date:20091205

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Dec 5, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:

  If you are an OSMF member then you should have received an email
  about this vote, which contains a URL with which you can access this
  site. If you have not received an email, first please check your
  spam folder then, if it still cannot be found, contact the OSMF
  membership secretary: membership at osmfoundation dot org.
 
  If you are not an OSMF member, you can read the final version of our
  formal proposal at:

 Is this email implying that contributers to OSM who are not members o
 the OSMF can not vote on the license decision?

 If so, how are non-OSMF members represented in this vote?


If a non-OSMF member rejects the Contributor Terms, all their contributions
get removed from the new database.  That's pretty good representation!
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Create two new categories for lawyers, architects, plumbers, etc

2009-12-05 Thread Tobias Knerr

Pieren wrote:
 We've long since passed the point where amenity is an accurate
 description for the value that comes after it. In the OpenStreetMap
 database amenity is best pronounced as a thingy :)
 
 Is that a reason to not improve things (or try to )?

Is introducing somewhat arbitrary categories really an improvement? It's
just another thing I need to memorize.

What I want to enter is actually
lawyer
museum
brothel
and so on.

These aren't two atoms of data, just one. Unfortunately, there is the
technical requirement to provide two strings - key and value. A thingy
key (could be type or poi or whatever just as well as amenity) is
a method to work around this.

Tobias Knerr

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread Liz

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Anthony wrote:
  Is this email implying that contributers to OSM who are not members o
  the OSMF can not vote on the license decision?
 
  If so, how are non-OSMF members represented in this vote?

 If a non-OSMF member rejects the Contributor Terms, all their contributions
 get removed from the new database.  That's pretty good representation!

quote
An email has been sent to 265 members with membership in good standing (paid) 
as of October 13th 2009. It has instructions and a unique personal link for 
voting.
/quote

265 persons out of tens of thousands is in no way representative.
Whatever the result, this will not have been made by enough people to be 
accepted as valid.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread Tom Hughes

On 05/12/09 21:47, Liz wrote:

 quote
 An email has been sent to 265 members with membership in good standing (paid)
 as of October 13th 2009. It has instructions and a unique personal link for
 voting.
 /quote

 265 persons out of tens of thousands is in no way representative.
 Whatever the result, this will not have been made by enough people to be
 accepted as valid.

Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another 
vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to 
relicense.

Tom

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Create two new categories for lawyers, architects, plumbers, etc

2009-12-05 Thread Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 21:46, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
 Pieren wrote:
 We've long since passed the point where amenity is an accurate
 description for the value that comes after it. In the OpenStreetMap
 database amenity is best pronounced as a thingy :)

 Is that a reason to not improve things (or try to )?

 Is introducing somewhat arbitrary categories really an improvement? It's
 just another thing I need to memorize.

 What I want to enter is actually
 lawyer
 museum
 brothel
 and so on.

 These aren't two atoms of data, just one. Unfortunately, there is the
 technical requirement to provide two strings - key and value. A thingy
 key (could be type or poi or whatever just as well as amenity) is
 a method to work around this.

There's a technical requirement to enter key-value pairs *in the raw
data* but nothing stops some editor implementing things so that you
can do as you suggest in the UI. JOSM already has this via its presets
and Potlatch 2 will have something like this as well.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

Tom Hughes schrieb:
 On 05/12/09 21:47, Liz wrote:
 
 quote
 An email has been sent to 265 members with membership in good standing (paid)
 as of October 13th 2009. It has instructions and a unique personal link for
 voting.
 /quote

 265 persons out of tens of thousands is in no way representative.
 Whatever the result, this will not have been made by enough people to be
 accepted as valid.
 
 Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another 
 vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to 
 relicense.

With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th 
February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed 
downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing..

If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding 
about voting.

Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread Tom Hughes

On 05/12/09 22:44, Ulf Lamping wrote:
 Tom Hughes schrieb:

 Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
 vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
 relicense.

 With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th
 February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed
 downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing..

My understanding is that after all contributors have been invited to 
agree to relicensing the board will make a decision about whether to go 
ahead which will obviously have to take into account the proportion of 
contributors who have agreed to relicense.

Tom

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread Ian Dees

On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:

 On 05/12/09 21:47, Liz wrote:

 quote
 An email has been sent to 265 members with membership in good  
 standing (paid)
 as of October 13th 2009. It has instructions and a unique personal  
 link for
 voting.
 /quote

 265 persons out of tens of thousands is in no way representative.
 Whatever the result, this will not have been made by enough people  
 to be
 accepted as valid.

 Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
 vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
 relicense.


Why not start with that step?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread James Livingston

On 06/12/2009, at 8:44 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:

 Tom Hughes schrieb:
 Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another 
 vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to 
 relicense.
 
 With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th 
 February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed 
 downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing..
 
 If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding 
 about voting.

I'd say it isn't a vote, it's asking whether you agree to relicense your 
contributions under the ODbL subject to the Contributor Terms. I would imagine 
there are quite a few people who couldn't legitimately agree to that, even if 
they want the ODbL. Have you ever important any CC-BY(-SA) data using your 
account? If so, they I would think that you can't legally agree because you are 
not the copyright holder of all your contributions.

For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed Queensland 
DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and world-heritage areas 
from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au. As I'm not the copyright 
holder of those base datasets, I don't see how I could agree to the 
relicensing, or contributor terms which allow for future relicensing.  Does 
that mean everything I've ever contributed (even my own work) has to be 
deleted? Probably.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

Tom Hughes schrieb:
 On 05/12/09 22:44, Ulf Lamping wrote:
 Tom Hughes schrieb:

 Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
 vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
 relicense.

 With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th
 February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed
 downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing..
 
 My understanding is that after all contributors have been invited to 
 agree to relicensing the board will make a decision about whether to go 
 ahead which will obviously have to take into account the proportion of 
 contributors who have agreed to relicense.

So translated: If you do not agree to what the OSMF wants, the OSMF will 
remove the data that you have collected over the last years. Maybe there 
are too many not willing to change, then we have to talk again.

Don't you see that this is a complete inappropriate way to deal with an 
open community?

Regards, ULFL

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

[OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

Hi!

Just reading:

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


Where user Steve added:

---
What about the 'no' page?

It's mainly full of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) and is marked as 
inaccurate. There are discussion on those problems on the Why You Should 
Vote No talk page.

Please be aware that any open source project has a wide range of 
opinions, and you will find some of the more bizarre and extreme on the 
'No' page. That doesn't represent a consensus but the disruptive work of 
a few disaffected people getting hot headed.

-- This unsigned comment was added by User:Steve 21:34, 5 December 2009
---


Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's 
position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own opinion.

Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM data?

Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

James Livingston schrieb:
 On 06/12/2009, at 8:44 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
 If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding 
 about voting.
 
 I'd say it isn't a vote, it's asking whether you agree to relicense your 
 contributions under the ODbL subject to the Contributor Terms. I would 
 imagine there are quite a few people who couldn't legitimately agree to that, 
 even if they want the ODbL. Have you ever important any CC-BY(-SA) data using 
 your account? If so, they I would think that you can't legally agree because 
 you are not the copyright holder of all your contributions.
 
 For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed 
 Queensland DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and 
 world-heritage areas from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au. As I'm 
 not the copyright holder of those base datasets, I don't see how I could 
 agree to the relicensing, or contributor terms which allow for future 
 relicensing.  Does that mean everything I've ever contributed (even my own 
 work) has to be deleted? Probably.

Even worse, how do you know if stuff you've entered to OSM which is 
based on your own *and* other OSM mappers (CC-by-SA) work doesn't count 
as a derivative work?

Potentially, you would relicense stuff to the ODBL derived from existing 
CC-by-SA OSM data - which would be an illegal copyright infringement.

Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

2009-12-05 Thread Iván Sánchez Ortega

El Domingo, 6 de Diciembre de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
 Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
 position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own
 opinion.

 Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM
 data?

May I remind everyone, the OSMF elects a chairman once every year. If you're 
so displeased with SteveC's administration, stand up for the election at the 
next AGM.


Cheers,
-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es

http://ivan.sanchezortega.es
MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com
Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net
IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC  freenode


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] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

2009-12-05 Thread Liz

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Ulf Lamping wrote:
 Hi!

 Just reading:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Ye
s


 Where user Steve added:

 ---
 What about the 'no' page?

 It's mainly full of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) and is marked as
 inaccurate. There are discussion on those problems on the Why You Should
 Vote No talk page.

 Please be aware that any open source project has a wide range of
 opinions, and you will find some of the more bizarre and extreme on the
 'No' page. That doesn't represent a consensus but the disruptive work of
 a few disaffected people getting hot headed.

 -- This unsigned comment was added by User:Steve 21:34, 5 December 2009
 ---


 Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
 position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own
 opinion.

 Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM
 data?

 Regards, ULFL


SteveC marked the NO page as in dispute. No, he didn't mark the YES page as in 
dispute.
If there was no dispute there would be no need for a vote.

