he's a
great guy and very committed to the common good. You're right, we should
all give him some slack and trust him.

You're never going to be able to mollify people who want to jump in during
the last of 15 stages and whinge that they weren't there are stage 1.
You're never going to resolve conflicting interests or help people
understand the legal (as opposed to logical context).

Just keep pointing at all the excellent info on the wiki at every stage.
Drive it home - hey, we're not at this stage and here is the process &
background info.


If you'll permit me to snipe from the sidelines without an offer of help,
here's a suggestion for the people management. When you set yourselves up
to have regular meetings, publish minutes, etc. then DO IT. Either scale
down your ambitions or up your game, but it is very unhealthy to have the
process break down, especially when the process is the wider community's
only way of keeping tabs on important questions like licensing. There is a
lot of bad feeling on the mailing lists so the Foundation needs to come out
and clear the air, deal with these issues, then people will be more likely
to understand and accept all your points below.

Then just keep pointing to the web page that outlines the structures,
processes and notes/minutes/FAQs etc.

Best of luck to you, Jordan and everyone else.

Regards,
Tom



On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 20:28:32 -0800, SteveC  wrote:
> Where to begin?
> 
> Why don't we start with the beautiful community we've built and the  
> stunning map can be the backdrop. On this canvas lets spread the  
> pieces of the puzzle and see if we can put a few things together.
> 
> We have incredible coders. We have mappers that stay up all night  
> adding lakes in Bolivia from aerial imagery. We have people building  
> community across mailing lists, forums and mapping events. We have  
> user interaction people. We have stunning cartography from the planets  
> best cartographers. We have a sysadmin team second to none. We have a  
> volunteer board doing their best with the tools they have. We have  
> fake bloggers so involved in their espionage they fake their own  
> retirement and write in a different tone so you don't think it's them.
> 
> But, we don't have a shed load of intellectual property lawyers with  
> aeons of experience.
> 
> Now that's important. Laws and licenses tend not to be written by  
> sysadmins. Or Cartographers. Or even expert C++ coders.
> 
> We're a funny bunch, us hackers. We can deconstruct a problem and code  
> around it. We can avoid logic traps. Every day we decompose algorithms  
> and we have no hierarchy other than our code. Is your code better?  
> Then you're better. Am I a better coder if I have a degree in computer  
> science? Probably not actually. But if I have 10 years hacking on  
> Apache or something... then I have a flag to fly. And the wonderful  
> thing about our skill as coders is that it applies to a lot of other  
> area. We can make electronics if we want. Many of us know quite a bit  
> about Physics or Chemistry. We know that coding is basically  
> mathematics [5] so we tend to be good at that too.
> 
> That logic and intuition we learn as coders is just incredibly  
> powerful. We're like wizards with the secret spell and often the world  
> lays as an open book to us, and we need not turn the page to know the  
> ending of a story. Because we figured it out two equations ago. Or  
> it's just like that other coding problem we worked on a few weeks ago.  
> Or actually, it's like cantors diagonal slash[6] and we can use that.  
> Maybe if we treat the engine as if it were a misbehaving piece of  
> code[4] we can figure out the issue just by being scientific.
> 
> And that's amazing. It's stunning. It's jaw-dropping. We see the world  
> a different way, and we build incredible things like wikipedia, or GNU/ 
> Linux. Or we hack together a windscreen wiper which pauses between  
> wipes [8]. Or a vacuum cleaner that needs no bags [7].
> 
> All that incredible skill very often, sadly, counts for nothing when  
> we want to become managers. Or write licenses. Or diagnose our own  
> illnesses. Or fall in love. All that logic and training doesn't help.
> 
> And we really, really don't like that. We don't like to talk about it  
> either.
> 
> It's an Outside Context Problem [1]. It's the boundary of our world.  
> It's Godel, Escher, Bach[2]. It's the knowing that there is something  
> outside of our System of the World[3]. We can't use C++ to manage  
> people. We can't use logic to fight with a 2 year old having a  
> tantrum. We can't use the scientific method when having an argument  
> with our girlfriend, or boyfriend.

Re: [OSM-talk] License to kill

[Peter Miller]

On 4 Mar 2009, at 04:28, SteveC wrote:

>
snip
> We blame Steve because he's evil. We blame the process because it took
> too long. We blame the working group for not being quicker. We figure
> the foundation must be culpable. We write long rants about how it's a
> dire emergency...
>
snip
>

My main criticism in relation to license Steve is not that you are  
'evil' but that you have been absent. Your last post in relation to  
the license on legal-talk was over three months go (25th Nov).

Given that you are the only person who has attended meetings with  
'our' lawyer and that until recently even the other directors of the  
foundation were in the dark we need your input urgently. Even now, we  
have other foundation directors asking questions about the license on  
legal-talk - very strange.

To help you we (ie the wider OSM community) have been maintaining and  
developing the legal side of the wiki over the past 6 months. Few of  
us have been in on the process so it would be handy if you were able  
to cast your eye over all the pages that relate to the ODbL and make  
any corrections that are necessary. They are all in the Open Data  
Licence Category:-
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Open_Data_Licence

We have also  collected the key questions and requirements onto two  
wiki pages.

The Use Cases page has lists in plain english some of the things we  
want to do with the data and we have had a legal response to some. It  
would be helpful if you could explain the Use Cases to our lawyer so  
he can give answers to the ones where he has said 'I need someone to  
walk me through this one':-
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases

The Open Issues page lists the key questions to which we don't have  
answers. There is a space below each one where you can provide details  
from your discussions with 'our' lawyer as to how he sees these  
questions being addressed:-
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues

For your interest my company's lawyer (acting for ITO World Ltd) is  
hoping to have her response together in relation to the license by the  
end of tomorrow. My company will review her comments and hope to be  
able to make that document publicly available to the community by the  
end of this week. She may also give opinion on some Use Cases and Open  
Issues which could be useful.



Regards,



Peter



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

Re: [OSM-talk] License to kill

[Frederik Ramm]

Tom,

Tom Chance wrote:
> Just keep pointing at all the excellent info on the wiki at every stage.

Have you actually looked at what is on the Wiki and made an intelligent 
judgment that this is "excellent info at every stage"? Or are you just 
assuming there must be because someone said so?

Personally, I would just *love* to be able to point people to excellent 
info on the Wiki if I could find some.

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License to kill

[Tom Chance]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:03:44 +0100, Frederik Ramm 
wrote:
> Have you actually looked at what is on the Wiki and made an intelligent 
> judgment that this is "excellent info at every stage"? Or are you just 
> assuming there must be because someone said so?
> 
> Personally, I would just *love* to be able to point people to excellent 
> info on the Wiki if I could find some.

Yes, see Peter Miller's post. So many of the debates on this list are
already answered on the wiki.

Those pages could do with more work. Steve should bring the rest of the
Foundation Board into the loop more and make sure those wiki pages receive
attention from the lawyers being consulted; there are many things to be
improved.

But there is far too much shrill anger on this list of late. It would be
much more productive if people could either just hold back, or say to Steve
& co exactly what Peter just posted: "we've done all this work, please make
sure you work with us in this process rather than working in parallel."

Regards,
Tom

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting

[Ben Laenen]

On Wednesday 04 March 2009, Ed Avis wrote:
> The only sound rule that can be sure to stand up in court is to
> delete all data from the contributors who didn't give explicit
> permission, and all data that depends on it.  Period.

I agree that the only legal sound way to do it is by removing all 
dependent data. But we can't even tell what data depends on data from 
contributors who didn't give permission...

Suppose I split a way into two parts. The second part now gets uploaded 
as a completely new object, with nothing in its history pointing 
towards its origin.

Or another example: I can align the outline of a forest to the road 
which I know is its boundary. So the forest is also a dependency, but 
not a single clue in the database the two might be related to each 
other.

That's all becoming quite a minefield really.

Ben

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

[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: [odc-discuss] Postings and responses on ODbL from Jordan specifically

[Grant Slater]

Cross posting Jordon's mail from here:
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-March/29.html

Jordan wrote:
---

After some thought, I've decided to post an overview on how I will try  
to approach both the comment period and direct questions. I hope you  
don't mind me being blunt, but as the co-creator of the ODbL (and the  
PDDL) I feel some personal pressure to respond frequently and in  
detail. This is very much about me being disciplined about my free  
time / pro bono work as much as it is about finding the right way to  
test the ODbL.  I find all this very interesting and wish I could  
spend more time on open data. But the reality is that I only have a  
limited amount of time to spend every week on this project and I'm  
trying to concentrate on where I can be most effective and where I  
_should_ contribute given my role in helping create it. Sometimes it's  
best to step back from something you've created and let others have a  
go.

===When and where I will answer questions:

-- I will generally not answer direct questions sent to my personal  
email (i.e., offlist). If you think you have a reason that something  
_really_ needs to be offlist, then feel free to contact me directly.

-- I am not going to monitor OSM Legal Talk (for those of you coming  
from there) any more because it's a major time sink because I'll get  
hooked on reading (and sometimes answering) ODbL issues. Plus the  
licence is a debate for that community and one that I feel I shouldn't  
get involved in directly.

-- I'm going to do a round of revision on the co-ment comments in 1-2  
weeks and then a round of comments before the comment period closes.  
Other than that, please comment on other people's comments if you see  
anything amiss.

-- I am going to try to answer questions here at ODC-Discuss ASAP, but  
generally within about 24-48 hours of posting, with weekends a bit  
longer. 

===What I will answer questions about:

I'm going to concentrate my comments on the bigger picture stuff as  
well as the technical legal details when I can.

Eben Moglen refers to the GPL as "the constitution of the free  
software movement". The key bit that he's getting at is that unlike  
other licences, free/open licences take on a life of their own, with  
the community behind them dictating their interpretation (within the  
scope of the written terms).  It's much like other written  
constitutions, such as the US Constitution, which gets constant life  
from interpretation and application to new settings.

Because I've been "in the weeds" going through all of the details of  
writing the ODbL, I need you to read and make the arguments for where  
it applies and where it doesn't; where the lines get drawn and where  
they stop; where the gaps are.

In order for this to be a community licence, the interpretation can't  
amount to one person (such as me) supplying the answer. The best way  
to test out the licence (IMO) is for potential users to work out how  
they would apply the ODbL in a certain situation.

So I'm going to refrain from getting into too much detail on questions  
such as "Does this licence apply in X situation". The licence is meant  
to be plain language and clear enough that non-lawyers (ie, the vast  
majority of users) can answer and debate those questions.

I hope that all this makes sense, and thanks in advance for your help.

~Jordan



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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting

[Dave Stubbs]

2009/3/4 80n <80n...@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:
>>
>> You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a
>> non-relicensing
>> contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept.
>>
>> In the worst case, in the event of a dispute, do you really fancy trying
>> to
>> convince a court of law that the elaborate heuristics you applied are
>> sufficient
>> to make the map completely independent of the work of the users who said
>> 'no'?
>>
>> The only sound rule that can be sure to stand up in court is to delete all
>> data
>> from the contributors who didn't give explicit permission, and all data
>> that
>> depends on it.  Period.
>>
>> You may think this is unnecessarily paranoid.  Indeed it is: but if the
>> relicensing exercise doesn't put the project on a legally unassailable
>> footing,
>> it is not worth doing.  At the moment we can say with certainty that 100%
>> of the
>> contributors have clicked 'yes' to an agreement to distribute their
>> changes under
>> CC-BY-SA.  Any legal niceties tidied up by a move to a different licence
>> are good
>> to have, all other things being equal, but are hugely outweighed if the
>> data
>> becomes a questionable mishmash of contributions that have agreement, and
>> those
>> that don't have agreement but pass some odd set of rules we invented
>> ourselves to
>> convince ourselves that we didn't need to get permission.
>
>
> I believe this is a wise approach.  OSM is traditionally very conservative
> about using any data not from a know clean source.  On the grand scale its
> relatively easy to capture map data, the value of a clean database far
> outweighs the risks associated with infringing anyone's copyright.  We
> should apply the same degree of conserativism to our CC-BY-SA licensed data
> as we would to any other copyrighted data.
>
> Perhaps we are thinking about this all wrong.  If we considered the ODbL to
> be a license fork of the project (albeit a friendly from the inside fork)
> then it makes it much easier to think about how all this should happen.
>

I think the problem here is the statement, "delete all data
from the contributors who didn't give explicit permission, and all data that
depends on it.  Period."

If only it was that simple.

There's two options:

1) Start again from the first point of time at which someone not
agreeing to the switch contributed data.

2) Draw a pragmatic line somewhere to determine what constitutes a
copyrightable derivation from CC-BY-SA data.

Option 2 is what just about everybody is talking about. They're just
putting the line in different places.

So the question isn't ever really going to end in a Period. We're
going to have to make a call, and that can be extremely conservative
with large zones of reversion around every contaminated edit, or
extremely aggressive with complex heuristics to determine
"significant" edits, or any point in between.
Most people seem to be aiming for middle ground with object based
reversion only and extremely few heuristics (ie: a zero change edit
doesn't count). Which makes some sense.
But don't kid yourselves it's a simple A or B choice.

Dave

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Steve Chilton]

I am not at all happy about how this sub-thread has developed into the realms 
of suggesting cartographers are somehow "bad guys" in this licence context. 
Richard correctly identifies me as one of the few cartographers working within 
the OSM project. However I am not, and never have been, a commercial 
cartographer. I prefer to be seen as a professional cartographer (in both 
senses of the word), or can live with traditional cartographer (as opposed to 
all the neo-cartographers) - and have worked in Higher Education rather than 
commercial cartography. Anyone that knows me will know that I have contributed 
in several ways to OSM (/resists temptation to list ) and have never wanted 
or expected any payback or to "take advantage of other OSM players".
Having said all that, my real point is that I know a lot of "traditional" 
cartographers (some in a commercial environment and some not) and have observed 
an actual reluctance to consider using OSM data. This might be surprising given 
that OSM has always said "OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic 
data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. 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" [top of homepage]. My perception is that there 
are two things that stop this:
Firstly, there seems to be either a misunderstanding of what the licence 
currently means, or a feeling that it is not possible to work within it's 
current terms.
Secondly (and not directly relevant to this debate) the barriers to getting 
usable data from the DB. The Export tab offers XML format data (not a natural 
format for say an Illustrator user to encompass). Digging deeper gives the 
possibility of raw data or shape files from geofabrik, or cloudmade - giving 
those two plus formats such as Garmin, Navit and TomTom. And yes commercial 
cartographers can go to either of these named companies to pay for customised 
data output if they wish.
I am hopeful (being of a fundamentally optimistic outlook by nature) that some 
resolution to the current licence issue will actually allow ALL cartographers 
to realise the fundamental aims of the project, and that we will see more and 
more innovative maps produced from this superb data source by both traditional 
and neo-cartographers.

Cheers
STEVE

Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow
Manager of e-Learning Academic Development
Centre for Educational Technology
Middlesex University
phone/fax: 020 8411 5355
email: ste...@mdx.ac.uk
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/schools/hssc/staff/profiles/technical/chiltons.asp

Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/

SoC conference 2008:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/cartographers08/

-Original Message-
From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On 
Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst
Sent: 03 March 2009 23:17
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] License plan


OJ W wrote:
> [routing source code]
> I saw that as a bit of a loophole in the license which is unfortunate
> but rather difficult to close

Ok, that's consistent. Extreme, perhaps, but consistent. But:

> [...]
> we can just declare that it should meet sharelike standards to 
> ensure that OSM players are not trying to take advantage of 
> each other.

is inordinately offensive.

As far as I know there are only two "OSM players" who are commercial
cartographers in some way (though for neither of us is it our main job): me
and Steve Chilton. To allege that we are aiming to take advantage of other
contributors is, yes, offensive, but also insane beyond belief. You might
not like Potlatch, you might not trace from NPE or ever use any traced data,
you might never use the Mapnik layer. But there is no denying that all three
of them are very major contributions to OSM without any - _any_ - payback.

Meanwhile, the guys releasing the routing software are, er, the ones who've
got €2.4m of venture capital. I don't begrudge them that - quite the
contrary. I don't think anyone does. But you might want to open your eyes.

Sheesh.

Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22320263.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting

[80n]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Dave Stubbs wrote:

> 2009/3/4 80n <80n...@gmail.com>:
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> >>
> >> You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a
> >> non-relicensing
> >> contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept.
> >>
> >> In the worst case, in the event of a dispute, do you really fancy trying
> >> to
> >> convince a court of law that the elaborate heuristics you applied are
> >> sufficient
> >> to make the map completely independent of the work of the users who said
> >> 'no'?
> >>
> >> The only sound rule that can be sure to stand up in court is to delete
> all
> >> data
> >> from the contributors who didn't give explicit permission, and all data
> >> that
> >> depends on it.  Period.
> >>
> >> You may think this is unnecessarily paranoid.  Indeed it is: but if the
> >> relicensing exercise doesn't put the project on a legally unassailable
> >> footing,
> >> it is not worth doing.  At the moment we can say with certainty that
> 100%
> >> of the
> >> contributors have clicked 'yes' to an agreement to distribute their
> >> changes under
> >> CC-BY-SA.  Any legal niceties tidied up by a move to a different licence
> >> are good
> >> to have, all other things being equal, but are hugely outweighed if the
> >> data
> >> becomes a questionable mishmash of contributions that have agreement,
> and
> >> those
> >> that don't have agreement but pass some odd set of rules we invented
> >> ourselves to
> >> convince ourselves that we didn't need to get permission.
> >
> >
> > I believe this is a wise approach.  OSM is traditionally very
> conservative
> > about using any data not from a know clean source.  On the grand scale
> its
> > relatively easy to capture map data, the value of a clean database far
> > outweighs the risks associated with infringing anyone's copyright.  We
> > should apply the same degree of conserativism to our CC-BY-SA licensed
> data
> > as we would to any other copyrighted data.
> >
> > Perhaps we are thinking about this all wrong.  If we considered the ODbL
> to
> > be a license fork of the project (albeit a friendly from the inside fork)
> > then it makes it much easier to think about how all this should happen.
> >
>
> I think the problem here is the statement, "delete all data
> from the contributors who didn't give explicit permission, and all data
> that
> depends on it.  Period."
>
> If only it was that simple.
>
> There's two options:
>
> 1) Start again from the first point of time at which someone not
> agreeing to the switch contributed data.
>
> 2) Draw a pragmatic line somewhere to determine what constitutes a
> copyrightable derivation from CC-BY-SA data.
>
> Option 2 is what just about everybody is talking about. They're just
> putting the line in different places.
>
> So the question isn't ever really going to end in a Period. We're
> going to have to make a call, and that can be extremely conservative
> with large zones of reversion around every contaminated edit, or
> extremely aggressive with complex heuristics to determine
> "significant" edits, or any point in between.
> Most people seem to be aiming for middle ground with object based
> reversion only and extremely few heuristics (ie: a zero change edit
> doesn't count). Which makes some sense.
> But don't kid yourselves it's a simple A or B choice.
>

If someone were to fork the OSM database and try to make a PD version that
only contained contribution from people who had self-declared their content
as PD then we'd be right in demanding that they err on the side of caution.


It's the same situation for ODbL.  The fact that it's us doing this and not
"them" is immaterial.

80n




>
> Dave
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Further Concerns about ODbL

[David Groom]

First off all let me state that

1) I am all in favour of resolving the licensing issue (see my comments to 
this list on 1 / 3/ 2007 for example)
2) I'm glad that at last the issue is being addressed

Secondly I am of the opinion that if in moving to a new licence we lose some 
contributors and their data then that might have to be the price of 
resolving the issues.

However having got the above out of the way, I am concerned about the 
current wording of the ODbl license, not just from the perspective of my 
contributions to OSM data, but more importantly from the perspective of OSM.

My current concerns are very specific, and hopefully may simply be down to 
my misreading of the licence, but:

Section 2.2(a) states "The copyright licensed includes any individual 
elements of the Database, but does not cover the copyright over the Data 
independent of this Database."  The copyrighting of the data is covered by 
Section 2.2(b) and here states "Database Rights only extend to the 
Extraction and Re-utilisation of the whole or a Substantial part of the 
Data".

I have real problems with the use of the word "Substantial ".  From my 
interoperation it would appear that extraction and subsequent use of any 
amount of data which is deemed to be "insubstantial" is effectively free of 
any copyright or database rights.

Currently the compressed planet file is 5.1Gb, and for instance the 
compressed extracts for Germany's data is 368Mb, and for the UK 115Mb.  So 
the UK data represents  2.25% of the data, and Germany's data represents 
7.2% of the data.

I would have thought it would be hard to argue that 2.25% is "substantial", 
so if the ODbl was adopted would be effectively be allowing the extraction 
of the whole of the UK data to occur free of any copyright?

David 



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

[OSM-talk] Front page design and SEO

[Peter Miller]

On 3 Mar 2009, at 03:51, SteveC wrote:

>
>
> There are a bunch of open questions like what design elements should
> stay, what should go, what colour schemes would be neat. Feel free to
> contribute and if it's useful we can build a design brief based on
> comments and ideas... then if it's useful to the community we can have
> them do some more design work to build some cool front page mockups.

Firstly, can I suggest we address this after we have put the license  
to bed. I was away from the office yesterday at returned to 144 posts  
from talk, many relating to the license which as you know I am  
interested in. I really don't have time to do both in parallel.

With regard to the front page, thanks for the ideas.  I would suggest  
that we bring the 'wiki project' pages for the area of the map much  
more to the forefront. If I am looking at a map in the Ipswich area in  
the UK then I should know that there is a wiki-Ipswich page (and also  
a wiki-Suffolk page).

I say this because I want budding mappers in my area to know what  
needs to be done and to read about where we are up to before editing.  
I have written the Ipswich page for that purpose. It says what is  
complete, what is 'work in progress' and what is virgin new territory  
(cafes and points of interest etc).  It tells people which email lists  
might be relevant. That page has viewed only 72 times in about 4 months.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ipswich

The Suffolk page again details what has been done and what needs to be  
done. It has been viewed only 130 times in the same period.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Suffolk(UK)

It might also be useful to define bounding boxes for geographically  
related talk pages, so we can also promote the lists for the area in  
question as well.

Would it also be sensible to filter the 'User Diaries' to the ones  
relevant to the area in question and could all these resources be  
pulled together into one tag that related to the view box, ie wiki  
pages, email lists and diary entries.


Regards,



Peter




> Best
>
> Steve
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Further Concerns about ODbL

[Tom Hughes]

David Groom wrote:

> My current concerns are very specific, and hopefully may simply be down to 
> my misreading of the licence, but:
> 
> Section 2.2(a) states "The copyright licensed includes any individual 
> elements of the Database, but does not cover the copyright over the Data 
> independent of this Database."  The copyrighting of the data is covered by 
> Section 2.2(b) and here states "Database Rights only extend to the 
> Extraction and Re-utilisation of the whole or a Substantial part of the 
> Data".
> 
> I have real problems with the use of the word "Substantial ".  From my 
> interoperation it would appear that extraction and subsequent use of any 
> amount of data which is deemed to be "insubstantial" is effectively free of 
> any copyright or database rights.

I suspect the reason for the use of that phrase springs directly from 
the EU concept of database right, which is limited in that it only 
applies to a "substantial" extract of a database.

So database right doesn't apply to extracts which are not substantial 
and can't be used to protect them.

Substantial in that sense is not limited to a pure percentage type of 
consideration though - taking 2.25% that happened to be an entire 
country, or all the motorways in the world, might be substantial while 
take 2.25% of nodes at random might not.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Further Concerns about ODbL

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

David Groom wrote:
> The copyrighting of the data is covered by 
> Section 2.2(b) and here states "Database Rights only extend to the 
> Extraction and Re-utilisation of the whole or a Substantial part of the 
> Data".

That is because the EU database law does not allow you to restrict the 
extraction of insubstantial amounts of data, see:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues#What_is_a_substantial_extract.3F

Also see the document "gradeDigitalRightsIssues" linked from there.

> I would have thought it would be hard to argue that 2.25% is "substantial", 

It is not as easy as that; but I think the OSMF (or we the mappers!) 
should write down guidelines about that to go along with the license. I 
am especially unsure about cascading substantialness (if you have an UK 
extract then London might be substantial but is it still if you have a 
planet file?).

Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Further Concerns about ODbL

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Tom Hughes wrote:
> I suspect the reason for the use of that phrase springs directly from 
> the EU concept of database right, which is limited in that it only 
> applies to a "substantial" extract of a database.

Even stronger, it not only says "this only applies to a substantial 
amount", it says:

"The maker of a database [...] may not prevent a lawful user of the 
database from extracting and/or re-utilizing insubstantial parts of its 
contents [...] for any purposes whatsoever."

So even if you wanted to, you may not, unless you find another handle 
than database right.

Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting

[Richard Fairhurst]

Dave Stubbs wrote:
> But don't kid yourselves it's a simple A or B choice.

Absolutely.

Steve actually answers this in his (very good IMO) "Licence to kill" post.
You can theoretically work out a complicated Boolean system of "is this
derived from an ODbL refusenik's work?". You can read every bit of
discussion about what "substantial" might mean in different jurisdictions,
and write some clever fuzzy-matching software to reflect that. I think
that's what people are talking about here.

But as Steve points out, that's a programmer's answer, all very
black-and-white. It doesn't actually work like that.

What really makes the difference, in my very limited understanding (but hey,
I'm a journalist not a programmer, limited understanding is a speciality :)
), is intent. Intent, and acting in good faith at all times. If we can
demonstrate that we've taken reasonable precautions; that we have removed
people's data on request (which, of course, we can do at any time); 


And for those who say "well, let's stick with the clean dataset we have
now":

We don't actually have a clean dataset. Nowhere near. We have material from
Google Maps in there. We have material from the Ordnance Survey. We may even
have entire countries which have been taken from a source not compatible
with our current licence - see the discussion about some of the ex-USSR
states.

The reason we haven't been sued is exactly the same. Intent and good faith.
Things like community pressure, the stuff in the FAQ, and the warning you
get when you start Potlatch. The efforts we go to to gather our own data.
That is real, hard proof. And that won't change - we should make real
efforts, and we will, but clinical boolean precision is a distraction.

(Ed asked how we'd "convince a court of law" - that's how. At the very
least, if Paul The Disaffected Mapper doesn't want to go to ODbL, some of
his stuff somehow remains in, and he says "ha, I'm going to sue", that
_very_ instant a crowd of OSMers would go and survey the place in question
to replace his data. You know what we're like. We like a challenge. :) )

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22329361.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> What really makes the difference, [...]
> is intent. Intent, and acting in good faith at all times. 