I find the graffiti on the NO page very disturbing. It is intended as a 
statement page by those who differ, and those who want to put positive 
comments on the new licence should use their own page.

Liz


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

2009/12/5 Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com:
 Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
 position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own opinion.

 Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM data?


Are we an organization made up of passionate human mappers, not
corporate marketing droids.
Steve is a great guy. Buy him a good beer in a pub and he'll be a pussycat.

/ Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...


On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
 Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's 
 position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own opinion.

I'm not allowed to have opinions?

 Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM data?

The OSMF wont own the data and you know it.

Yours c.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...


On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Liz wrote:
 
 
 SteveC marked the NO page as in dispute. No, he didn't mark the YES page as 
 in 
 dispute.
 If there was no dispute there would be no need for a vote.


I answered this on osmf-talk, why're you bringing it up over here?

There was a dispute, I marked it as such... big deal. I could have done a lot 
worse.

Yours c.

Steve


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

James Livingston schreef:
 For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed
 Queensland DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and
 world-heritage areas from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au.
 As I'm not the copyright holder of those base datasets, I don't see
 how I could agree to the relicensing, or contributor terms which
 allow for future relicensing.  Does that mean everything I've ever
 contributed (even my own work) has to be deleted? Probably.

Thanks for setting this example. You can extend it to any data from
Wikipedia. And most government related imports from The Netherlands. I
have pointed this out on the talk-nl list as well.


Stefan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREKAAYFAksa8F0ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0SJwCfR//f6eebGmWRR3z9uHzNjnaX
5MEAn2QLuznZPfrN9LaChMLx89YsUwQx
=dd/X
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

2009/12/5 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
 I find the graffiti on the NO page very disturbing. It is intended as a
 statement page by those who differ, and those who want to put positive
 comments on the new licence should use their own page.


So the REPLY: 's are graffiti?
If a statement is untrue or factually incorrect can it not be challenged?

For the ODbL yes page then:
Saying yes to ODbL will make the UK warm in winter, Malta bigger and
bring rains to western Australia. ;-)

/ Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

2009-12-05 Thread Elizabeth Dodd

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
 On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Liz wrote:
  SteveC marked the NO page as in dispute. No, he didn't mark the YES page
  as in dispute.
  If there was no dispute there would be no need for a vote.

 I answered this on osmf-talk, why're you bringing it up over here?

Because there are a large number of people on this list who are not on osmf-
talk.


 There was a dispute, I marked it as such... big deal. I could have done a
 lot worse.

 Yours c.

 Steve




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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread Frederik Ramm

Hi,

James Livingston wrote:
 For example, I have inferred road positions from the CC-BY-licensed
 Queensland DCDB-lite dataset, and have uploaded national park and
 world-heritage areas from the CC-BY dataset on data.australia.gov.au.
 As I'm not the copyright holder of those base datasets, I don't see
 how I could agree to the relicensing, or contributor terms which
 allow for future relicensing.  Does that mean everything I've ever
 contributed (even my own work) has to be deleted? Probably.

Are we sure that CC-BY is any more incompatible with ODbL that what 
we're doing now? I mean, nominally we have CC-BY-SA but 
data.australia.gov.au is not listed on the maps anywhere...

If CC-BY were really unusable for us then my completely unoffical take 
on this would be:

If you have only inferred a very small number of elements then just 
ignore it and say yes.

If we're talking about a lot of data, and if you have put proper 
source tags in or tagged your changesets in a way that makes them 
discernible, then we can find a way to open a new account and transfer 
this tainted data to the new account and you then accept the 
relicensing with your old account.

Lawyers might scorn me for this but I think it is ok to do this on a 
best effort basis, i.e. if we should miss one data item or another 
during such a process then we're not going to be sued to death because 
of that.

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] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb:
 El Domingo, 6 de Diciembre de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
 Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
 position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own
 opinion.

 Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM
 data?
 
 May I remind everyone, the OSMF elects a chairman once every year. If you're 
 so displeased with SteveC's administration, stand up for the election at the 
 next AGM.

May I remind the OSMF that from the Wiki page[1]:

The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international non-profit 
organisation supporting but not controlling the project.

If that is true, I have no motivation to participate in the OSMF.


However, the currently planned action in the license change (especially 
in the way it is currently planned to be done) is IMHO controlling the 
project and nothing else.

Regards, ULFL

[1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread Kai Krueger

Ulf Lamping wrote:
 div class=moz-text-flowed style=font-family: -moz-fixedTom Hughes 
 schrieb:
 On 05/12/09 22:44, Ulf Lamping wrote:
 Tom Hughes schrieb:

 Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
 vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
 relicense.

 With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th
 February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed
 downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing..

 My understanding is that after all contributors have been invited to 
 agree to relicensing the board will make a decision about whether to 
 go ahead which will obviously have to take into account the proportion 
 of contributors who have agreed to relicense.
 
 So translated: If you do not agree to what the OSMF wants, the OSMF will 
 remove the data that you have collected over the last years. Maybe there 
 are too many not willing to change, then we have to talk again.

No, I don't think that is a fair representation. Yes, the motion that 
will be proposed is Do you agree to relicense to ODbL under the 
contributor terms, but to say you have no power in this vote is 
incorrect. In fact you have way more influence than in any normal vote, 
as the vote has to be close to unanimous as otherwise there will be far 
to much data loss as that the change will go ahead. Please trust the 
OSMF board that they have the best intent for the OSM data and will I am 
sure thus not allow that anywhere close to half of the data will get 
deleted. So the power of the no sayers is way bigger than in any normal 
vote!

This initial vote of the OSMF is as I would see it an initial straw pole 
to see if in at least this group of OSMers we can get sufficient support 
to make it work before asking ten thousands of people if they would 
agree to a license change. After that is still the real vote for or 
against going ODbL.

This is the same as in any other process, where a few dedicated and very 
capable people spend years of hard work trying to find the best 
compromise with everyone else  being able to give input and feedback 
through out the whole process which is taken into consideration. At the 
end of this process there is a vote, do you agree or not. This seems 
like the most reasonable process and the only one that has a chance to 
get any decision made in a 100 thousand strong community with very 
diverse interests.

 
 Don't you see that this is a complete inappropriate way to deal with an 
 open community?

No, as the previous process has always been pretty open with discussions 
on talk, legal-talk, the wiki and some of the mailing lists. How much 
more open do you want it to be with out spamming 15 people who are 
mostly not interested in the process of the license on every little detail?

 
 Regards, ULFL

Kai


 
 
 /div


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...


On Dec 5, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:

 On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
 On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Liz wrote:
 SteveC marked the NO page as in dispute. No, he didn't mark the YES page
 as in dispute.
 If there was no dispute there would be no need for a vote.
 
 I answered this on osmf-talk, why're you bringing it up over here?
 
 Because there are a large number of people on this list who are not on osmf-
 talk.

Don't you mean rather than admit I was wrong or talk about it where I brought 
it up, much better to try and stir the pot on another list?

Yours c.

Steve


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

2009-12-05 Thread Iván Sánchez Ortega

El Domingo, 6 de Diciembre de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió:
 May I remind the OSMF that from the Wiki page[1]:

 The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international non-profit
 organisation supporting but not controlling the project.

 However, the currently planned action in the license change (especially
 in the way it is currently planned to be done) is IMHO controlling the
 project and nothing else.

So you think that the OSMF is forcing people to do things, and controlling 
instead of supporting?

If that's the case, I urge you *again* to enter the OSMF, spend some time in 
the working groups, and stand for election as OSMF chairman, you you can set 
the right course again.


 If that is true, I have no motivation to participate in the OSMF.

... but, instead of that, you'll just shout and cry how bad is the OSMF 
instead of working to change it and end SteveC's Evil Reign(tm). Awesome.


Reading all these logic-less arguments makes me feel like feeding the trolls.

-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es

http://ivan.sanchezortega.es
MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com
Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net
IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC  freenode


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] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

2009-12-05 Thread Elizabeth Dodd

On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, you wrote:
 Don't you mean rather than admit I was wrong or talk about it where I
 brought it up, much better to try and stir the pot on another list?

i have not made personal comments about any one
i suggest you don't either



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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL

2009-12-05 Thread Richard Fairhurst

On 05/12/2009 21:31, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
 The proposed licence is not a benefit to Australians in my view.

You have generously qualified this with in my view and I should point 
out that I disagree with all the force I can muster.

I spent about two hours this morning writing a pretty detailed e-mail, 
with all the case law citations you could want, explaining how the 
recent Australian High Court judgement followed Rural v Feist in the US, 
and therefore required the contract approach of ODbL rather than the 
copyright-only approach of CC-BY-SA.

I don't think you have at all answered the points in that, and therefore 
I stand by the viewpoint that in Australia, ODbL has the best chance of 
any open, non-clickwrap licence of protecting OSM's data. CC-BY-SA will 
not protect it at all.

The e-mail is here:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000479.html

I don't mind that your vote is lost; but I hope that others will look 
into the law and the references cited, rather than taking either yours, 
or my, interpretations on trust.