Could we perhaps shred all this legalese then, be done with the license 
(which is, in effect, an attempt at codifying things in a manner you and 
Steve have just discounted), and instead write an one-page statement of 
intent that says how we'd like our data to be used and how not, and 
that's it?

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Further Concerns about ODbL

[David Groom]

blank
- Original Message - 
From: "Tom Hughes" 
To: "David Groom" ; "Licensing and other legal 
discussions." 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Further Concerns about ODbL


>
> David Groom wrote:
>
>> My current concerns are very specific, and hopefully may simply be down 
>> to my misreading of the licence, but:
>>
>> Section 2.2(a) states "The copyright licensed includes any individual 
>> elements of the Database, but does not cover the copyright over the Data 
>> independent of this Database."  The copyrighting of the data is covered 
>> by Section 2.2(b) and here states "Database Rights only extend to the 
>> Extraction and Re-utilisation of the whole or a Substantial part of the 
>> Data".
>>
>> I have real problems with the use of the word "Substantial ".  From my 
>> interoperation it would appear that extraction and subsequent use of any 
>> amount of data which is deemed to be "insubstantial" is effectively free 
>> of any copyright or database rights.
>
> I suspect the reason for the use of that phrase springs directly from the 
> EU concept of database right, which is limited in that it only applies to 
> a "substantial" extract of a database.
>
In which case I would suggest that the OSM database be stored in a country 
which is not subject to the database law, and that the "substantial"  clause 
in the ODbl license be reworked.

> So database right doesn't apply to extracts which are not substantial and 
> can't be used to protect them.
>
> Substantial in that sense is not limited to a pure percentage type of 
> consideration though - taking 2.25% that happened to be an entire country, 
> or all the motorways in the world, might be substantial while take 2.25% 
> of nodes at random might not.

I have a problem with "might", isn't the whole issue of moving to a new 
license supposed to do away with the "you might be allowed to do this with 
our data, and then again you might not" problem?  Yeas I realise all laws 
are subject to interpretation, and in the UK at least the statute law is 
backed up with case law, but to start with a license which is so open to 
problems doesn't seem a great step forward.

David

>
> Tom
>
> -- 
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://www.compton.nu/
>
> 



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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Jukka Rahkonen]

MP  gmail.com> writes:

 
> I thought of one improvement - in addition to allowing people to
> consent to new license, allow them also to (completely voluntary)
> agree to Public domain their contributions. Some of the people on
> wikipedia (though not nearly a majority) does that for their
> contributions and many photos on wikimedia commons are under PD, so I
> assume some contributors may like it here too - then give them the
> possibility. Some tools to extract only PD subset of data could be
> added later if necessary (export list of users agreeing to PD would
> make this possible).
> And as wikipedia offers their complete dump with entire history, we
> maybe can offer planet dump with entire history in it too, so it could
> be easier to pick up only the PD contributions (or basically to dig
> through history for any reason without querying the main server)

OpenStreetMap has in a way advertised that users can decide to dual-license
their data.  I mean thes PD template system in the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Users_whose_contributions_are_in_the_public_domain

In the beginning I thought that was a real alternative, but discovered soon that
it was just a manifestation.  I believe that majority of OSM users does not even
like the idea of asking users now if they actually think that their data could
well be in public domain.  PD mappers just have better to do mapping with JOSM
and save their incontestable edits as an own local copy for the future needs to
be uploaded into OSM PD-repository or something.  Main OSM database is not a
place to store PD data to be extracted out afterwards. I suppose it is not even
OK to add POIs with Potlatch and read them back to JOSM for making a local copy.

One question:  All edits of PD mappers could of course be tranferred under the
new license even without asking us.  But is is possible to connect our PD
declarations in the wiki with our OSM data in a reliable way so that the tranfer
could be automatic?  User names used for mapping and in the wiki are not the
same thing, or are they? However, wasting PD data just because the author can
perhaps not be contacted feels silly.


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

[OSM-talk] Map tag in Wikipedia

[Lars Aronsson]

These days I spend more time in Wikipedia than in OpenStreetMap, 
but I haven't lost my interest in geography. Among the many things 
that need improvement in Wikipedia is the geographic coordinates 
that indicate the location of places, buildings, cities, and such.

The OSM wiki has a  tag that looks like this:


In the page [[WikiProject Sweden]], this shows a 360x720 pixel 
image based on zoom 5 map tiles centered around 63° N 16.5° E.

Is this a user-friendly way to put a map in a wiki page?  Would 
normal users understand the z= parameter, or should the parameters 
be designed some other way?

Could the editing be made interactive, so that the user can see 
the map on the edit page and zoom and pan, and when pressing the 
"save" button the new coordinates are saved?  This would take out 
the hard work for "numerically challenged" contributors.

Should we try to introduce the map tag in Wikipedia?  Has it 
already been tried, and what was the reaction?  Do we have any bad 
experience from its use in the OSM, to learn and improve from?

It's not easy to convince the tech staff of Wikipedia to introduce 
new features. They probably receive such requests daily. The code 
must run, it must scale very well, and be very stable. If we 
really want to introduce the  tag (or something similar) in 
Wikipedia, we must provide really good arguments.

Fortunately, there is a Wikipedia developer meeting on April 3-5,
where I could bring this forward.

In Wikipedia, map coordinates are typically placed in an infobox,
as seen on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden
or at the right top corner of the page,
as seen on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6k_Runestone

In either case, the coordinates form a link to a switchboard page 
titled GeoHack where you can chose your favorite map site, 
including Google Maps or OpenStreetMap.

Next to the coordinates is also a little blue marble. If you click 
on this, you bring up a pop-up map called WikiMiniAtlas.  This 
little map can be panned and zoomed and features links to other 
articles.  But it uses primitive VMAP-0 data as background and has 
no proper projection, just the naive x=lon, y=lat.

In Wikipedia, the coordinates are given like this:

{{coord|58|17|42|N|14|46|32|E|display=title|type:landmark}}

Even though decimal degrees can also be used, most articles use 
degrees-minutes-seconds.  The display=title parameter puts the 
coordinate in the upper right corner.  The type:landmark parameter 
(yes, a colon is used here, not equal sign) sets the scale for the 
resulting map. Of course, zoom=5 is specific to OpenStreetMap.  
Other map sites use different definition of zoom or scale.  The 
GeoHack switchboard page converts type:landmark to the appropriate 
zoom for each target map site.

I think WikiMiniAtlas is fine, despite some flaws. But when I 
explain this to others, even experienced wikipedians, many say 
they didn't figure they could click on the blue marble to show the 
pop-up map.  That's why I think an inline presentation (like the 
map tag) would be a necessary improvement.  More visible maps will 
lead to more eyeballs, finding more errors in incorrect data.



-- 
  Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Further Concerns about ODbL

[Rob Myers]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:18 PM, David Groom  wrote:

> In which case I would suggest that the OSM database be stored in a country
> which is not subject to the database law, and that the "substantial"  clause
> in the ODbl license be reworked.

This would not whelp users of copies of OSM imported to countries
covered by the database law, though.

> I have a problem with "might", isn't the whole issue of moving to a new
> license supposed to do away with the "you might be allowed to do this with
> our data, and then again you might not" problem?  Yeas I realise all laws
> are subject to interpretation, and in the UK at least the statute law is
> backed up with case law, but to start with a license which is so open to
> problems doesn't seem a great step forward.

The point is to get a licence that works at all (!). And law being how
it is (as Steve eloquently mentioned), the licence simply cannot avoid
ambiguity where there is ambiguity in law.

- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Further Concerns about ODbL

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

David Groom wrote:
> I have a problem with "might", isn't the whole issue of moving to a new 
> license supposed to do away with the "you might be allowed to do this with 
> our data, and then again you might not" problem? 

I thought so too but I realise that you'll never have anything that 
clear. ODbL has other similar issues that are currently up for 
discussion, like the question how we treat no-data-added derivatives and 
what exactly is a derivative database (and what is "just" a bitmap or 
"just" an SVG file...).

Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Map tag in Wikipedia

[Ed Loach]

Hi Lars,

> The OSM wiki has a  tag that looks like this:
> 
> 
> In the page [[WikiProject Sweden]], this shows a 360x720 pixel
> image based on zoom 5 map tiles centered around 63° N 16.5° E.
> 
> Is this a user-friendly way to put a map in a wiki page?  Would
> normal users understand the z= parameter, or should the
> parameters
> be designed some other way?

Funnily enough I've just been amending some wiki pages which used the old  
syntax where z= or zoom= where allowed; the new syntax only supports z=.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_image_MediaWiki_Extension

> Could the editing be made interactive, so that the user can see
> the map on the edit page and zoom and pan, and when pressing
> the
> "save" button the new coordinates are saved?  This would take
> out
> the hard work for "numerically challenged" contributors.

Not quite what you're after, but there is also 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slippy_Map_MediaWiki_Extension
which is very similar to map, but allows viewers to drag and zoom.

Ed



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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
> Main OSM database is not a
> place to store PD data to be extracted out afterwards. I suppose it is not 
> even
> OK to add POIs with Potlatch and read them back to JOSM for making a local 
> copy.

That is disputed; there are those who say that something cannot lose its 
PD-ness by being transferred through a PD-unfriendly environment.

> One question:  All edits of PD mappers could of course be tranferred under the
> new license even without asking us.  But is is possible to connect our PD
> declarations in the wiki with our OSM data in a reliable way so that the 
> tranfer
> could be automatic?  User names used for mapping and in the wiki are not the
> same thing, or are they? 

They are not; but there is a template that people can use on their Wiki 
pages to give the name(s) they're mapping under. Was it "{{User}}"? Not 
sure.

I think that before interpreting a Wiki PD dedication one would need to 
take a close look (Wiki user pages can be modified by anybody). Maybe we 
should, before we delete someone's data, do a quick check if we find him 
on the Wiki and he has PD'ed his data, by way of a manual process.

Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting

[Ed Avis]

Richard Fairhurst  systemed.net> writes:

>We don't actually have a clean dataset. Nowhere near.

>The reason we haven't been sued is exactly the same. Intent and good faith.

You are right.  So what is the way of dealing with a relicensing that preserves
the intent of the contributors and is done in good faith?

I would argue that only a conservative approach is good enough - removing all
the 'no' contributions and things that depend on them.  A complex set of rules
and hand-waving to see what we can get away with isn't really acting in good
faith and doesn't really respect the intent of people who uploaded data
expecting it to have a CC-BY-SA licence.

Again I would suggest the 'Google Maps Test' for any proposed scheme.  Suppose
back in 2005 somebody made substantial changes that were blatantly copied from
Google Maps.  They have lain undetected until now and others have made
improvements to that area of the map.  But now the copying has been detected,
how much data must be deleted?

Another way to consider it is that one OSM contributor, having done most but not
all of the work in a particular region, wants to make a proprietary, copyrighted
map of the region based on OSM data.  How much of the data contributed by other
OSM mappers does he need to remove?  What about if another contributor
originally added a feature and then he improved it?  And so on.

It is very tempting to give ourselves special indulgences when considering all
this.  Surely it won't matter if we just do X; we can mix together different
licences for a transition period; it would be unkind and inconvenient to throw
away large chunks of data just because the person who happened to map the region
first couldn't be contacted.  After all, we're all conscientious people acting
in good faith and we want to do the right thing - that's the main thing, surely?

Acting in good faith means taking the most cautious approach, seeing things from
the other side, and not treating the OSM project any differently from another
entity which wants to take the contributed work and strip off CC-BY-SA.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting

[Ed Avis]

Ben Laenen  writes:

>Suppose I split a way into two parts. The second part now gets uploaded 
>as a completely new object, with nothing in its history pointing 
>towards its origin.

Although the way is new, don't the nodes along it keep their identity?

>Or another example: I can align the outline of a forest to the road 
>which I know is its boundary.

Yes, indeed.  If the road is exactly along the forest boundary then you can
again look at the nodes, but if there is some separation between the two there
is no clue in the database.

Yet clearly, tracing a road from the boundary of a forest, when you don't have
permission to distribute the forest data itself under the licence you want, is
no different to tracing a road from the boundary of an object you saw on Google
Maps and overlaid on your screen.

So, sadly, I suppose an 'exclusion zone' would have to be imposed.

--
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Map tag in Wikipedia

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Lars Aronsson  wrote:
> Should we try to introduce the map tag in Wikipedia?  Has it
> already been tried, and what was the reaction?  Do we have any bad
> experience from its use in the OSM, to learn and improve from?
>
> It's not easy to convince the tech staff of Wikipedia to introduce
> new features. They probably receive such requests daily. The code
> must run, it must scale very well, and be very stable. If we
> really want to introduce the  tag (or something similar) in
> Wikipedia, we must provide really good arguments.
>
> Fortunately, there is a Wikipedia developer meeting on April 3-5,
> where I could bring this forward.

Just installing an extension on Wikimedia and pulling tiles from OSM
would not be acceptable:

* Wikimedia would need its own updated Planet dump
* Its own tile rendering infrastructure
* It would have to be accessible and not just availible to JS enabled browsers
* It would have to work with the static dumps (http://static.wikipedia.org/)

AFAIK the only dialogue on this has been informal thus far, it would
be interesting to start up a discussion on wikitech-l about what would
be required, and document it on a Wikimedia-hosted wiki somewhere.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[MP]

>>Also, technically, when "mixing licenses", we won't have mashup of
>>cc-by-sa and odbl, we will have mashup of cc-by-sa without consent to
>>relicense later under odbl and cc-by-sa with consent to relicense
>>later under odbl.
>
> I guess that would work.  The resulting collection would be distributable 
> under
> CC-BY-SA only.  If all of the old work without the extra consent is deleted, 
> and
> all work derived from it (see earlier discussion), then you could distribute 
> the
> result under the ODbL.

I think this should be the way we'll be going instead of deletion.
While it will postpone the moment from which all the data will be
ODbLed, perhaps maybe year or alike in future, no or very little
deletion would be necessary.

> ... PD mappers just have better to do mapping with JOSM
> and save their incontestable edits as an own local copy for the future needs 
> to
> be uploaded into OSM PD-repository or something.  Main OSM database is not a
> place to store PD data to be extracted out afterwards. I suppose it is not 
> even
> OK to add POIs with Potlatch and read them back to JOSM for making a local 
> copy.

Why not? Unless someone modifies the data in meantime, what is wrong
about reading back your own data as PD?

> One question:  All edits of PD mappers could of course be tranferred under the
> new license even without asking us.  But is is possible to connect our PD
> declarations in the wiki with our OSM data in a reliable way so that the 
> tranfer
> could be automatic?  User names used for mapping and in the wiki are not the
> same thing, or are they? ...

No, they are not. In my case they are different (the one I picked for
wiki was already taken by someone else for mapping, so I had to use
another name for mapping). While I have on my wiki page (User:Bilbo)
the template that tells everybody my edits are PD, the template
actually does not tell which user's edits. So in my case, the matching
username in mapping is completely different person.

Best would be to add the ability directly to OSM (perhaps to the user
settings somewhere)

Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option

[Ed Avis]

Frederik Ramm  remote.org> writes:

>Could we perhaps shred all this legalese then, be done with the license 
>(which is, in effect, an attempt at codifying things in a manner you and 
>Steve have just discounted), and instead write an one-page statement of 
>intent that says how we'd like our data to be used and how not, and 
>that's it?

Excellent idea.

Or if I might make a slightly different suggestion: keep the CC-BY-SA licence
because that's what we have, and it's the standard adopted by Wikipedia and
other collections of free content.

For the benefit of countries where a database right exists, and 'for the
avoidance of doubt' as the ODbL says, add a short remark that the OSM foundation
(which is the entity which has collated together all of the individual bits of
mapmaking work into a giant database) will not assert its database right to stop
distribution of OSM data, provided it's done under the CC-BY-SA.

It is not necessary to have a big relicensing-and-deletion exercise to add this
extra waiver of database rights, because everyone already agreed to let OSM
distribute the data under CC-BY-SA and that's all we are doing.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Further Concerns about ODbL

[Jukka Rahkonen]

David Groom  writes:

> I have real problems with the use of the word "Substantial ".  From my 
> interoperation it would appear that extraction and subsequent use of any 
> amount of data which is deemed to be "insubstantial" is effectively free of 
> any copyright or database rights.
> 
> Currently the compressed planet file is 5.1Gb, and for instance the 
> compressed extracts for Germany's data is 368Mb, and for the UK 115Mb.  So 
> the UK data represents  2.25% of the data, and Germany's data represents 
> 7.2% of the data.
> 
> I would have thought it would be hard to argue that 2.25% is "substantial", 
> so if the ODbl was adopted would be effectively be allowing the extraction 
> of the whole of the UK data to occur free of any copyright?


Well, OS and other European national mapping agencies will be following EU
database directive. No need to worry that "non-substantial" will mean anything
else than "worthless". Read the phrasing (this is from Odbl):

"Substantial" – Means substantial in terms of quantity or quality or a
combination of both. The repeated and systematic Extraction or Re-utilisation of
insubstantial parts of the Data may amount to the Extraction or Re-utilisation
of a Substantial part of the Data.

"Substantial in quality" means that UK is substantial.  London is for sure
substantial, as well as a small town. A village may be substantial. All
McDonald's together are substantial.  One street in London is perhaps
non-substantial. And if someone makes a map and tries to sell it, there will be
somebody saying that the amount of data must be substantial in quantity and
quality, how else it would be enough for making a map?


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting

[Andreas Fritsche]

Hi!

Frederik Ramm wrote:
>[..]
> Could we perhaps shred all this legalese then [..]
> and instead write an one-page statement of
> intent that says how we'd like our data to be used and how not, and
> that's it?

I don't want to sound stupid or offensive, but - sarcastic or whatever
- I absolutely like Frederiks idea.

Sorry...
  - Andreas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
> Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
> involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY TRUST
> THEM?!?

Because they are more knowledgeable in their field than we are.


I do think this is another ad-hominem attack against the ODbL. 

By using your same way of thinking, I shouldn't use my car because I don't 
know and trust the designers and assemblers that built it. Counter-examples 
could go on and on.




Now, I'm becoming increasingly annoyed by the noise-to-signal ratio in the 
hundreds of e-mails in the lists bitching about how bad the people involved 
in the licensing process did. *Again*, share-alike versus PD. *Again*, having 
to explain how the EU DB directive works. *Again*, "new license took too 
long" at the same time as "we need more time for peer review". *Again*, 
project forks and OSMF board evilness.

If you think a PD fork is neccesary, fork the project, ALREADY. If you think 
SteveC is evil, step up in the next elections for the OSMF board, ALREADY. If 
you think the ODbL is flawed, get your own lawyer to review it, ALREDAY*. 
Let's try to be objective and productive here, m'kay?

* Cheers to Peter Miller on this one.



On the other hand, I'm absolutely sure that the ODbL will fail and be 
exploited. The same way that the GPL2 was exploited by TiVo. I'm absolutely 
sure the ODbL will not address problems in different jurisdictions just the 
same way the first version of the CC licenses didn't. We now have GPL3 and CC 
3.0, and at some point we'll have ODbL2 and ODbL3 and whatnot.

So, what's the big deal about the ODbL not addressing every single issue on 
its first incarnation?




(Geez, I needed to blow off some steam)

Cheers all,
-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega 

The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference
between a mermaid and a seal.
-- Mark Twain


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> For the benefit of countries where a database right exists, and 'for the
> avoidance of doubt' as the ODbL says, add a short remark that the OSM 
> foundation
> (which is the entity which has collated together all of the individual bits of
> mapmaking work into a giant database) will not assert its database right to 
> stop
> distribution of OSM data, provided it's done under the CC-BY-SA.

What gives the OSMF special DB right to the collection of user-owned
CC-BY-SA data as opposed to anyone else running a mirror of the DB?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Map tag in Wikipedia

[80n]

Lars
You might want to find out a bit more about Query-to-map being developed by
kolossos.  It shows not just point features but also linear features such as
rivers and roads.  I believe it's hosted on Wikimedia's toolserver and is
intended ultimately to be used on Wikipedia pages.

Details here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Query-to-map

80n


On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Lars Aronsson  wrote:

>
> These days I spend more time in Wikipedia than in OpenStreetMap,
> but I haven't lost my interest in geography. Among the many things
> that need improvement in Wikipedia is the geographic coordinates
> that indicate the location of places, buildings, cities, and such.
>
> The OSM wiki has a  tag that looks like this:
> 
>
> In the page [[WikiProject Sweden]], this shows a 360x720 pixel
> image based on zoom 5 map tiles centered around 63° N 16.5° E.
>
> Is this a user-friendly way to put a map in a wiki page?  Would
> normal users understand the z= parameter, or should the parameters
> be designed some other way?
>
> Could the editing be made interactive, so that the user can see
> the map on the edit page and zoom and pan, and when pressing the
> "save" button the new coordinates are saved?  This would take out
> the hard work for "numerically challenged" contributors.
>
> Should we try to introduce the map tag in Wikipedia?  Has it
> already been tried, and what was the reaction?  Do we have any bad
> experience from its use in the OSM, to learn and improve from?
>
> It's not easy to convince the tech staff of Wikipedia to introduce
> new features. They probably receive such requests daily. The code
> must run, it must scale very well, and be very stable. If we
> really want to introduce the  tag (or something similar) in
> Wikipedia, we must provide really good arguments.
>
> Fortunately, there is a Wikipedia developer meeting on April 3-5,
> where I could bring this forward.
>
> In Wikipedia, map coordinates are typically placed in an infobox,
> as seen on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden
> or at the right top corner of the page,
> as seen on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6k_Runestone
>
> In either case, the coordinates form a link to a switchboard page
> titled GeoHack where you can chose your favorite map site,
> including Google Maps or OpenStreetMap.
>
> Next to the coordinates is also a little blue marble. If you click
> on this, you bring up a pop-up map called WikiMiniAtlas.  This
> little map can be panned and zoomed and features links to other
> articles.  But it uses primitive VMAP-0 data as background and has
> no proper projection, just the naive x=lon, y=lat.
>
> In Wikipedia, the coordinates are given like this:
>
> {{coord|58|17|42|N|14|46|32|E|display=title|type:landmark}}
>
> Even though decimal degrees can also be used, most articles use
> degrees-minutes-seconds.  The display=title parameter puts the
> coordinate in the upper right corner.  The type:landmark parameter
> (yes, a colon is used here, not equal sign) sets the scale for the
> resulting map. Of course, zoom=5 is specific to OpenStreetMap.
> Other map sites use different definition of zoom or scale.  The
> GeoHack switchboard page converts type:landmark to the appropriate
> zoom for each target map site.
>
> I think WikiMiniAtlas is fine, despite some flaws. But when I
> explain this to others, even experienced wikipedians, many say
> they didn't figure they could click on the blue marble to show the
> pop-up map.  That's why I think an inline presentation (like the
> map tag) would be a necessary improvement.  More visible maps will
> lead to more eyeballs, finding more errors in incorrect data.
>
>
>
> --
>  Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se)
>  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[LeedsTracker]

2009/3/4 Iván Sánchez Ortega :
> On the other hand, I'm absolutely sure that the ODbL will fail and be
> exploited. The same way that the GPL2 was exploited by TiVo. I'm absolutely
> sure the ODbL will not address problems in different jurisdictions just the
> same way the first version of the CC licenses didn't. We now have GPL3 and CC
> 3.0, and at some point we'll have ODbL2 and ODbL3 and whatnot.
>
> So, what's the big deal about the ODbL not addressing every single issue on
> its first incarnation?

I think this is spot on. Some posters seem to want the new license to
be exactly right, impervious and unassailable, at the first version.

I'm not saying "anything goes", and I understand the impulse toward
perfectionism and thinking round every last logical chink in the
armour.

But other licenses are revised and improved over the years - they'll
never settle at a definitive, final version, not least because law and
case law evolves too.

It feels like applying for a job - you keep tweaking the wording of
your application, or rewriting whole paragraphs, but the time must
come when you decide it's "good enough", and put it in the post.

The next application can be different, improved, but v1 often really
is good enough.

cheers,
LT

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option

[Ed Avis]

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason  gmail.com> writes:

>>For the benefit of countries where a database right exists, and 'for the
>>avoidance of doubt' as the ODbL says, add a short remark that the OSM
>>foundation (which is the entity which has collated together all of the
>>individual bits of mapmaking work into a giant database) will not assert its
>>database right to stop distribution of OSM data, provided it's done under the
>>CC-BY-SA.
> 
>What gives the OSMF special DB right to the collection of user-owned
>CC-BY-SA data as opposed to anyone else running a mirror of the DB?

If the OSMF doesn't in fact have the right to stop people using and distributing
the database under database right laws, the above permission notice is redundant
but harmless.

If it does have that power, just as well to waive it so we can all get on with
sharing the data under CC-BY-SA as intended.

-- 
Ed Avis 





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

[OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[Jason Cunningham]

Hi All

I've read through a bundle of licence emails, and there is one aspect that
worries me, which hopefully someone can clarify.

>From my understanding (and I dont speak legalese), under the CCBYSA license
you can take OSM data, create a "derived work" and distribute it. But, you
had to let people know you where using OSM data, you had make it clear that
other people where allowed to use your "derived work" to make further
derived work and the CCBYSA licence must apply to their work. But its turned
out this license may not be enforcable. A new licence has been proposed that
is enforcable, but adds a significant new "obligation" to people/groups
creating derived works.

Looking through advice regarding the new or proposed licence in the wiki I
have come across the following which I am worried about and wish to clarify
(which I quote below)
1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ
"requires those that combine our data with their own data will have to give
the latter to OSM. This means *we get more open data*."

2. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases
"*Section 4.3 also requires that the notice include information regarding
where the user can obtain a copy of the Database or Derivative Database.*"

So it appears under the new licence when I create a map using OSM and add my
own data (derived work), I have to make my data available to OSM. This leads
on to a couple of questions.

*Questions*
1. *The main question*. Do I (any one else affected) have to actually send
my data to OSM, or, make sure its available (via an emailed file (if
requested) or as a download on a website), or, am I simply giving the right
for OSM to to take the derived work and copy/extract all data.

2. I am not entirely happy about making people/groups supply their data to
OSM if they wish to create derived work. I agree with the original principle
within the CCBYSA, that the derived work had to be CCBYSA. But I feel
demanding that individual/groups make the data available puts a burden on
some people they can not meet, or will not be acceptable.
eg

   - (extreme example?) A group of 8 year old kids spend a day in a local
   park mapping out locations where they find butterflies. They map this
   information using an OSM map and stick a copy on their local parks
   noticeboard. Surely they shouldn't be made to make this data available to
   OSM? Its not worth the bother for them (or OSM)
   - A wildlife group wishes to map the location of endangered species.
   Lacking money, OSM seems like a good resource, but they* *can not supply
   the data and therefore the location of protected species to OSM. So they can
   not use OSM and have to spend money on another map?