Apologies for the cross-post, but you have raised this same point on all 
three lists. For anyone good enough to read and reply, please do trim 
the follow-ups.

Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

Kai Krueger schrieb:
 Don't you see that this is a complete inappropriate way to deal with 
 an open community?
 
 No, as the previous process has always been pretty open with discussions 
 on talk, legal-talk, the wiki and some of the mailing lists. How much 
 more open do you want it to be with out spamming 15 people who are 
 mostly not interested in the process of the license on every little detail?

I find it completely inappropriate to ask the fellow mappers out there:

Say yes to the new license or we'll delete your data in february

This requires a very strong opinion against the license to build the 
believe: I don't want the new license, so I'm willing to loose the last 
years of my work with OSM.


You may be right that the no sayers have more weight in the process, 
but becoming a no sayer requires a very strong believe as you 
potentially loose all your previous work.



What I would have expected would be a simple web poll with a few options 
to get a first idea what the mappers out there really want.

Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread Shaun McDonald

The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on the 
license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems than 
myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to them, 
and let them just get on with it. I really just wan this license change sorted 
out and completed as there are other more important things to be done.

Shaun

On 6 Dec 2009, at 00:37, Ulf Lamping wrote:

 Kai Krueger schrieb:
 Don't you see that this is a complete inappropriate way to deal with 
 an open community?
 
 No, as the previous process has always been pretty open with discussions 
 on talk, legal-talk, the wiki and some of the mailing lists. How much 
 more open do you want it to be with out spamming 15 people who are 
 mostly not interested in the process of the license on every little detail?
 
 I find it completely inappropriate to ask the fellow mappers out there:
 
 Say yes to the new license or we'll delete your data in february
 
 This requires a very strong opinion against the license to build the 
 believe: I don't want the new license, so I'm willing to loose the last 
 years of my work with OSM.
 
 
 You may be right that the no sayers have more weight in the process, 
 but becoming a no sayer requires a very strong believe as you 
 potentially loose all your previous work.
 
 
 
 What I would have expected would be a simple web poll with a few options 
 to get a first idea what the mappers out there really want.
 
 Regards, ULFL
 
 ___
 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] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009/12/6 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
 2009/12/6 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk:
 The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on 
 the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems 
 than myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to 
 them, and let them just get on with it. I really just wan this license 
 change sorted out and completed as there are other more important things to 
 be done.

 How many of them are practising copyright lawyers?


And of those, how diverse is the legal jurisdicitions they cover?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread Richard Fairhurst

John Smith wrote:
Shaun McDonald wrote:
The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years,
on the license
change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems than
myself. They are
people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to them, and let them
just get on with it.

How many of them are practising copyright lawyers?

ODbL was drawn up by Jordan Hatcher, who is a copyright lawyer from Texas,
in conjunction with Charlotte Waelde, who is an copyright lawyer from
Edinburgh. Jordan has been working with the LWG to reflect OSM mappers'
concerns, but over and above that, LWG has also engaged Clark Asay, who is a
copyright lawyer from California, to review the licence. The ODbL is
overseen by a board which, as well as Jordan, Charlotte and Clark, also
includes Lucie Guibault, a professor of copyright from the Netherlands, and
Andres Guadamuz, a lecturer in E-Commerce Law and consultant to the World
Intellectual Property Organisation.

So I think the answer is: five.

Creative Commons, of course, has practising copyright lawyers too. They have
said that CC-BY-SA isn't applicable to data and we shouldn't use it.

If you can cite some practising copyright lawyers who think we should
continue to use CC-BY-SA, I'm sure we'd be interested to see their opinion.

Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A--Announce--OSMF-license-change-vote-has-started-tp26659536p26661192.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] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

SteveC schrieb:
 On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
 With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th 
 February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed 
 downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing..

 If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding 
 about voting.
 
 Ulf!
 
 Wonderful to have your input at this very late stage! Can we expect you to 
 volunteer for the LWG? Please be sure to read the minutes of the last few 
 months meetings first. Even better - can you outline your alternative 
 suggestion?
 
 For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the members of the 
 OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in the first place and then 
 move on to thousands of contributors once the members had decided what to do. 
 Crazy I know! Maybe they should have started by asking random people in the 
 street.. that would be fun!
 
 Anyway, do let us all know how your plan is better than what the LWG has 
 built over the last year? Super looking forward to it!

So this is a well designed and manufactured gun still heading at the 
mappers head - to keep the picture.

Maybe the OSMF / LWG should have *asked* the people involved the most - 
the mappers?

Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009/12/6 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net:
 Creative Commons, of course, has practising copyright lawyers too. They have
 said that CC-BY-SA isn't applicable to data and we shouldn't use it.

There has also been a lot of data imported from Government sources
that released data as CC-BY-SA and I'm sure they have lawyers too.

 If you can cite some practising copyright lawyers who think we should
 continue to use CC-BY-SA, I'm sure we'd be interested to see their opinion.

I'm trying to form an informed opinion on this topic instead of simple
appeals to authority and other logical falicises to push an idea.

A lot of data, as James wrote, in Australia is tainted by CC-BY-SA
that has been released by other copyright holders and we, the
Australian OSM users, don't have authority to simply change the
license and a lot of us are expressing concerns that the work we have
put in to adding, modifying and so on will have all been for nothing
if threats to remove CC-BY-SA data goes ahead.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

2009-12-05 Thread Matthew Luehrmann

Who controls OSM?  I really am not sure.  My current understanding is that OSMF 
controls OSM, but calls it supporting: The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an 
international non-profit organisation supporting but not controlling the 
project.  

Maybe a better question that will get a less ambiguous answer, and really shows 
who is in control of OSM, is: Who owns the www.openstreetmap.org domain name.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread Frederik Ramm

Hi,

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
 The ODbL is overseen by a board which, as well as Jordan, Charlotte
 and Clark, also includes Lucie Guibault, a professor of copyright
 from the Netherlands, and Andres Guadamuz, a lecturer in E-Commerce
 Law and consultant to the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

Do you have any evidence that these latter two have actually read the 
license? Because if not then it might be questionable to list them here, 
whereas if yes, I'd love to hear what they had to say.

There have been some independent reviews of ODbL.

One relatively positive review by Axel Metzger, a German Law Professor, 
which I have partly translated here:

http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-August/000181.html

There has been a slightly more critical review of an earlier version of 
the license by a lawyer contracted by ITO:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ITO_World/ODbL_Licence_0.9_legal_review_for_ITO

And there's a review in Dutch by an Internet lawyer of which I cannot 
say whether it's good or bad:

http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabanklicentie-versie-10

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] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
  Polling the OSMF members is just the first stage - there will another
  vote later when all contributors will be asked whether they want to
  relicense.
 

 Why not start with that step?


No sense in wasting everyone's time if the OSMF members aren't going to
agree to it anyway?


On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.comwrote:

 So translated: If you do not agree to what the OSMF wants, the OSMF will
 remove the data that you have collected over the last years.


It'll still be there.  In perfect form for the fork which will inevitably
arise.

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:

 Creative Commons, of course, has practising copyright lawyers too. They
 have
 said that CC-BY-SA isn't applicable to data and we shouldn't use it.


It isn't applicable to data in jurisdictions where data can't be
copyrighted.  Part of the proposal of switching to the ODbL is to go
*beyond* copyright law by imposing an EULA (which you are deemed to have
accepted simply by visiting the OSM website.  That's the part that worries
me, and which I suppose will cause me to stop contributing (I haven't
completely decided yet, though).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

Shaun McDonald schrieb:
 The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on 
 the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems than 
 myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to them, 
 and let them just get on with it. I really just wan this license change 
 sorted out and completed as there are other more important things to be done.

That probably reflects the problem best.

I do *not* know the people from the License Working Group (as I guess 
most mappers won't do) - therefore I have no reasons to trust them or not.

I do *not* see it as my personal duty to build trust in a license change 
that some people (I do not know) are trying to do.

I can't see (by far) *any* more important thing in OSM than what will 
happen to my data in the future.

Regards, ULFL


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009/12/6 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
 There have been some independent reviews of ODbL.

snip

There is also Andrea Rossato who the Italian OSM community hired
independently to review the license.

I believe he said something like ODbL is CC BY-SA without the problems.

Could someone from the Italian community confirm?

Regards
 Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
 No sense in wasting everyone's time if the OSMF members aren't going to
 agree to it anyway?

I'm pretty sure he meant asking contributors before threatening to
remove their contributions.

 It'll still be there.  In perfect form for the fork which will inevitably
 arise.

Which will be a real shame, this is where Google will really get it's
claws in because people will be able to map without worrying about
data disappearing.

 It isn't applicable to data in jurisdictions where data can't be
 copyrighted.  Part of the proposal of switching to the ODbL is to go
 *beyond* copyright law by imposing an EULA (which you are deemed to have
 accepted simply by visiting the OSM website.  That's the part that worries
 me, and which I suppose will cause me to stop contributing (I haven't
 completely decided yet, though).

Click through type agreements have already been deemed as
unenforceable, so I fail to see how agreeing to this by visiting a
site would be more enforceable?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com  
wrote:

 SteveC schrieb:
 On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
 With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently  
 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in  
 ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue  
 contributing..

 If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different  
 understanding about voting.
 Ulf!
 Wonderful to have your input at this very late stage! Can we expect  
 you to volunteer for the LWG? Please be sure to read the minutes of  
 the last few months meetings first. Even better - can you outline  
 your alternative suggestion?
 For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the  
 members of the OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in the  
 first place and then move on to thousands of contributors once the  
 members had decided what to do. Crazy I know! Maybe they should  
 have started by asking random people in the street.. that would be  
 fun!
 Anyway, do let us all know how your plan is better than what the  
 LWG has built over the last year? Super looking forward to it!

 So this is a well designed and manufactured gun still heading at the  
 mappers head - to keep the picture.

 Maybe the OSMF / LWG should have *asked* the people involved the  
 most - the mappers?

Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims  
this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of  
consultations?

Yours c.

Steve



 Regards, ULFL


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

On Dec 5, 2009, at 17:17, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote:

 On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, you wrote:
 Don't you mean rather than admit I was wrong or talk about it  
 where I
 brought it up, much better to try and stir the pot on another list?

 i have not made personal comments about any one
 i suggest you don't either


I'll take that as a yes




 ___
 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] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
 Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims
 this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of
 consultations?

How is insulting people going to help things?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread Cartinus

On Sunday 06 December 2009 02:25:16 Frederik Ramm wrote:
 And there's a review in Dutch by an Internet lawyer of which I cannot
 say whether it's good or bad:

 http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabank
licentie-versie-10

Basically he is saying that he thinks that in the Netherlands the copyright 
part won't work, the browse-wrap (contract) part might not always work and 
the database protection part definitely works.

So the end result is, that ODbL can be used to protect OSM in the Netherlands 
(in his opinion).

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

2009-12-05 Thread Kai Krueger

Matthew Luehrmann wrote:
 Who controls OSM?  I really am not sure.  My current understanding is that 
 OSMF controls OSM, but calls it supporting: The OpenStreetMap Foundation 
 is an international non-profit organisation supporting but not controlling 
 the project.  
 
 Maybe a better question that will get a less ambiguous answer, and really 
 shows who is in control of OSM, is: Who owns the www.openstreetmap.org domain 
 name.

As far as I know, OSMF owns the domain www.openstreetmap.org, as does it 
own the servers on which OSM runs. But how does that not fit the 
definition of Support. OSMF runs all the infrastructure and provides 
the technical support to run OSM and make it possible and therefore 
support it. It does not however interfere with any tagging, decide what 
to map or what not to map, decide what gets rendered on the map or any 
other of those types of aspects that you might consider control OSM. It 
also does not own other domains like openstreetmap.de or all the other 
servers that are part of OSM, such as the t...@h, trapi or XAPI server or 
any of the servers hosting the national sites. It does not own copyright 
on the data (otherwise there wouldn't be a need for a licensing debate). 
So altogether, if OSMF died or got taken over, OpenStreetMap would still 
survive and continue, even though it would hurt it considerably. So I 
think that fits quite nicely into the idea of supporting the community 
rather than controlling it. And even the licensing debate could be seen 
as support even though that indeed has a little bit more of a 
controlling element to it. But it is support in that the current license 
is broken and inapplicable to geodata as has every lawyer they have 
asked so far said (as far as I can tell). They then went and spent an 
enormous amount of time discussing the issue with various copyright 
lawyers, with OSM community members and anyone else who wanted to 
discuss it and help with the progress and make sure that the views of 
the entire community get heard in the legal process. And now that they 
have come up with a proposal that is as close as possible in spirit to 
the old license that everyone has agreed to, they first present it for a 
vote to OSMF members and if they agree that it is good enough present it 
for a vote to all members.

Kai

 
 
 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

2009/12/6 Matthew Luehrmann matthew.luehrm...@gmail.com:
 Who controls OSM?  I really am not sure.  My current understanding is that 
 OSMF controls OSM, but calls it supporting: The OpenStreetMap Foundation 
 is an international non-profit organisation supporting but not controlling 
 the project.

 Maybe a better question that will get a less ambiguous answer, and really 
 shows who is in control of OSM, is: Who owns the www.openstreetmap.org domain 
 name.


Steve Coast registered it when he started the project. Some in the OSM
community didn't like him having it only in his own name so Steve
handed the domain to the democratically elected OSMF.

Should everyone be giving the login to GoDaddy and a set of the server
room keys?

/ Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Frederik Ramm schreef:
 And there's a review in Dutch by an Internet lawyer of which I cannot 
 say whether it's good or bad:
 
 http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabanklicentie-versie-10

I can... before Arnoud already pointed out that factual information
doesn't contain any copyright. Only the stylesheet that create a map is
the creative work, that might include the software to do so.

What he points out is that in a legal case in NL between an ISP and a
spam-company that the owner, here the ISP, has a contractual right to
limit the usage of the resources.

Now the ODbL licence is actually targeting a third person. So not the
publisher (OSM), not the user (2nd party) but the visitor of the user.
And he claims this can be a very interesting case... because the 2nd
party might actually have accepted the ODbL, but his visitor did not,
can a visitor therefore be held to the ODbL contract...


Stefan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREKAAYFAksbDtQACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1grQCfUei564SVD8GtPlIDSo4BrjJe
mP0AmgPdHoLcQWNQO5sgESAkY65G0TJF
=Rdem
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

SteveC schrieb:
 On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
 
 SteveC schrieb:
 On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
 With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently 
 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL 
 licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing..

 If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding 
 about voting.
 Ulf!
 Wonderful to have your input at this very late stage! Can we expect 
 you to volunteer for the LWG? Please be sure to read the minutes of 
 the last few months meetings first. Even better - can you outline 
 your alternative suggestion?
 For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the 
 members of the OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in the 
 first place and then move on to thousands of contributors once the 
 members had decided what to do. Crazy I know! Maybe they should have 
 started by asking random people in the street.. that would be fun!
 Anyway, do let us all know how your plan is better than what the LWG 
 has built over the last year? Super looking forward to it!

 So this is a well designed and manufactured gun still heading at the 
 mappers head - to keep the picture.

 Maybe the OSMF / LWG should have *asked* the people involved the most 
 - the mappers?
 
 Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims this 
 has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of 
 consultations?

Yes, that's you're personal way of dealing with opinions that you don't 
like. The next stage will be that you claim that you are evil. We all 
know that.

But how does that respond in any way to the suggestion I've made? do we 
already have numbers about mappers that are in need of a better license, 
can accept a PD license, will never want to change the license, ...

To the best of my knowledge ... no!

Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:33 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:

 2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
  It isn't applicable to data in jurisdictions where data can't be
  copyrighted.  Part of the proposal of switching to the ODbL is to go
  *beyond* copyright law by imposing an EULA (which you are deemed to have
  accepted simply by visiting the OSM website.  That's the part that
 worries
  me, and which I suppose will cause me to stop contributing (I haven't
  completely decided yet, though).

 Click through type agreements have already been deemed as
 unenforceable,


Can you provide me with a few links to back that up (off-list or on the
legal list if you think it's too off-topic)?  To my knowledge the
enforceability is spotty and unclear.


 so I fail to see how agreeing to this by visiting a
 site would be more enforceable?


I'm not sure if it's enforceable or not.  And I've asked on the legal list
(so far without an answer) whether or not agreeing to the Contributor Terms
requires also agreeing to the ODbL in ways that purport to reach beyond
copyright law (which, here in Florida, is not very far).

I'd be willing to release my contributions into the public domain.  But I
won't agree to further restrictions on the OSM database which go beyond
copyright law.  Someone else pointed out that that's what Google does.
Yeah, I thought OSM was supposed to be better than that.

In any case, I see little chance of the switch being made under the terms
outlined.  Between people who refuse the Contributor Terms and people who
just never respond, there's likely going to be *way* too much to delete.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started



Yours c.

Steve

On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:43, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
 Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims
 this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of
 consultations?

 How is insulting people going to help things?

By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started



Yours c.

Steve

On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:55, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com  
wrote:

 SteveC schrieb:
 On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com  
 wrote:
 SteveC schrieb:
 On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
 With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration  
 (currently 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be  
 included in ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to  
 continue contributing..

 If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different  
 understanding about voting.
 Ulf!
 Wonderful to have your input at this very late stage! Can we  
 expect you to volunteer for the LWG? Please be sure to read the  
 minutes of the last few months meetings first. Even better - can  
 you outline your alternative suggestion?
 For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the  
 members of the OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in  
 the first place and then move on to thousands of contributors  
 once the members had decided what to do. Crazy I know! Maybe they  
 should have started by asking random people in the street.. that  
 would be fun!
 Anyway, do let us all know how your plan is better than what the  
 LWG has built over the last year? Super looking forward to it!

 So this is a well designed and manufactured gun still heading at  
 the mappers head - to keep the picture.