I started supplying data to OSM in the belief I was creating map data that
was free and could easily be used by everyone. This can not be achieved if
the burden of using OSm data is greater than the benefit.

Cheers

Jason


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Map tag in Wikipedia

[Tim 'avatar' Bartel]

Hi,

2009/3/4 Lars Aronsson :
> Should we try to introduce the map tag in Wikipedia?  Has it
> already been tried, and what was the reaction?  Do we have any bad
> experience from its use in the OSM, to learn and improve from?

We're working on this, I'll post some more information soon.

> Fortunately, there is a Wikipedia developer meeting on April 3-5,
> where I could bring this forward.

We can speak about our current work there.

Bye, Tim.

-- 
http://wikipedistik.de

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting

[David Lynch]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 08:19, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Ben Laenen  writes:
>
>>Suppose I split a way into two parts. The second part now gets uploaded
>>as a completely new object, with nothing in its history pointing
>>towards its origin.
>
> Although the way is new, don't the nodes along it keep their identity?

True, but what if I create a node at the same place I split? For
instance, if I take an existing way and split it in two places to add
a bridge tag, you'd end up with something like this:

( 1 )--A( 2 )B( 3 )--C--( 4 )

Nodes 2 and 3 have no reference to the original user in their
individual histories, so it would be impossible to know that they are
derived from whoever did the original way. Similarly, neither Way B
nor any of its nodes have any reference back.

Or, what if I happen to move every node in a way and change every
single tag, and then the original mapper opts out of the license? What
appears in the database at the current time is entirely my work, even
though the refusenik appears in the history.

Someone upthread suggested reverting to the database as it stood just
before the first contribution from someone who refuses the new
license, and I'm beginning to fear that's the only way to guarantee a
completely clean version.

-- 
David J. Lynch
djly...@gmail.com

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

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, Jason Cunningham escribió:
> 2. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases
> "*Section 4.3 also requires that the notice include information regarding
> where the user can obtain a copy of the Database or Derivative Database.*"

Please read about the DFSG tests:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines#debian-legal_tests_for_DFSG_compliance

The aim of the ODbL, as well as any other share-alike license, is to comply 
with that. You only have to make available the source, *if* you make 
available the work at all, only to the people you distribute the work to.


P.D.: This should go in legal@
P.P.D.: Read my rants in another thread about having to reply to this kind of 
questions all over again.

-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega 

Proudly running Debian Linux with 2.6.26-1-amd64 kernel, KDE 3.5.10, and PHP 
5.2.6-3 generating this signature.
Uptime: 16:13:52 up 12 days, 20:53,  1 user,  load average: 0.33, 0.48, 0.36


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[Dave Stubbs]

2009/3/4 Jason Cunningham :
> Hi All
>
> I've read through a bundle of licence emails, and there is one aspect that
> worries me, which hopefully someone can clarify.
>
> From my understanding (and I dont speak legalese), under the CCBYSA license
> you can take OSM data, create a "derived work" and distribute it. But, you
> had to let people know you where using OSM data, you had make it clear that
> other people where allowed to use your "derived work" to make further
> derived work and the CCBYSA licence must apply to their work. But its turned
> out this license may not be enforcable. A new licence has been proposed that
> is enforcable, but adds a significant new "obligation" to people/groups
> creating derived works.
>
> Looking through advice regarding the new or proposed licence in the wiki I
> have come across the following which I am worried about and wish to clarify
> (which I quote below)
> 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ
> "requires those that combine our data with their own data will have to give
> the latter to OSM. This means we get more open data."
>
> 2. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases
> "Section 4.3 also requires that the notice include information regarding
> where the user can obtain a copy of the Database or Derivative Database."
>
> So it appears under the new licence when I create a map using OSM and add my
> own data (derived work), I have to make my data available to OSM. This leads
> on to a couple of questions.
>
> Questions
> 1. The main question. Do I (any one else affected) have to actually send my
> data to OSM, or, make sure its available (via an emailed file (if requested)
> or as a download on a website), or, am I simply giving the right for OSM to
> to take the derived work and copy/extract all data.
>
> 2. I am not entirely happy about making people/groups supply their data to
> OSM if they wish to create derived work. I agree with the original principle
> within the CCBYSA, that the derived work had to be CCBYSA. But I feel
> demanding that individual/groups make the data available puts a burden on
> some people they can not meet, or will not be acceptable.
> eg
>
> (extreme example?) A group of 8 year old kids spend a day in a local park
> mapping out locations where they find butterflies. They map this information
> using an OSM map and stick a copy on their local parks noticeboard. Surely
> they shouldn't be made to make this data available to OSM? Its not worth the
> bother for them (or OSM)
> A wildlife group wishes to map the location of endangered species. Lacking
> money, OSM seems like a good resource, but they can not supply the data and
> therefore the location of protected species to OSM. So they can not use OSM
> and have to spend money on another map?
>
> I started supplying data to OSM in the belief I was creating map data that
> was free and could easily be used by everyone. This can not be achieved if
> the burden of using OSm data is greater than the benefit.
>

IANAL this is just my interpretation yada yada yada...

When you have to make the data available, it's not to OSM
specifically. It's the same idea as CC-BY-SA and GPL but applied to
data. Your 8 year old kids would be obliged to license their butterfly
data under the ODbL [1] and attribute OSM. As 8 year old kids would
most likely be sticking bits of paper on a bigger bit of paper with a
map printed on it that's trivially done by the end product... somebody
walking past the notice board would be entitled to take the data and
put it into OSM if they wanted to.

If an organisation uses a derived database wholly internally then they
get to keep it internal... there's no requirement to publish. So the
wildlife group presumably won't give out maps of endangered species...
anybody they do give a map to can request the derived database -- but
they've been given a map anyway so are presumably trustworthy.

Dave

[1] Ignoring potential bug in 0.9 draft

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option

[Andy Allan]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Ed Avis  wrote:

> Or if I might make a slightly different suggestion: keep the CC-BY-SA licence
> because that's what we have, and it's the standard adopted by Wikipedia and
> other collections of free content.

Not a helpful suggestion. It's been explained many times why sticking
with CC-BY-SA on our geographical data set just isn't an option. These
reasons are what spurred the initial considerations of changing the
license all that time ago, and isn't something that's been undertaken
lightly. If you're not up to speed on why, then please go find out.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Traveling Salesman - version 0.9.5 released

[Marcus Wolschon]

Sorry.

For all those who got a ClassNotFoundError due to
"org.java.plugin.PluginClassLoader",
I just uploaded a bugfixed version.
I forgot to include the new jpf.jar in the distributed executable jar.
My mistake.


Marcus



On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:45 AM,   wrote:
>
> Version 0.9.5 of the Traveling Salesman navigation-system for
> OpenStreetMap has just been released.
>
> * With an improved plugin-system we now have an optional speechPack to add
> voice-output.
>  (Note that higher quality voices and phonems for other languages can be
> installed later.)
> * Thanks to your help in the OSM-Wiki
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sample_driving_instructions)
>  we now not only have much improved driving-directions but also the first
>  translated driving-instructions.
> * There are some major speed-improvements in the reference-implementation
> of the OsmBin
>  file-format and the LODDataSet (automatic Generation of simplified low
> zoom-levels).
> * You can now file feature-requests, bug-reports and complains via the
> help-menu.
> * Testing without a GPS-device has become much easier with the new gpx-file
> -controlpanel
>  reachable from the debug-menu. (fast forward and slow down in gpx-files)
>
> As we want to REACH VERSION 1.0 BY THE 23.3.2009 with the introduction of
> the
> OpenStreetMap API 0.6 we need YOUR HELP. We NEED BUG-REPORTS, feedback,
> ideas
> but also patches, plugins and feature-request.
> Tell us what needs improvement!
> Tell us what we did wrong!
> Tell us what needs better documentation!
>
> http://apps.sourceforge.net/phpbb/travelingsales/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=29
> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=203597
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License to kill

[Gervase Markham]

On 04/03/09 04:28, SteveC wrote:
> We blame Steve because he's evil. We blame the process because it took
> too long. We blame the working group for not being quicker. We figure
> the foundation must be culpable. We write long rants about how it's a
> dire emergency...

I don't see any of that, at least not at the moment. What I see is the 
opposite - "Slow down, you move too fast..."

> But! Hold on! We should see every draft of the license! Every time
> they add a comma, or review something! Every sentence! You're taking
> away our rights you evil volunteers!

Straw men are always easier to knock down than the real thing, aren't 
they? :-)

> Yes we should in the same way that a lawyer should comment on your C++
> or ruby code after every 20 characters.

I would suggest that's an invalid analogy. Most code has no legal 
impact. The licence has a lot of impact on every single bit of code (or 
data). So the code is no concern of the lawyers (normally), but the 
licence is the concern of all the mappers.

> So lets concentrate on that. Lets build a better process. Lets build a
> consensus.

Absolutely! As long as you allow us the time to (i.e. slow down and stop 
trying to get it done by the end of March!), then I'm all for that :-)

Incidentally, we're not all code weenies with no clue about licensing. 
I've been point of contact at the Mozilla project (which is of not 
insignificant size and complexity) for licensing issues for about five 
years now, although recently we got our own in-house lawyer (who, by the 
way, is brilliant. I can ask him and see if he can help out, if you want).

Gerv



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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option

[Ed Avis]

Andy Allan  gmail.com> writes:

>>Or if I might make a slightly different suggestion: keep the CC-BY-SA
>>licence because that's what we have, and it's the standard adopted by
>>Wikipedia and other collections of free content.
>
>Not a helpful suggestion.

Isn't this rather prejudging the outcome of the licence debate and
vote?  I would expect that keeping the existing licence will be one of
the options presented.

>It's been explained many times why sticking with CC-BY-SA on our
>geographical data set just isn't an option.

I have read the explanation but I'm not convinced.  As far as I can
tell the only major point is that:

>OSM data is potentially in a curious unlicensed limbo at the moment,
>which will not protect us if a major geodata company, for example,
>decides to take our data without respecting the intent of the licence.

I do not believe this scenario is at all likely, and even if it did
happen it is a far lesser evil than losing big chunks of the OSM data
and contributor base through a painful relicensing exercise.  It is
also a lesser evil than ending up with a new licence which is too
restrictive and blocks reuse of the OSM data.  (What 'too restrictive'
means is a matter of opinion, but everyone can see that such an
outcome is possible.)

Further, as has been pointed out, this would be a very good outcome
for OSM if it set the precedent that map data is not covered by
copyright.  I could start tracing in things from Ordnance Survey maps
right away.  Note that these maps are 'Crown Copyright', not 'Crown
Database Right' or requiring you to agree to a contract or EULA to buy
them.  If it's good enough for the OS and their notoriously jealous
legal department, it's good enough for OpenStreetMap.

(The OS maps are printed maps and do not contain the OS's source
database - but if the mere placement of map features is not covered by
copyright, you could easily trace them and make your own independent
database.)

For this reason and others I do not think that any mapping agency
would try to deny the enforceability of copyright and OSM's
share-alike restrictions.  But if they do, and it goes to court, it
would be great news for OSM to lose!

(If the database right can be used to patch holes in copyright's
scope, then by all means do so.  But there is no need to relicense to
do that.  The copyright licensing can continue to be done using
CC-BY-SA as at present, and then the compiler of the database - which
is the Foundation, not the individual contributors - can grant
database right permission to those who distribute under the terms of
CC-BY-SA.)

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Gervase Markham]

On 04/03/09 10:51, MP wrote:
> Thayt is the worst thing - now you don't know who will agree to new
> license and who don't (unless you have some magic crystal ball). So
> you don't know which data are going to be removed and how much of them
> would it be until the last moment.

Right. And then we decide whether or not to go ahead with the 
relicensing, depending on what the figures are.

The alternative seems to be to get lots of people to make guesses about 
what they would do in certain situations, and then throw all that 
information away when we have actual data and ask people again, just 
like above. I don't see that as a good use of time.

Gerv


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ed Avis wrote:
> I could start tracing in things from Ordnance Survey maps
> right away.  Note that these maps are 'Crown Copyright', not 
> 'Crown Database Right'

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crown+copyright+and+database+right%22

:)

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22333511.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill

[Peter Miller]

On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:12, Gervase Markham wrote:

>
> Incidentally, we're not all code weenies with no clue about licensing.
> I've been point of contact at the Mozilla project (which is of not
> insignificant size and complexity) for licensing issues for about five
> years now, although recently we got our own in-house lawyer (who, by  
> the
> way, is brilliant. I can ask him and see if he can help out, if you  
> want).
>

Personally, yes, I (Peter) would like to you do that! I am sure Steve  
may also find it useful but I don't think this is something that needs  
anyones permission.

I also think it will be reassuring and healthy to get a range of legal  
opinion on the license from different perspectives. I think we should  
be getting a TV company (ITV? BBC?) to check it for their purposes, a  
publisher for their purposes etc etc but I don't believe any of that  
is happening so we need to take offers when we get them.

As you may be aware we (at ITO) are doing a review which should be  
available to the community by the end of the week.

If you are getting a formal review done, then I suggest you let Jordan  
know what you are doing and when your review will be ready so he can  
optimise his plan around the incoming suggestions.



Regards,




Peter


> Gerv
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[Russ Nelson]

On Mar 4, 2009, at 2:33 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Simply saying "we're the OSMF board and we know what's good for you"  
is

a very, very bad idea to build trust!


But that's not what Steve said.  Steve is trying to teach you how  
lawyers work.  I've watched lawyers work, as a fly on the wall.  They  
work very much like hackers, throwing ideas off each other, but  
they're doing it in an incompatible space.  Unless you've got  
expertise in that space (as Gerv and I have, and maybe others), then  
you need to be careful about what you ask for.



Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY TRUST
THEM?!?


You can't.  There is no magic wand to create trust.  Only through time  
and repeated interaction can you learn to trust somebody.  And if  
you've been around for more than a year, you've had that time and  
those interactions -- if you've chosen to pay attention.  If you  
expect to participate in the process afterwards, then I think your  
expectations are off.



There were NO!!! introduction of the players involved, no ideas how to
build trust in the community ... (e.g. what's the relation to the OSI
initiative?).


Well, the Open Source Initiative is only starting to dip its toe into  
Open Data.  Clearly it's a complicated topic, especially when it comes  
to "source code" and "derived works", and "reciprocal licenses" (I  
prefer "reciprocal" to "virus".  Reciprocating is good; having a virus  
is not).


--
Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson
r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option

[Ed Avis]

Richard Fairhurst  systemed.net> writes:

>>I could start tracing in things from Ordnance Survey maps
>>right away.  Note that these maps are 'Crown Copyright', not 
>>'Crown Database Right'
>
>http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crown+copyright+and+database+right%22

Heh.  My maps are too old to have this.

The point still stands: if it turns out that map data is copyright-free then 
this
will be a great boost to the project.  However, I wouldn't bet on that outcome.

And if the OSM Foundation has a database right in the collected data, it could
use it to sue anyone incorporating the data in proprietary maps right now.  You
do not need to relicense the data to cause that database right to appear.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

[OSM-talk] (short version) When should Derived Database Share Alike be triggered?

[Richard Weait]

This is the short version for notifcation on talk.  

There has been some confusion on legal-talk and OKC-talk about when the
Share Alike requirement for Derivative Databases becomes mandatory.
There are options that are very similar to GPL and very similar to
AfferoGPL.  

The legal team has asked us to talk about which we prefer.  If you want
to join this conversation please join in on legal-talk.  If you prefer
to avoid all of legal-talk but want to contribute on this topic, you may
comment here without registration.  

http://weait.com/content/when-should-derived-database-share-alike-be-required

There is even a straw poll that is completely unscientific.  


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option

[Peter Miller]

On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:43, Ed Avis wrote:

> Richard Fairhurst  systemed.net> writes:
>
>>> I could start tracing in things from Ordnance Survey maps
>>> right away.  Note that these maps are 'Crown Copyright', not
>>> 'Crown Database Right'
>>
>> http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crown+copyright+and+database+right%22
>
> Heh.  My maps are too old to have this.
>
> The point still stands: if it turns out that map data is copyright- 
> free then this
> will be a great boost to the project.  However, I wouldn't bet on  
> that outcome.

The clear advice (verbal so far) from our lawyer is that in the UK/EU  
map data is covered by copyright (as well as DB rights). When one  
products an index of street names for a town then it starts to look  
more like a DB but some recent case law concluded that copyright was  
more significant that had been expected even in the case where two  
different people who didn't communicate and worked independently would  
come up with exactly the same answer - however somewhere in this  
second sentence I should have stopped and let our lawyer say it for  
herself.


Regards,



Peter


>
>
> And if the OSM Foundation has a database right in the collected  
> data, it could
> use it to sue anyone incorporating the data in proprietary maps  
> right now.  You
> do not need to relicense the data to cause that database right to  
> appear.
>
> -- 
> Ed Avis 
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

[OSM-legal-talk] When should Derived Database Share Alike be required?

[Richard Weait]

There has been some confusion on legal-talk and OKC-talk about when the
Share Alike requirement for Derivative Databases becomes mandatory. In
my first reading of ODbL draft v0.9 I incorrectly thought that Public
Use of a Produced Work created with a Derivative Database triggered
Share Alike of that Derived Database. 

Readings of that same version by Frederik Ramm and Richard Fairhurst
have convinced me that draft v0.9 says that Public Conveyance of the
Derived Database requires Share Alike of that Derived Database. 

And I asked Jordan, over on OKC which it was? Jordan has turned the
tables on me and asked, which do we want? Great. I just wanted to know
which it was. Now I get to do some thinking and expend some energy on
this rather than sitting on the sidelines and making snide comments. 

On reflection, I'm convinced that neither of the two proposed Share
Alike triggers is evil. In fact I can make an argument for each with
gratuitous Free Software references. Here we go. 


Share Alike triggered by Conveying the Derived Database is like the GPL
The GPL obliges us to include the source when we modify and distribute
GPL software. This ODbL trigger option is an exact analogue of the GPL.
If you are not distributing the software (database), you need not
provide the source. 

So if I modify GPL software and run in on my server, I don't have to
share my changes or provide the source to my clients. I have not
distributed the modified GPL software. This has been called the
application service provider loophole or ASP-hole in the GPL. I'm sure
you can find many examples of companies that take advantage of this if
you just look with a popular search engine. 

Compare to ...


Share Alike triggered by Public Use of a Produced Work from a Derived
Database is like the AGPL (Affero GPL)
The Affero GPL addresses the application service provider loophole in
the GPL by requiring that Affero GPL licensed software include an option
to display the source. I'm still free to modify the AGPL software to
suit my needs and still free to run it on my server. I'm still free to
make lots of money from my clients that love my modified version of the
AGPL software. If I later decide to distribute my modified AGPL
software, the regular GPL source protections still apply.

But because the ASP-hole has been closed, my clients can see and use the
changes I've made. And so can the upstream project. 

This proposed Share Alike triggered by Public Use of a Produced Work
from a Derived Database is like the AGPL. The AGPL (Nov 2007) is a newer
license than the GPL and was created to address the perceived need to
block the application service provider loophole in the GPL. 

So what do we want?

Original with image :-)
http://weait.com/content/when-should-derived-database-share-alike-be-required

Straw poll
http://weait.com/content/when-should-derived-database-share-alike-be-required-poll



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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option

[Gustav Foseid]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Ed Avis  wrote:

> >http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crown+copyright+and+database+right%22
>
> Heh.  My maps are too old to have this.
>

That would be an uphill battle, but there is a chance you might win. If you
have old digital map data, you might have an even better chance.

Do you have the resources to start a fight with OS? Thought so...

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

[OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[Peter Miller]

(extreme example?) A group of 8 year old kids spend a day in a local  
park mapping out locations where they find butterflies. They map  
this information using an OSM map and stick a copy on their local  
parks noticeboard. Surely they shouldn't be made to make this data  
available to OSM? Its not worth the bother for them (or OSM)
A wildlife group wishes to map the location of endangered species.  
Lacking money, OSM seems like a good resource, but they can not  
supply the data and therefore the location of protected species to  
OSM. So they can not use OSM and have to spend money on another map?
Thanks for those. Great examples. I have added them to the Use Cases  
page.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases


Regards,


Peter

I started supplying data to OSM in the belief I was creating map  
data that was free and could easily be used by everyone. This can  
not be achieved if the burden of using OSm data is greater than the  
benefit.


Cheers

Jason



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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option

[Ed Avis]

Peter Miller  itoworld.com> writes:

>The clear advice (verbal so far) from our lawyer is that in the UK/EU  
>map data is covered by copyright (as well as DB rights).

In that case what is  referring to with its
'curious unlicensed limbo' remark?

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Miller wrote:

> The clear advice (verbal so far) from our lawyer is that in the 
> UK/EU map data is covered by copyright (as well as DB rights).

I will quote the following from an Ordnance Survey agreement as much for
people's amusement as for edification.

"Intellectual Property Rights means copyright, patent, trade 
mark, design right, topography right, database right, trade 
secrets, know-how, rights of confidence, broadcast rights 
and all other similar rights anywhere in the world whether 
or not registered and including applications for registration 
of any of them"

I have not made any of that up. Though I think Fake Ed Parsons put it more
succinctly:

"Not only do we own all your data, we also own your 
trademarks, your logo and your fucking pet cat. Thanks."

As ever with these things, either you join in on the arms race (which is why
ODbL has three prongs: copyright, database right, contract), or you put down
your arms and hope enough people will respect it (PD).

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22334676.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[Mike Collinson]

Jason,

Good questions and I've just been through the ODbL 0.9 version to double check. 
Here's is my IANAL but clear interpretation:

- If your work is a "derived work",  and I believe your examples are not,  AND 
you distribute it then you do have to offer it under the same license or 
compatible (ODbL 4.4).  You definitely do not have to give data to OSM 
yourself, i.e. send it to us voluntarily or learn how to input it yourself.  
We'd like you to, but that is a different issue.  

- You also have to offer recipients of your new database either a complete 
machine-readable copy of it or at least the patches (ODbL 4.6).  That way OSM 
can get your 100 new roads, IF someone takes the time to do it ... and in an 
easier fashion than the old license.  I am personally no fan of Share-Alike 
provisions but I think this is very reasonable  You can also charge for your 
costs just like a GNU software license.

- HOWEVER your examples may not demand these:

:: Your map is a map not a database. Under ODbL it is a "Produced Work".  There 
is some ongoing public discussion about the final wording on this but a 
reasonable provisional take is that: If you adapted the OSM data with, say, 
that extra 100 roads then OSM would be allowed to put them into our database.  
But, if you used an OSM basemap and put a layer of unrelated information, your 
obligation is simply to attribute OSM (ODbL 4.3).

:: Your kids in the park did not make a derived database nor did they use the 
OSM database.  They put a separate unrelated layer on top on top of a "Produced 
Work", i.e a printed map.  They have no obligations.  The map should already 
credit us.

:: The wildlife group can use the OSM database to plot out paths, forests. They 
can make their own database of protected species locations. They can make a 
"Produced Work", a printed map or a web mash-up combining the two. No 
obligation other than attribution.  Alternatively, they should strongly 
consider being an OSM contributor ... all the tools are there for them at no 
cost.  They can add all their species data using custom tags and also add any 
new or changed paths or landuse in the same environment.  Win-win.

I am a fan of the ODbL, a lot of hard-work and very clever thinking has gone 
into it.  It satisfies many of the concerns of  "PD-ers" such as myself about 
whether it is actually practical or legal to use OSM data in mixed data 
environments, such as here.  Yet it strongly preserves the Share-Alike ethos 
that encourages or enforces an ever-growing expansion of geo-data that can be 
publicly used at no cost.  Compromise while preserving utility is always one of 
the hardest things to achieve.  

Different viewpoints welcome,
Mike

At 04:00 PM 4/03/2009, Jason Cunningham wrote:
>Hi All
>
>I've read through a bundle of licence emails, and there is one aspect that 
>worries me, which hopefully someone can clarify.
>
> From my understanding (and I dont speak legalese), under the CCBYSA license 
> you can take OSM data, create a "derived work" and distribute it. But, you 
> had to let people know you where using OSM data, you had make it clear that 
> other people where allowed to use your "derived work" to make further derived 
> work and the CCBYSA licence must apply to their work. But its turned out this 
> license may not be enforcable. A new licence has been proposed that is 
> enforcable, but adds a significant new "obligation" to people/groups creating 
> derived works.
>
>Looking through advice regarding the new or proposed licence in the wiki I 
>have come across the following which I am worried about and wish to clarify 
>(which I quote below)
>1. 
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ
>"requires those that combine our data with their own data will have to give 
>the latter to OSM. This means we get more open data."

I think this needs more careful phrasing.


>2. 
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases
>"Section 4.3 also requires that the notice include information regarding where 
>the user can obtain a copy of the Database or Derivative Database."
>
>So it appears under the new licence when I create a map using OSM and add my 
>own data (derived work), I have to make my data available to OSM. This leads 
>on to a couple of questions.
>
>Questions
>1. The main question. Do I (any one else affected) have to actually send my 
>data to OSM, or, make sure its available (via an emailed file (if requested) 
>or as a download on a website), or, am I simply giving the right for OSM to to 
>take the derived work and copy/extract all data.
>
>2. I am not entirely happy about making people/groups supply their data to OSM 
>if they wish to create derived work. I agree with the original principle 
>within the CCBYSA, that the derived work had to be CCBYSA. But I feel 
>demanding that individual/groups ma

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[David Earl]

On 04/03/2009 17:16, Mike Collinson wrote:
> Jason,
> 
> Good questions
[snip]
> :: Your kids in the park did not make a derived database nor did they 
> use the OSM database.  They put a separate unrelated layer on top on top 
> of a "Produced Work", i.e a printed map.  They have no obligations.  The 
> map should already credit us.

They used the map to pin the locations - the points did not come from 
some other map. Therefore it is derived (this is precisely the problem 
with pinning pictures on a Google or OSM map). So if they put the data 
in a database (= spreadsheet for example) before printing it, that would 
be derived, surely.

Even if they made a list of co-ordinates on paper, or on a tracing paper 
overlay, it's a Derived database by my reading. The license doesn't 
specify the data has to be stored in a computer, merely that it has to 
be systematically organised (geographical location is surely systematic 
organisation), and "accessible by electronic or other means" - it's 
obviously intended primarily for electronic media, but the "otherwise" 
surely captures this case.

Taking this a step further, a bus company already has the locations of 
its bus stops and displays them on OSM. That's not derived (not from OSM 
anyway, though someone else's lawyer may have something to say about 
it). But if they use OSM to _obtain_ the coordinate data from a textual 
description they already hold ("opposite junction of Smith Street"), 
then that is derived. The definition of Derived Database seems quite 
clear on that and they have to make the database available.