 Maybe the OSMF / LWG should have *asked* the people involved the  
 most - the mappers?
 Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims  
 this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of  
 consultations?

 Yes, that's you're personal way of dealing with opinions that you  
 don't like.

Not ones I don't like, ones full of BS because you don't want to work  
within a process and just sit about here at the last minute and moan.  
It's a serious point - where have you been the past year? Why the  
sudden intrest?


 The next stage will be that you claim that you are evil. We all know  
 that.

 But how does that respond in any way to the suggestion I've made? do  
 we already have numbers about mappers that are in need of a better  
 license, can accept a PD license, will never want to change the  
 license, ...

 To the best of my knowledge ... no!

 Regards, ULFL


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com wrote:

 And even the licensing debate could be seen
 as support even though that indeed has a little bit more of a
 controlling element to it. But it is support in that the current license
 is broken and inapplicable to geodata as has every lawyer they have
 asked so far said (as far as I can tell).


The ODbL is also inapplicable to geodata.  It even says so.  The individual
items of the Contents contained in this Database may be covered by other
rights, including copyright, patent, data protection, privacy, or
personality rights, and this License does not cover any rights (other than
Database Rights or in contract) in individual Contents contained in the
Database.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
 By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.

And you are coming off just as unrational as you are claiming they are
being and not helping fence sitters one bit.

If you want a dictatorship on the matter say so, otherwise you or
others wanting the change need to address the critics in a reasonable
and rational manner, otherwise no one will see a point in the change
other than because you said it should happen otherwise you'll attack
them in which case the devil you know is better than the devil you
don't.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
 Click through type agreements have already been deemed as
 unenforceable,

 Can you provide me with a few links to back that up (off-list or on the
 legal list if you think it's too off-topic)?  To my knowledge the
 enforceability is spotty and unclear.

Trying to find the judgement, was a few years ago now.

 In any case, I see little chance of the switch being made under the terms
 outlined.  Between people who refuse the Contributor Terms and people who
 just never respond, there's likely going to be *way* too much to delete.

What about people unable to change the terms of their contributions
due to being contributed by governments?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread bernhard

...

 I believe he said something like ODbL is CC BY-SA without the problems.

   
Easy example:

With CC-BY-SA this tile

http://c.tile.cloudmade.com/BC9A493B41014CAABB98F0471D759707/1/256/5/16/10.png?1253694005

is also CC-BY-SA.

With ODBL the tile could have a different license including a cloudmade 
copyright.
For me the ODBL is more like CC-BY and not CC-BY-SA.

I have no problem with that, but it is a big change.


Bernhard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started


On Dec 5, 2009, at 19:40, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:

 2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
 By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.

 And you are coming off just as unrational as you are claiming they are
 being and not helping fence sitters one bit.

Read the wikipedia entry on tit for tat, and iterated prisoners dilemma.



 If you want a dictatorship on the matter say so, otherwise you or
 others wanting the change need to address the critics in a reasonable
 and rational manner, otherwise no one will see a point in the change
 other than because you said it should happen otherwise you'll attack
 them in which case the devil you know is better than the devil you
 don't.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
 Read the wikipedia entry on tit for tat, and iterated prisoners dilemma.

That's just it, I'm trying to avoid the conjecture in coming up with
an opinion on if this is a good thing or not for me and my
contributions or not.

ie am I wasting time contributing to OSM if my contributions will be
deleted if I disagree or at least choose not to agree with the new
licensing?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 9:43 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:

 2009/12/6 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
  Click through type agreements have already been deemed as
  unenforceable,
 
  Can you provide me with a few links to back that up (off-list or on the
  legal list if you think it's too off-topic)?  To my knowledge the
  enforceability is spotty and unclear.

 Trying to find the judgement, was a few years ago now.


Might want to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click-through_license .  A
quick scan finds one case where the license was found unenforceable (because
it was unconscionable), and several where it was found enforceable.

I'm not sure what you consider a click through type agreement, but if
you're including websites which have you click on some equivalent of I
agree, I can't imagine that could possible be found unenforceable.  Without
it, e-commerce could never exist.

 In any case, I see little chance of the switch being made under the terms
  outlined.  Between people who refuse the Contributor Terms and people who
  just never respond, there's likely going to be *way* too much to delete.

 What about people unable to change the terms of their contributions
 due to being contributed by governments?


Yeah, them too.  But I read earlier that only 10% of contributors are
currently active.  What's going to be kept?  Besides the public domain
imports (like TIGER), I can't see it being more than 25%.  And that means
any fork that springs up will have 4 times as much data to start with.  Am I
underestimating the amount of data that will be kept?  Am I being naive in
believing that the data from people who don't respond is really going to be
removed?  I honestly can't see how this switch can possibly succeed.

Unlike some others, I'm not angry about it, though.  Mr. Lamping analogized
earlier about a gun being to the heads of the contributors.  But a better
analogy would be that the OSMF is sticking a gun to its own head when it
says agree to the changes or we'll pull the trigger.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread John F. Eldredge

I have been subscribed to the OSM-talk mailing list for about two months now; 
this current discussion is the first that I have heard of the license-change 
issue.  So, if there has been ongoing discussion of the issue in the last 
couple of months, it hasn't been on the general list.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria

-Original Message-
From: SteveC st...@asklater.com
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 18:35:13 
To: Ulf Lampingulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.orgtalk@openstreetmap.org; Tom Hughest...@compton.nu
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
wrote:

 SteveC schrieb:
 On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
 With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently
 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in
 ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue
 contributing..

 If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different
 understanding about voting.
 Ulf!
 Wonderful to have your input at this very late stage! Can we expect
 you to volunteer for the LWG? Please be sure to read the minutes of
 the last few months meetings first. Even better - can you outline
 your alternative suggestion?
 For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the
 members of the OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in the
 first place and then move on to thousands of contributors once the
 members had decided what to do. Crazy I know! Maybe they should
 have started by asking random people in the street.. that would be
 fun!
 Anyway, do let us all know how your plan is better than what the
 LWG has built over the last year? Super looking forward to it!

 So this is a well designed and manufactured gun still heading at the
 mappers head - to keep the picture.

 Maybe the OSMF / LWG should have *asked* the people involved the
 most - the mappers?

Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims
this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of
consultations?

Yours c.

Steve



 Regards, ULFL


___
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] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread Simone Cortesi

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 02:31, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
 2009/12/6 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
 There have been some independent reviews of ODbL.

 snip

 There is also Andrea Rossato who the Italian OSM community hired
 independently to review the license.

 I believe he said something like ODbL is CC BY-SA without the problems.

 Could someone from the Italian community confirm?

I do indeed confirm.

It was in Trento, 1st of june 2009 when we of the italian community met.

Andrea Rossato, an internationally recognized law expert, was there
with us. We analyzed side-by-side the CCBYSA and the odbl, and he came
out with a final statement than can be translated to english as ODbL
is CC BY-SA without the problems

-S

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

2009-12-05 Thread 80n

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:


 On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
  Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
  position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own
 opinion.

 I'm not allowed to have opinions?

  Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM
 data?

 The OSMF wont own the data and you know it.

 The Contributor Terms contains the following clause:  You hereby grant to
OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free,
non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is
restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the
original medium or any other.

That's pretty much as close as you can get to owning a piece of data.



 Yours c.

 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-talk] [Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:

 I don't think you have at all answered the points in that, and therefore
 I stand by the viewpoint that in Australia, ODbL has the best chance of
 any open, non-clickwrap licence of protecting OSM's data.


Which is to say, none at all?  You compare the ODbL to licenses offered by
Tele Atlas, and Navteq, and Google, but there's a key difference with these
licenses.  They don't allow redistribution, or only allow limited
redistribution.  The main way they protect against people taking their
databases is by not letting anyone download their complete raw database (or
letting only a select few highly trustworthy organizations have access to
the complete raw database).

What's to stop someone from setting up a mirror of the OSM database and not
putting a TOS on their website?  I believe the answer is that not only is
there nothing to stop them, but people are encouraged to do so.  Now, when I
download the OSM database from that mirror site, what binds me to the ODbL?
Absolutely nothing.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 I'm not sure if it's enforceable or not.  And I've asked on the legal list
 (so far without an answer) whether or not agreeing to the Contributor Terms
 requires also agreeing to the ODbL in ways that purport to reach beyond
 copyright law (which, here in Florida, is not very far).

it's my understanding that agreeing to the contributor terms doesn't
require agreeing to anything that purports to reach beyond copyright
law. the license was written by a lawyer well-versed in US IP law and
reviewed by another working (pro bono) on behalf of the OSMF who is
also well-versed in US IP law.

there are contractual components to the ODbL, but these are necessary
as several lawyers have expressed doubt that copyright law alone can
protect OSM data, especially in the US. for more information, please
read the proposal document:

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/File:License_Proposal.pdf

 I'd be willing to release my contributions into the public domain.  But I
 won't agree to further restrictions on the OSM database which go beyond
 copyright law.  Someone else pointed out that that's what Google does.
 Yeah, I thought OSM was supposed to be better than that.

well, that's unfortunate. it would really help if we could understand
why you don't feel you could agree to the contractual parts of the
ODbL. they are there for a good reason and weren't included
frivolously.