> :: The wildlife group can use the OSM database to plot out paths, 
> forests. They can make their own database of protected species 
> locations. They can make a "Produced Work", a printed map or a web 
> mash-up combining the two. No obligation other than attribution.  
> Alternatively, they should strongly consider being an OSM contributor 
> ... all the tools are there for them at no cost.  They can add all their 
> species data using custom tags and also add any new or changed paths or 
> landuse in the same environment.  Win-win.

I think the point was, they wouldn't want the data to be public under 
any circumstances, in OSM or anywhere else, because it makes the species 
vulnerable. They're using the map as a tool to make an internal database.

But if they can't publish the data then it's entirely within their 
organisation, and there are no restrictions on that at all.

David

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

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[Gustav Foseid]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Earl wrote:

> They used the map to pin the locations - the points did not come from
> some other map. Therefore it is derived (this is precisely the problem
> with pinning pictures on a Google or OSM map). So if they put the data
> in a database (= spreadsheet for example) before printing it, that would
> be derived, surely.


The coordinates came from a Produced Work (some map image og paper map). As
I read the license, works (or databases) based on a Produced Work is not
subject to the conditions of the ODbL.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[Dave Stubbs]

2009/3/4 Gustav Foseid :
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Earl 
> wrote:
>>
>> They used the map to pin the locations - the points did not come from
>> some other map. Therefore it is derived (this is precisely the problem
>> with pinning pictures on a Google or OSM map). So if they put the data
>> in a database (= spreadsheet for example) before printing it, that would
>> be derived, surely.
>
> The coordinates came from a Produced Work (some map image og paper map). As
> I read the license, works (or databases) based on a Produced Work is not
> subject to the conditions of the ODbL.


If you were able to extract coordinates then this could be regarded as
reverse engineering the Produced Work, in which case it's covered by
4.7
There's that "substantial" caveat again though.

Dave

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

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[David Earl]

On 04/03/2009 18:06, Gustav Foseid wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Earl  > wrote:
> 
> They used the map to pin the locations - the points did not come from
> some other map. Therefore it is derived (this is precisely the problem
> with pinning pictures on a Google or OSM map). So if they put the data
> in a database (= spreadsheet for example) before printing it, that would
> be derived, surely.
> 
> 
> The coordinates came from a Produced Work (some map image og paper map). 
> As I read the license, works (or databases) based on a Produced Work is 
> not subject to the conditions of the ODbL.

OK, I agree.

Clause 4.7 (reverse engineering) though prevents people from recreating 
the database from a produced work. So if they're just pinning the 
locations on the paper map, that's fine. But if they are reading off the 
lat/lon from the margins (or from the pixel coordinates on screen) and 
recording that, then it would depend entirely on the interpretation of 
whether what's been done is a "Substantial part" or not. Presumably not 
in this case, but when it becomes Substantial is not well defined and 
would probably need a test case. Some guidance to people would probably 
be helpful (e.g. for the sake of argument, just quoting grid references 
with reference to a map image is not infringing, even in large 
quantities, but tracing over the map image is).

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[Gustav Foseid]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Dave Stubbs wrote:

> If you were able to extract coordinates then this could be regarded as
> reverse engineering the Produced Work, in which case it's covered by
> 4.7


It is not done by "You" or on "Your behalf". So you cannot make a map and
then start reverse engineering, since you are bound by the license/contract,
but a random user of the map can do this.

I think such a clause makes a lot of sense. You cannot make a special
purpose rendering, showing just the information you want to reverse
engineer, and at just the right scale, to circumvent the license. On the
other side, things like normal geocoding of images would be no problem. I
don't think anyone see any need for users releasing their picture database.

This can also, to a limited degree, be a larger loophole if large amounts of
maps are distributed as SVG or other formats that are easier to reverse
engineer from. I still think it is reasonable to be perfectly clear that
things like geocoding images are allowed, without any need to share the
result.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan

[Nop]

Hi!

Steve Chilton schrieb:
> Having said all that, my real point is that I
> know a lot of "traditional" cartographers (some in a commercial
> environment and some not) and have observed an actual reluctance to
> consider using OSM data. This might be surprising given that OSM has
> always said "OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data
> such as street maps to anyone who wants them. 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" [top of homepage].
> My perception is that there are two things that stop this: Firstly,
> there seems to be either a misunderstanding of what the licence
> currently means, or a feeling that it is not possible to work within
> it's current terms.

Thank you for bringing this up. It has been on the back of my mind that 
OSM does not really live up to this mission statement on the top of the 
front page. It is good (or rather it is sad, but confirmation) to hear 
that there actually is reluctance among cartographers to use OSM data. I 
have found the same doubts in some forums in the geocommunity.

The statement "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"
describes very accurately the problem I have with the CC BY SA licence 
(apart from insufficient protection against abuse):

I think of the OSM maps as free. But when I try to use them together 
with other sources in a creative, productive and not even unexpected 
way, I find  myself bound by legal restrictions of the licence that 
disallow these use cases. This would indicate to me one of two cases:
- The mission statement is wrong and needs to be changed to express the 
uncompromising disapproval of any non-totally-free use
- The CC licence fails to provide the freedom of usage OSM was started 
for and needs to be replaced or augmented

I believe/hope it was the latter and that is the reason why I approve 
the change of the licence. I want those two lines to be true and I want 
OSM to live up to them.

bye
  Nop

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License to kill

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

SteveC wrote:
> Where to begin?

Same question here when trying to respond to your post. I wish you had 
had the time it took you to compose this when we had questions for you 
over on  legal-talk.

I'll focus on one thing for now.

> Now lets turn to the board and the working group. They're volunteers..  
> but they haven't been doing their job! They've been slow! It took them  
> so, so *so* long to get things done... But hold on nobody has been  
> saying they could have done better... oh and we don't see any offers  
> of help.. or offers to be on the group. 

For a long time I thought that the license was actually being "worked 
on" on legal-talk. The very first time, ever, I heard of a "license 
working group" was on the 15th of January, 2009, when Mikel Maron wrote 
to legal-talk:

"Yesterday we held the first meeting of the Licensing working group. At 
the last Foundation Board meeting before the holidays, we decided to 
convene a working group to expedite the final process of moving OSM to 
the new license."

(Note: Mikel, who was not visibly involved in licensing until that time, 
suddenly wrote this. Later, Grant wrote in the name of the licensing 
working group, even though it is obvious from the Foundation 
documentation that they must have both been rather fresh to the topic, 
whereas you, who was in touch with the lawyers and even selected the 
legal counsel for OSMF, chose to keep quiet.)

Nobody ever asked who wanted to be on the group; I am 100% sure that 
there would have been serious interest from some on legal-talk. 
Convening a license working group without asking those who until then 
had been most active in thinking about the license sounded like "we 
don't want you here". Maybe it was that, maybe it was just bad community 
communication.

Maybe the following item from the meeting minutes of the same Foundation 
Board meeting sheds some light on the roots of this communication style:

"Steve reluctant to publish publicly as it would invite another round of 
changes."

Blimey, if you talk to people, they might have ideas and suggestions or 
even want to CHANGE something. Better keep things to yourself and 
complain later.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] problem compilint mod_tile under debian etch

[Jon Burgess]

On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 15:43 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> 
> well, tried that - all dependencies were satisfied, but then I got
> this:
> 
> src/graphics.cpp: In constructor 
> ‘mapnik::Image32::Image32(Cairo::RefPtr)’:
> src/graphics.cpp:51: error: ‘class Cairo::ImageSurface’ has no member
> named 
> ‘get_format’
> src/graphics.cpp:57: error: ‘class Cairo::ImageSurface’ has no member
> named 
> ‘get_stride’
> src/graphics.cpp:60: error: ‘class Cairo::ImageSurface’ has no member
> named 
> ‘get_data’
> scons: *** [src/graphics.os] Error 1
> scons: building terminated because of errors.

It looks like you need a newer version of Cairo. Or perhaps disable the
cairo support in Mapnik. It is not required for generating normal map
tiles.

Jon



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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[Nop]

Hi!

Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb:
> El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
>> Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
>> involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY TRUST
>> THEM?!?
> 
> Because they are more knowledgeable in their field than we are.
> 
> 
> I do think this is another ad-hominem attack against the ODbL. 
> 
> By using your same way of thinking, I shouldn't use my car because I don't 
> know and trust the designers and assemblers that built it. Counter-examples 
> could go on and on.

The mappers don't know them and have no reason to trust them. They will 
have to prove that they are more knowledgable, but with the prior 
non-information policy they have not even shown that they *care* about 
the mappers opinions at all.

So they are not to be compared to the designers of your car, but rather 
to the used car salesman approaching you and trying to sell you a new one.

I am arguing in favor of the new licence, but with the way this was 
conducted I can understand everybody who feels overrun, forced and badly 
informed.


bye
Nop

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[Nop]

Hi!

Russ Nelson schrieb:
 >> Hopefully you know and trust the lawyers, foundation, whoever, ...
 >> involved. WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THEM SO WHY SHOULD WE MAGICALLY TRUST
 >> THEM?!?
 >
 > You can't.  There is no magic wand to create trust.  Only through time
 > and repeated interaction can you learn to trust somebody.  And if you've
 > been around for more than a year, you've had that time and those
 > interactions -- if you've chosen to pay attention.  If you expect to
 > participate in the process afterwards, then I think your expectations
 > are off.

Pay attention to what? There was no attempt to inform a wider number of 
people. That is exactly the point. I have been around for 6 months, I am 
subscribed to talk and talk-de and until two weeks ago I was completely 
unaware that there was a planned change of licence at all. And then it 
was not some official information but mentioned in a private discussion.

I recon there was no way to find out about this short of subscribing to 
legal talk - and why on earth would any mapper do that if he has no idea 
that anything concerning him is going on?

This is the first time an ordinary OSM member had a chance to get notice 
of the licence change and I bet you that there are 8 account holders 
who still have no idea that anything is going on - so the process is 
just starting now. And we still have failed to give notice and 
understandable (translated) information to the majority of participants.

If you want to convince people to consent to your scheme, you have to go 
to them.


bye
Nop


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

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[Nop]

Hi!


I would like to bring this back to the original - and very important - 
question.

I do create a derivative database and from that a produced work and 
publish it. So I must make that data available.


How?


1. Do I need to make it available immediately or upon request?

2. Does it need to be online or can I send it?

3. Do I have to update it as often as my produced work or can there be 
other intervals?

4. Do I have to provide it as an SQL database or is a database dump or 
an OSM XML export sufficient?

5. What if my data is in a platform-dependent format?

6. Do I just have to provide the raw data or do I have to process it to 
facilitate import to OSM?

7. Do I just provide the data or do I have to document in any way what 
it is, what I changed/added and how I used it?


This has been asked in the German forum.

bye
Nop

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[Russ Nelson]

On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Nop wrote:


Pay attention to what? There was no attempt to inform a wider number  
of

people.


I'm a small fish in the OSM pond, but I managed to notice Steve's  
opengeodata.org posting of last January talking about relicensing:

http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=262

--
Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson
r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting

[Simon Ward]

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:18:48AM +, Ed Avis wrote:
> You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a non-relicensing
> contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept.

Are you responding to my mail, or one earlier in the thread?  I stated
that everything should be reverted to before each incompatible change.

> The only sound rule that can be sure to stand up in court is to delete all 
> data
> from the contributors who didn't give explicit permission, and all data that
> depends on it.  Period.

Yes, like this.

If you are referring to my mail, I can only assume you are referring to
the last example sequence of edits I gave, and you assume that C’s edits
are dependent on B’s incompatible edits.  C created a completely new way
where there was none.  C may or may not have seen B’s removal of A’s
scribble, but regardless, his edit is a completely new work.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik coastline shapefile update - Philippine coast still somewhat square when exported

[Jon Burgess]

On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 13:41 +0800, D Tucny wrote:


> There's a large chunk of bad coastline around The Philippines that's
> been there since some shapefile update in the recent past...

I only updated the low zoom shapefiles last time. I just pushed an
updated set of low zoom ones too but that won't start rendering until
the weekly mapnik import finishes in a few hours.

> It can be seen here...
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=15.481&lon=120.274&zoom=9&layers=B000FTFT 
> 
> The coastline is all OK now (there were a couple of problems at one
> point) and the view at the coastline checker
> (http://tile.openstreetmap.nl/coastlines.html?lat=15.481&lon=120.274&zoom=9) 
> and a local mapnik render I've done using the coastline checker output both 
> show the coastline correctly...

OK, we'll see how things turn out tomorrow.

> A trac ticket was raised about this problem a couple of days ago now,
> but, I'd have expected an update of the shapefiles to have corrected
> this... It looks like it's only corrected the problem above zoom level
> 10 though suggesting that only the processed_p shapefiles have been
> updated...

Yes

> So... some questions...
> Is there a problem with the world boundaries shapefiles being used? 

No

> Were they generated from the processed_p shapefiles at some point?

They were derived from vmap0 data and we are slowly replacing them with
data derived solely from the planet.osm file.

I have just committed the changes into the mapnik osm.xml files so you
can see how they are used, I was holding back because there were some
occasional rendering issues, but I think these are resolved now.

>  Are the world boundaries files used on tile different to the ones
> packaged here
> http://tile.openstreetmap.org/world_boundaries-spherical.tgz? 

The ones on the live map are different.