 In any case, I see little chance of the switch being made under the terms
 outlined.  Between people who refuse the Contributor Terms and people who
 just never respond, there's likely going to be *way* too much to delete.

we would obviously like to minimise the number of people who don't
want to agree. we would like to be as inclusive as possible, but as
several people have said already, we've been through a number of
consultation periods, so we thought we'd ironed out most of the major
objections.

please remember, we've been working for a while to find a license for
OSM which works, and protects the data we've all worked on. ODbL does
this much better than CC BY-SA, which likely doesn't work at all in
some jurisdictions. ODbL has very much the same license elements as CC
BY-SA - it's an attribution and share-alike license. there are some
differences, mostly in the underlying law used to enforce it and the
way it concentrates on share-alike for the data, not the produced
works.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread Shalabh

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:40 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote:

 I have been subscribed to the OSM-talk mailing list for about two months
 now; this current discussion is the first that I have heard of the
 license-change issue.  So, if there has been ongoing discussion of the issue
 in the last couple of months, it hasn't been on the general list.

 I agree with this. I have been on the mailing list for roughly the same
time and no talk of license change.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread Shalabh

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:10 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:

 2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
  By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.

 And you are coming off just as unrational as you are claiming they are
 being and not helping fence sitters one bit.

 If you want a dictatorship on the matter say so, otherwise you or
 others wanting the change need to address the critics in a reasonable
 and rational manner, otherwise no one will see a point in the change
 other than because you said it should happen otherwise you'll attack
 them in which case the devil you know is better than the devil you
 don't.

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


Steve,

I have to agree with John. Fence sitter or not, Ulf has raised a point which
has not been answered till now. More importantly, mappers like me who
contribute everyday and are not part of OSMF have no clue about what this
is. Now that this discussion is so openly in the talk forum, I think an
answer is in order. One liner jibes aimed at Ulf and Frederick are not
helping things.

Just pointing us to the Wiki page may not be enough because most people
(like me) wont understand complicated copyright laws and will make neither
head nor tail of a technical discussion.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread Richard Weait

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:10 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
 I have been subscribed to the OSM-talk mailing list for about two months now; 
 this current discussion is the first that I have heard of the license-change 
 issue.  So, if there has been ongoing discussion of the issue in the last 
 couple of months, it hasn't been on the general list.

Hi John, Hi Shalabh,

Two months on talk?  If you haven't been welcomed to OSM before, Welcome.

I hope that you aren't feeling left out of the license discussion.
Nobody has been deliberately hiding it from you.  You might have
missed a recent mention of it as talk is pretty busy.  Or you might
have found the discussion in the talk archives as it has come up
before.  You might also have seen references in the wiki, on IRC, or
in local OSM meetups, mapping parties or presentations.  Still, you
might have missed it as nobody really made it their job to see to it
the everybody knew.  There are so many ways to enjoy OSM that don't
include poring through archives that it really is possible to miss
topics of discussion that have been going on for a while.

As I remember it, the legal-talk list formed because many on talk were
tired of seeing the license-related topics dominate the list.  So I
watched the legal-talk list for a bit then stopped.  I decided that
those passionate enough about the license topic were also
well-informed enough that I didn't have to keep an eye on them in
order to see my interests defended.  I listened in on some of the
License Working Group calls as well and read some of the minutes but
frankly decided that they were covering my concerns and that I didn't
need to take an active role in the discussion.  Every time I peeked in
on things on talk-legal and the LWG they seemed to be asking the
questions that I wanted answers for, and consulting the people I'd
want to consult like IP lawyers and CreativeCommons.  I don't regret
my decision.

As the license discussion is new to you, I hope that you'll realize
that you don't have to decide right now.  Even if you are a foundation
member, your vote isn't due for three weeks so you can read some
material and think on it for a while.  And if you have never really
thought about the license before now, you might consider continuing
that way by continuing to map and enjoy OSM and just see how the
licensing wind blows over the next while.  Some of the discussion may
seem heated that the moment.  That doesn't meant that you have to
decide to take that deep an interest in the license discussion.

Best regards,
Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
  I'm not sure if it's enforceable or not.  And I've asked on the legal
 list
  (so far without an answer) whether or not agreeing to the Contributor
 Terms
  requires also agreeing to the ODbL in ways that purport to reach beyond
  copyright law (which, here in Florida, is not very far).

 it's my understanding that agreeing to the contributor terms doesn't
 require agreeing to anything that purports to reach beyond copyright
 law. the license was written by a lawyer well-versed in US IP law and
 reviewed by another working (pro bono) on behalf of the OSMF who is
 also well-versed in US IP law.

 there are contractual components to the ODbL, but these are necessary
 as several lawyers have expressed doubt that copyright law alone can
 protect OSM data, especially in the US. for more information, please
 read the proposal document:

 http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/File:License_Proposal.pdf


I've read that.  I don't agree to the ODbL.  I will not agree to the ODbL.
Therefore, I am not bound to the contract, and I can do anything I want with
the OSM database.

That's the only way I can stay on the same playing field with all the
non-OSM-contributors, who likewise have not agreed to the ODbL and therefore
are not bound by the ODbL.

I assume that means I have to stop using the website once the TOS goes up.
If so, oh well, I'll download the data from a mirror site without the TOS.

 I'd be willing to release my contributions into the public domain.  But I
  won't agree to further restrictions on the OSM database which go beyond
  copyright law.  Someone else pointed out that that's what Google does.
  Yeah, I thought OSM was supposed to be better than that.

 well, that's unfortunate. it would really help if we could understand
 why you don't feel you could agree to the contractual parts of the
 ODbL. they are there for a good reason and weren't included
 frivolously.


I don't see any good reason why I should agree to the contractual parts of
the ODbL.  What's in it for me?  I get to contribute to OSM?  Sorry, not
worth it.

 In any case, I see little chance of the switch being made under the terms
  outlined.  Between people who refuse the Contributor Terms and people who
  just never respond, there's likely going to be *way* too much to delete.

 we would obviously like to minimise the number of people who don't
 want to agree.


I suspect the number who don't respond at all will far outweigh both the
number who agree and the number who disagree combined.  And if the TOS goes
up at the same time as the request to agree or disagree, I'll probably be
one of them.


 we would like to be as inclusive as possible, but as
 several people have said already, we've been through a number of
 consultation periods, so we thought we'd ironed out most of the major
 objections.


I see a lot of unanswered objections.  Probably the biggest one is that the
ODbL is written in a way which disallows injunctive relief, and therefore is
effectively useless.

please remember, we've been working for a while to find a license for
 OSM which works, and protects the data we've all worked on.


Personally, I'd vote for CC0.


 ODbL does this much better than CC BY-SA, which likely doesn't work at all
 in
 some jurisdictions.


I really don't understand this argument.  CC-BY-SA doesn't provide a license
in jurisdictions where the content isn't copyrighted.  But there's no need
to provide a license in jurisdictions where the content isn't copyrighted.
I always took the OSM's release of data under CC-BY-SA to mean: here are
some things you can do; if you live in certain jurisdictions, like the
United States, you can probably do them anyway, but for those of you who
don't, we're letting you do them as well.


 ODbL has very much the same license elements as CC
 BY-SA - it's an attribution and share-alike license. there are some
 differences, mostly in the underlying law used to enforce it and the
 way it concentrates on share-alike for the data, not the produced
 works.


The underlying law used to enforce it is what I have a problem with.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG

2009-12-05 Thread Richard Weait

I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task.  A task that
we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
individual mappers.  I'm glad that the LWG looked after our shared
concerns so ably, by consulting with lawyers, the Creative Commons,
the Open Knowledge Foundation and the community at large over the few
years of the license discussion to date.

Thank you, LWG.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

2009-12-05 Thread Tobias Knerr

Steve,

SteveC wrote:
 How is insulting people going to help things?
 
 By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.

I understand that most statements you are responding to seem stupid,
unnecessary or inappropriate to you. You might even think that those who
posted them should really know better.

But please take into account that many people reading this know much
less than you do about the license change. Also, most people here don't
know you, either. Your mails to OSM-talk might be their first impression
of you. They also might be their first impression of the Foundation and
the ODbL switch.

You can't expect them to invest a lot of time to understand
international copyright and database law. For them, it's all about trust
- do they trust the calmly worded concerns (that sound perfectly valid
to them, even if they in fact are BS - which isn't true for all of them,
either, many are legitimate) or that angry guy who keeps telling them
it's all nonsense?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started



Yours c.

Steve

On Dec 5, 2009, at 20:10, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com  
wrote:

 I have been subscribed to the OSM-talk mailing list for about two  
 months now; this current discussion is the first that I have heard  
 of the license-change issue.  So, if there has been ongoing  
 discussion of the issue in the last couple of months, it hasn't been  
 on the general list.

No there's an entire other list for it... But the LWG has tried hard  
to keep the other lists up to date.


 -- 
 John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
 Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better  
 than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria

 -Original Message-
 From: SteveC st...@asklater.com
 Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 18:35:13
 To: Ulf Lampingulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
 Cc: talk@openstreetmap.orgtalk@openstreetmap.org; Tom 
 Hughest...@compton.nu 
 
 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has  
 started

 On Dec 5, 2009, at 18:17, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com
 wrote:

 SteveC schrieb:
 On Dec 5, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
 With a gun at their head: Refuse: After the migration (currently
 26th February 2010), your contributions will not be included in
 ODbL licensed downloads and you will not be able to continue
 contributing..

 If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different
 understanding about voting.
 Ulf!
 Wonderful to have your input at this very late stage! Can we expect
 you to volunteer for the LWG? Please be sure to read the minutes of
 the last few months meetings first. Even better - can you outline
 your alternative suggestion?
 For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the
 members of the OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in the
 first place and then move on to thousands of contributors once the
 members had decided what to do. Crazy I know! Maybe they should
 have started by asking random people in the street.. that would be
 fun!
 Anyway, do let us all know how your plan is better than what the
 LWG has built over the last year? Super looking forward to it!

 So this is a well designed and manufactured gun still heading at the
 mappers head - to keep the picture.

 Maybe the OSMF / LWG should have *asked* the people involved the
 most - the mappers?

 Are you also living on planet Frederik? Out of all the crazy claims
 this has to be the most crazy. Where have you been the past year of
 consultations?

 Yours c.

 Steve



 Regards, ULFL


 ___
 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] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...




Yours c.

Steve

On Dec 5, 2009, at 20:25, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:


On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:

On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
 Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF  
Chairman's
 position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his  
own opinion.


I'm not allowed to have opinions?

 Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your  
OSM data?


The OSMF wont own the data and you know it.

The Contributor Terms contains the following clause:  You hereby  
grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide,  
royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do  
any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the  
Contents, whether in the original medium or any other.


That's pretty much as close as you can get to owning a piece of data.


If you didn't delete matts edits on the wiki or tried listening to him  
we could explain why you're wrong.






Yours c.

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-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:25 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:

 On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote:
  Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's
  position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own
  opinion.

 I'm not allowed to have opinions?

  Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM
  data?

 The OSMF wont own the data and you know it.

 The Contributor Terms contains the following clause:  You hereby grant to
 OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free,
 non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is
 restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the
 original medium or any other.

 That's pretty much as close as you can get to owning a piece of data.

out of interest, would you prefer that it were worded like CC BY-SA?

[you] hereby grant[s] [OSMF] a worldwide, royalty-free,
non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable
copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:
[list of rights covered by the Berne convention.] The above rights may
be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter
devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications
as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and
formats.

as far as i can see the contributor terms definition says the same
thing, except it's more concise. we strived for readability and
brevity in the contributor terms, given that it will be read by so
many people. do you think it would have been better to go for the
longer version as CC BY-SA does?

just as CC BY-SA contains limitations on the exercise of those rights
(BY and SA), so does the contributor terms - initially only a release
under CC BY-SA and ODbL, subject to a vote of the OSMF membership and
active contributors if the need arises to change that to a different
free and open license.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG

Richard Weait schrieb:
 I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task.  A task that
 we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
 implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
 individual mappers.  I'm glad that the LWG looked after our shared
 concerns so ably, by consulting with lawyers, the Creative Commons,
 the Open Knowledge Foundation and the community at large over the few
 years of the license discussion to date.

I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a 
license change at all.

Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started


On Dec 5, 2009, at 20:51, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:

 Steve,

 SteveC wrote:
 How is insulting people going to help things?

 By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.

 I understand that most statements you are responding to seem stupid,
 unnecessary or inappropriate to you. You might even think that those  
 who
 posted them should really know better.

 But please take into account that many people reading this know much
 less than you do about the license change. Also, most people here  
 don't
 know you, either. Your mails to OSM-talk might be their first  
 impression
 of you. They also might be their first impression of the Foundation  
 and
 the ODbL switch.

 You can't expect them to invest a lot of time to understand
 international copyright and database law. For them, it's all about  
 trust
 - do they trust the calmly worded concerns (that sound perfectly valid
 to them, even if they in fact are BS - which isn't true for all of  
 them,
 either, many are legitimate) or that angry guy who keeps telling them
 it's all nonsense?

Oh we have those people though, matt is calm, rational and diligently  
replying to the concerns. Note its mostly misunderstood or ignored by  
people like 80n. That frees me to lose my temper with the passive  
aggressive lot who just want to screw everything up and can't work as  
a team.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG


On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:03, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com  
wrote:

 Richard Weait schrieb:
 I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task.  A task that
 we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
 implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
 individual mappers.  I'm glad that the LWG looked after our shared
 concerns so ably, by consulting with lawyers, the Creative Commons,
 the Open Knowledge Foundation and the community at large over the few
 years of the license discussion to date.

 I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a
 license change at all.

And there lays the point, we should all do what Ulf asks for.


 Regards, ULFL

 ___
 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] [Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 Now, when I
 download the OSM database from that mirror site, what binds me to the ODbL?
 Absolutely nothing.

your email here proves you are aware of the terms of such a download. :-)

for people who haven't so publicly demonstrated their awareness of the
license, we will be showing (or linking to) the license wherever ODbL
data can be downloaded and placing license metadata into the data
downloaded from the OSM site, using dublin core definitions or
similar. to use the file, one must be aware of the format, which
implies familiarity with the site and documentation, therefore the
license. either that, or the format can be figured out from looking at
the file, which implies ample opportunity to notice the license
metadata.

several courts have upheld such browser wrap licenses. please see
richard's wonderfully complete email here
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000479.html

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

SteveC schrieb:
 
 On Dec 5, 2009, at 19:40, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
 By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.

 And you are coming off just as unrational as you are claiming they are
 being and not helping fence sitters one bit.
 
 Read the wikipedia entry on tit for tat, and iterated prisoners dilemma.

Ok, I did and now?

Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
  Now, when I
  download the OSM database from that mirror site, what binds me to the
 ODbL?
  Absolutely nothing.

 your email here proves you are aware of the terms of such a download. :-)


The terms are not yet in place, and should they be put into place, I don't
plan on using the website.


 for people who haven't so publicly demonstrated their awareness of the
 license, we will be showing (or linking to) the license wherever ODbL
 data can be downloaded and placing license metadata into the data
 downloaded from the OSM site, using dublin core definitions or
 similar.


The fact that someone is shown a license doesn't mean that they agree to
it.  C'mon, I can add a license to the bottom of this email, does that
mean that anyone who reads it thereby agrees to it?

several courts have upheld such browser wrap licenses. please see
 richard's wonderfully complete email here

 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000479.html


I already explained the difference between them and OSM.  If I download the
OSM database from the OSM website, that's one thing.  But how can I be bound
by the terms of the OSM website if I download the database from some other
website?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started



On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:15, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com  
wrote:

 SteveC schrieb:
 On Dec 5, 2009, at 19:40, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com  
 wrote:
 2009/12/6 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
 By letting them know FUD and BS will be shot down.

 And you are coming off just as unrational as you are claiming they  
 are
 being and not helping fence sitters one bit.
 Read the wikipedia entry on tit for tat, and iterated prisoners  
 dilemma.

 Ok, I did and now?

I don have the patience, matt can you explain?



 Regards, ULFL


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:

 Creative Commons, of course, has practising copyright lawyers too. They
 have
 said that CC-BY-SA isn't applicable to data and we shouldn't use it.


They also said this about the ODbL:

In brief, we believe that the ODbL is incompatible with the goals we have
articulated in the Science Commons Protocol for Implementing Open Access
Data, that it creates barriers that can impede the free and open exchange
and reuse of data and databases, that it may create unintended consequences
for both data providers and users, and that it does not well serve the
essential purposes of public data sharing, particularly in education and
science.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a  
policy*.


It's pretty stupid but that's their policy. It's like the RIAA have a  
closed policy and the consensus is viral in OSM.


Yours c.

Steve

On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:36, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net 
 wrote:
Creative Commons, of course, has practising copyright lawyers too.  
They have

said that CC-BY-SA isn't applicable to data and we shouldn't use it.

They also said this about the ODbL:

In brief, we believe that the ODbL is incompatible with the goals  
we have articulated in the Science Commons Protocol for Implementing  
Open Access Data, that it creates barriers that can impede the free  
and open exchange and reuse of data and databases, that it may  
create unintended consequences for both data providers and users,  
and that it does not well serve the essential purposes of public  
data sharing, particularly in education and science. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons

___
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] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

SteveC schreef:
 Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a policy*.

What a non-sense, every academic works with attribution of past work.
Including attribution in testsets and data being available.

You are getting a bit narrow minded in the direction you want to go.


...and I still don't understand why we can't offer layers of data with
any license that is on that layer. If people do prefer CC0/PD or in the
other extreme -NC they can just edit on there. Case solved, everyone happy.