> What would be involved in regenerating them? Once regenerated, could
> new ones be made available somewhere?

http://tile.openstreetmap.org/shoreline_300.tar.bz2

They are generated using the same coastcheck utility as is used for
processed_p but with some slightly different parameters and some data
simplification. The details are in:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-January/013485.html

Since I wrote that email I found that the RESOLUTION setting caused some
issues, the current values I use are:

#define RESOLUTION  0
#define TILE_OVERLAP  2
#define MAX_SEGS  200

Jon



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

[OSM-legal-talk] Anyone going to OKCon 2009

[Gustav Foseid]

Are any of the other nitpick^H^H^H^H^H^H participants on this list going to
the Open Knowledge Conference this year? I was thinking of making the trip
to London to see what is going on there.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[Nop]

Hi!

Russ Nelson schrieb:
>>
>> Pay attention to what? There was no attempt to inform a wider number of
>> people. 
> 
> I'm a small fish in the OSM pond, but I managed to notice Steve's 
> opengeodata.org posting of last January talking about relicensing:
> http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=262

And I never heard of it until now. And wasn't in OSM when it was posted.

As were probably more than 50% of the current members. But I guess it's 
their own fault if 5 people fail to scan blogs at a different site 
for half-year old entries. Not worth a notification or a prominent hint 
in the wiki.

come on

Nop


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[Ed Loach]

> And I never heard of it until now. And wasn't in OSM when it

> was posted.

> 

> As were probably more than 50% of the current members. But I

> guess it's

> their own fault if 5 people fail to scan blogs at a

> different site

> for half-year old entries. Not worth a notification or a

> prominent hint

> in the wiki.

 

There was discussion about the licence change process being stalled
on this list last September, a couple of weeks after I joined this
list (and about a month after I started mapping):

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-September/029700.
html

(and replies). I think I looked into the new licence via the wiki at
that time. The FAQs

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#What_does_your_licence_allow_
me_to_do.3F

still link to the geodata post mentioned.

 

Ed

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Nop  wrote:
> Pay attention to what? There was no attempt to inform a wider number of
> people. That is exactly the point. I have been around for 6 months, I am
> subscribed to talk and talk-de and until two weeks ago I was completely
> unaware that there was a planned change of licence at all. And then it
> was not some official information but mentioned in a private discussion.

Out of curiosity, what would have been better? The licence has been
recognised to be a problem for years, it was known well before I
joined. It's been discussed at almost every OSM meeting I've been at.
But you're right, we didn't plaster a huge banner on the front page
advertising it because frankly that would be pointless. How many
people knew wikipedia had a licence problem before they changed?

I thought there was a message added while creating an account along
the line of "the data is under CC-BY-SA but may be changed at some
later date". hmm, looks like that never happened, oh well.

I'm just wondering what kind of notification would have been
appropriate for you.

Have a nice day,
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout  http://svana.org/kleptog/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[nicholas . g . lawrence]

How about the option of contributors transferring their
copyright to OSM (the legal entity) which can then choose
to release the data under an appropriate license?

This way, every time that it is necessary to change the
license, it would not be necessary to get explicit
agreement from every single contributor.

Even if not everyone thinks this is a good idea, it
is likely that _some_ contributors do like the idea.

Does the option exist for individual contributors to
voluntarily transfer copyright to OSM?

nick


***
WARNING: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain legally
privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by
copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was intended
to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way.  No one is 
allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print 
or copy this e-mail without appropriate authority.

If this e-mail was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake,
please telephone or e-mail me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of
this e-mail and delete it and any copies of it from your computer
system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and 
any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this e-mail is not 
waived or destroyed by that mistake.

It is your responsibility to ensure that this e-mail does not contain
and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by
third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with
your computer system).

Opinions contained in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of the Queensland Department of Main Roads, Queensland
Transport or Maritime Safety Queensland, or endorsed organisations
utilising the same infrastructure.
***


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[Russ Nelson]

On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Nop wrote:


And I never heard of it until now. And wasn't in OSM when it was  
posted.


Fair enough, but any time you join a group there will be efforts  
underway which you haven't contributed to, not know about, nor had any  
effect on.  I guess that given the growth in OSM users perhaps we  
should convince the OSMF to write a weekly "Welcome to OSM; here's  
what's going on" message.



But I guess it's
their own fault if 5 people fail to scan blogs at a different site
for half-year old entries. Not worth a notification or a prominent  
hint

in the wiki.


Click "BLOG" on http://openstreetmap.org/

--
Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson
r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - > How to make a nightmare come true!

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, nicholas.g.lawre...@mainroads.qld.gov.au 
escribió:
> How about the option of contributors transferring their
> copyright to OSM (the legal entity) which can then choose
> to release the data under an appropriate license?

This is not a good idea because the OSMF can be "bought out" quite easily by a 
big company.

-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega 

Eight hours of work and all I managed to do was learn that the only reason 
they call it "Windows" is because prolonged usage makes you want to throw 
your computer through one...


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[Matt Amos]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Dave Stubbs  wrote:
> Your 8 year old kids would be obliged to license their butterfly
> data under the ODbL [1] and attribute OSM.
>
> [1] Ignoring potential bug in 0.9 draft

its not a bug, its a feature ;-)

cheers,

matt

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

[OSM-legal-talk] License working group meeting minutes - 2/2/2009

[Grant Slater]

License working group meeting minutes from 2 Feb 2009 are now available 
here:
http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/officers-board/working-group-minutes/
More to follow...

I believe the first agenda item is what pushed towards the suggestion of 
using the Factual Information License for individual contributions.

Regards
 Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[Russ Nelson]

On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:


El Miércoles, 4 de Marzo de 2009, nicholas.g.lawre...@mainroads.qld.gov.au
escribió:

How about the option of contributors transferring their
copyright to OSM (the legal entity) which can then choose
to release the data under an appropriate license?


This is not a good idea because the OSMF can be "bought out" quite  
easily by a

big company.


We've had this discussion about membership at the Open Source  
Initiative.  Basically, if you have an organization where all it takes  
to join is the cost of a six-pack of beer plus a warm body, then when  
you get threatened by enough corporate flunkies paid to join and vote  
their master's wishes, and you issue a "SAVE US" call to your  
organization and they won't join and out-vote the flunkies ... then  
your organization sucks anyway and deserves to die.


It's not a real threat to a functioning organization.  I think the OSM  
and its foundation are a functioning organization, so I counsel you to  
not worry about the OSMF being taken over.


But it also might be the better part of wisdom for the OSMF to say  
that you have to be a member for a month before you can vote.


--
Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson
r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting

[MP]

OK, so lets assume that some data would have to be deleted (hopefully
not lot of them, otherwise it would probably kill the project and
spawn some forks with "complete" cc-by-sa data). Where there is the
exact line between deleted and kept data is on another debate, but I
wonder the way how the data would be deleted:

- Would people know in advance what data are going to be
deleted/reverted, so they can perhaps delete and redraw them themself?
- If yes, how that would be done and how long before marking the data
and actual deletion?
- After deletion, would there be some marker like "there is something
deleted from here"/"this way was reverted" for people to see, so they
can improve the data again?
- Would there be some "log" summarizing what data was/are going to be
deleted from where after/before the deletion?

Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[nicholas . g . lawrence]

> > How about the option of contributors transferring their
> > copyright to OSM (the legal entity) which can then choose
> > to release the data under an appropriate license?

> This is not a good idea because the OSMF can be "bought out" quite easily
by a
> big company.

I don't understand. Bought out how?

nick


***
WARNING: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain legally
privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by
copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was intended
to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way.  No one is 
allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print 
or copy this e-mail without appropriate authority.

If this e-mail was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake,
please telephone or e-mail me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of
this e-mail and delete it and any copies of it from your computer
system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and 
any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this e-mail is not 
waived or destroyed by that mistake.

It is your responsibility to ensure that this e-mail does not contain
and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by
third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with
your computer system).

Opinions contained in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of the Queensland Department of Main Roads, Queensland
Transport or Maritime Safety Queensland, or endorsed organisations
utilising the same infrastructure.
***


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[Nop]

Hi!

Russ Nelson schrieb:
 > On Mar 4, 2009, at 5:14 PM, Nop wrote:
 >>
 >> And I never heard of it until now. And wasn't in OSM when it was posted.
 >
 > Fair enough, but any time you join a group there will be efforts
 > underway which you haven't contributed to, not know about, nor had any
 > effect on.  I guess that given the growth in OSM users perhaps we should
 > convince the OSMF to write a weekly "Welcome to OSM; here's what's going
 > on" message.

Yes. At least when you expect 10 people to go along and the issue 
has the potential to break OSM apart, it would not be a bad idea to send 
monthly information about the state of things.

But my point is that you would have needed to actively inform people. It 
is plain silly to blame them for not getting involved when you simply 
did not give them any real chance to do so.

Originally you would only have had to convince the hardliners holding 
fast to the old licence.
Now you will have to fight the rumours and half-informed opinions 
circling around the community and win back those who feel overrun and 
pressed by the time frame, those who feel angry about the blundering or 
brazen way this has been handled, those who feel disoriented and afraid 
their work might be taken away or destroyed and eventually those who 
suspect you to serve some obscure self-interest.

And now that you hopefully get an idea of how many people actually want 
to get involved, you need to give them the time to do so. How many 
people do you think are involved by now on the mailing lists? 0.1% of 
the community? 0.2%?

 >
 >> But I guess it's
 >> their own fault if 5 people fail to scan blogs at a different site
 >> for half-year old entries. Not worth a notification or a prominent hint
 >> in the wiki.
 >
 > Click "BLOG" on http://openstreetmap.org/

"Hardware Upgrade Appeal: Thank you"

So what? I guess nobody digs back 9-14 months there.

bye
Nop


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? - > How to make a nightmare come true!

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El Jueves, 5 de Marzo de 2009, nicholas.g.lawre...@mainroads.qld.gov.au 
escribió:
> > > How about the option of contributors transferring their
> > > copyright to OSM (the legal entity) which can then choose
> > > to release the data under an appropriate license?
> >
> > This is not a good idea because the OSMF can be "bought out" quite easily
> > by a big company.
>
> I don't understand. Bought out how?

Don't know, with money?

Basically, you get enough people (and pay for their memberships) in order to 
buy their votes, in order to eject the current chairman, yadda yadda yadda.

-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega 

You have no real enemies.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Matt Amos wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Dave Stubbs  wrote:
>> Your 8 year old kids would be obliged to license their butterfly
>> data under the ODbL [1] and attribute OSM.
>>
>> [1] Ignoring potential bug in 0.9 draft
> 
> its not a bug, its a feature ;-)

Well... a feature that would allow Google to assimilate our minutely 
diffs into their giant database where they mix it with TeleAtlas and 
Navteq data to provide tiles that display the "best of three worlds" and 
neither share the tiles nor anything in between.

That "feature" is something that was introduced without so much as a 
word from anyone between the April 2008 and the 0.9 drafts. If this were 
intentional, then someone had to hang for trying to deceive the 
community. And I would personally tie the rope because I have tirelessly 
advocated ODbL to anyone who was stupid enough to ask me by saying that 
we let go of Produced Works and replace this with demands made on 
interim derived databases that would never see the light of day under 
CC-BY-SA. But... cockup rather than conspiracy.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Map tag in Wikipedia

[Harry Wood]

My three step plan for developing the Simple Map MediaWiki extension  
( tag) :

1) Disable the old syntax (with '|' chars) after we've finished changing 
all pages on the OSM wiki. Same with the slippy map plugin

2) Add support for 'layer=mapnik' and other layers. Use ojw's new 
'GetMap' instead of his old 'MapOf' service, and maybe get the static 
maps service hosted at a better URL.

3) Take over wikipedia and then the world


Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote
 > Just installing an extension on Wikimedia and pulling tiles from OSM
 > would not be acceptable:
 >
 > * Wikimedia would need its own updated Planet dump
 > * Its own tile rendering infrastructure

Not necessarily. They could maybe just run the static image requests 
(and possibly even slippy map tile requests) via wikimedia's beefy squid 
proxy set-up. I think that was Tim Starling's idea when I chatted to him 
about it. But that was a while ago. Yes we should probably raise the 
discussion on wikitech-l (although this is step 3)


Ed Loach wrote
 > Funnily enough I've just been amending some wiki pages which used the 
old  syntax where z= or zoom= where allowed; the new syntax only 
supports z=.

Sorry that was bug. Fixed now, although there's no harm in switching all 
pages to use 'z'


Harry Wood


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM license change: A license to kill? -> How to make a nightmare come true!

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> Basically, you get enough people (and pay for their memberships) in order to 
> buy their votes, in order to eject the current chairman, yadda yadda yadda.

If you're unhappy with the current chairman you don't even have to eject 
him. Quote from the Articles of Association governing the running of OSMF:

"A member of the Board may [...] at any time, summon a meeting of the 
Board by notice served upon the several members of the Board. A member 
of the Board who is absent from the United Kingdom shall not be entitled 
to notice of a meeting."

And:

"The Board may meet together for the dispatch of business, adjourn and 
otherwise regulate their meetings as they think fit, and determine the 
quorum necessary for the transaction of business. Unless otherwise 
determined, two shall be a quorum."

So if the timing is right, you'll probably just have to buy one or two 
board members to get what you want ;-)

Bye
Frederik

(This is meant as a funny way to say that, when other important business 
has been resolved, we should perhaps one day clean up the AoA; it is not 
meant to suggest that there was something wrong with those serving on 
the OSMF board.)

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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