Stefan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREKAAYFAksbOIYACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3y6ACePMl3wjOJAnANHcs2NRzsNjix
ZWgAn1eUP4162kz7wI+4/Qt9DAYft6TB
=NKz8
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:42 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:

 Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a policy*.


PD-like licenses?  You mean for databases of facts?  Or am I misinterpreting
PD-like?

It's pretty stupid but that's their policy.


Well, you may think Creative Commons is stupid, but I hope others will
give them a chance and listen to what they have to say.  I think they will,
considering that Creative Commons is well known and respected, compared to
Open Data Commons, who doesn't even seem to have an article on Wikipedia.

I don't know, I find it somewhat mind-boggling that a site like OSM would
even consider resorting to browse-through license agreements in order to
impose terms which go beyond that of copyright.  It's the exact oppose of
what I'd expect from a site which calls itself open and free.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:52, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:

 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA512

 SteveC schreef:
 Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a  
 policy*.

 What a non-sense, every academic works with attribution of past work.
 Including attribution in testsets and data being available.


It's nonsense but that's their direction.

 You are getting a bit narrow minded in the direction you want to go.

Me? What?



 ...and I still don't understand why we can't offer layers of data with
 any license that is on that layer. If people do prefer CC0/PD or in  
 the
 other extreme -NC they can just edit on there. Case solved, everyone  
 happy.


 Stefan
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
 Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

 iEYEAREKAAYFAksbOIYACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3y6ACePMl3wjOJAnANHcs2NRzsNjix
 ZWgAn1eUP4162kz7wI+4/Qt9DAYft6TB
 =NKz8
 -END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Shaun McDonald schrieb:
 The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on 
 the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems 
 than myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to 
 them, and let them just get on with it. I really just wan this license 
 change sorted out and completed as there are other more important things to 
 be done.

 That probably reflects the problem best.

 I do *not* know the people from the License Working Group (as I guess
 most mappers won't do) - therefore I have no reasons to trust them or not.

i guess introductions are in order - hi! my name is matt and i've been
a contributor to OSM for over 4 years according to the website. if
you've been to any of the SotM conferences we may have met, if not you
can find me at most of the OSM meetups in London. it's entirely
possible that, although we may not have met, you know someone who
knows me. may i suggest that, if you trust them, you ask them whether
they trust me?

 I do *not* see it as my personal duty to build trust in a license change
 that some people (I do not know) are trying to do.

i absolutely understand your position. keeping up with the legal and
licensing discussions is extremely time-consuming - it has consumed
about 2 hours of my life per week directly in LWG meetings, and
probably several times more in doing work for LWG and reading,
researching and responding to legal-talk emails. it's onerous.

on the other hand, the issues at stake are very important, as you say here:

 I can't see (by far) *any* more important thing in OSM than what will
 happen to my data in the future.

the intent of CC BY-SA, as i see it, is to ensure that OSM data
remains free in the same way that GPL ensures that source code remains
free. a few years ago concerns were raised about whether copyright
(the basis of CC BY-SA) applies to OSM's data. over the course of the
intervening time several lawyers have been consulted, including Clark
Asay who was able to act (pro-bono, thanks!) as counsel for OSMF. to
my knowledge, every single one of these lawyers expressed grave doubts
about CC BY-SA's ability to protect OSM data and ensure it remains
free.

but wasn't the point of CC BY-SA to protect our data and ensure it
remains free? so the LWG was set up so that members of the OSM
community could work together to find and refine a license which OSM
could use to ensure those goals. we, like you, think that the future
of the data, and it's enduring freedom, is of utmost importance. in
collaboration with ODC, another organisation including an IP lawyer
working pro-bono, we've developed the ODbL - an attribution and
share-alike license developed specifically for databases like OSM.

we believe that ODbL is better than CC BY-SA at protecting our data,
and that we should move to it to ensure the future of our unique free
and open geodata.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started



On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:53, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:


On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:42 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a  
policy*.


PD-like licenses?  You mean for databases of facts?  Or am I  
misinterpreting PD-like?




Not quite, their policy is that data 'should' be free. Even if say I'm  
a company looking to release data under somethig viral, their response  
is that I am wrong and PD like things should be my only choice.



It's pretty stupid but that's their policy.

Well, you may think Creative Commons is stupid, but I hope others  
will give them a chance and listen to what they have to say.  I  
think they will, considering that Creative Commons is well known and  
respected, compared to Open Data Commons, who doesn't even seem to  
have an article on Wikipedia.




Oh they have been involved, see legal-talk archives back and forth,  
Richard probably knows when and can link.


I think the moral stance they take on PD for data is stupid not the  
whole enterprise of course.


I don't know, I find it somewhat mind-boggling that a site like OSM  
would even consider resorting to browse-through license agreements  
in order to impose terms which go beyond that of copyright.  It's  
the exact oppose of what I'd expect from a site which calls itself  
open and free.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:00 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:


 On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:53, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:42 PM, SteveC  st...@asklater.com
 st...@asklater.com wrote:

 Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a
 policy*.


 PD-like licenses?  You mean for databases of facts?  Or am I
 misinterpreting PD-like?


 Not quite, their policy is that data 'should' be free.


Well, yeah, it should.  Especially if you advertise it as such, like calling
yourself the free wiki world map :).

What is OSM's data going to be licensed under?

Even if say I'm a company looking to release data under somethig viral,
 their response is that I am wrong and PD like things should be my only
 choice.


For those of you who'd like a more detailed explanation of their position
and why they hold it, a good starting point is at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons

Well, you may think Creative Commons is stupid, but I hope others will
 give them a chance and listen to what they have to say.  I think they will,
 considering that Creative Commons is well known and respected, compared to
 Open Data Commons, who doesn't even seem to have an article on Wikipedia.


 Oh they have been involved, see legal-talk archives back and forth, Richard
 probably knows when and can link.


I know.  I just hope every one of the 256 people eligible to vote on this
proposal has a chance to read their position on the ODbL.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
  Now, when I
  download the OSM database from that mirror site, what binds me to the
  ODbL?
  Absolutely nothing.

 your email here proves you are aware of the terms of such a download. :-)

 The terms are not yet in place, and should they be put into place, I don't
 plan on using the website.

i'm sorry you feel that way.

 for people who haven't so publicly demonstrated their awareness of the
 license, we will be showing (or linking to) the license wherever ODbL
 data can be downloaded and placing license metadata into the data
 downloaded from the OSM site, using dublin core definitions or
 similar.

 The fact that someone is shown a license doesn't mean that they agree to
 it.  C'mon, I can add a license to the bottom of this email, does that
 mean that anyone who reads it thereby agrees to it?

the agreement doesn't kick in from the reading of the license, it
kicks in when you do something that only the license would permit you
to do. in the case of a browser wrap, that is downloading the data.
in the case that you already have the file, it's continuing to use it
after you become aware of the terms.

remember, rights are default: deny. the fact that you have access to
the data at all implies that there is a license which you should be
aware of.

 several courts have upheld such browser wrap licenses. please see
 richard's wonderfully complete email here

 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000479.html

 I already explained the difference between them and OSM.  If I download the
 OSM database from the OSM website, that's one thing.  But how can I be bound
 by the terms of the OSM website if I download the database from some other
 website?

the data would contain a link to and notice about the license. if
someone obtains the database from OSM they must maintain the license
notice, as required by ODbL. therefore, if someone downloads if from
them, the license notice is intact and they implicitly agree to it as
soon as they are simultaneously aware of it and performing acts
governed by it.

this is very similar to how copyright licenses (e.g: GPL) work - you
don't have to click-though a license to get the source code. a notice
about the license is included in the source code. you implicitly agree
to the license as soon as you are simultaneously aware of it and
perform acts governed by it (redistribution of modified source code or
binaries). it's perfectly possible to obtain, modify, compile and
distribute a GPL'ed application without seeing the GPL itself once,
yet it still applies.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
  I don't know, I find it somewhat mind-boggling that a site like OSM would
  even consider resorting to browse-through license agreements in order
 to
  impose terms which go beyond that of copyright.  It's the exact oppose of
  what I'd expect from a site which calls itself open and free.

 i'm not sure i understand your point. OSM has a license which (tries
 to) impose requirements on the re-use of the data, but that's still
 open and free, right?


CC-BY-SA doesn't try to impose any requirements which go beyond copyright
law.  Agreeing to CC-BY-SA can only give me, as the licensee, *more* rights,
not take any away.  Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit,
or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other
limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright
law or other applicable laws.  CC-BY-SA is a unilateral conditional waiver
of rights.  ODbL, on the other hand, is a standard bilateral contract.

we're talking about moving to another
 license with very similar requirements, but a different
 implementation, and that's not open and free anymore? it would
 really help me if i could understand your position.


Creative Commons said it better than I can:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons

Section 2.2(c) of the proposed ODbL explicitly makes the ODbL a contract,
in addition to being a license. As mentioned above, accepting a license is
usually only necessary when there exists some underlying property right.
However, a contract can be based simply on mutual agreement, provided that
the requisite requirements of contract formation (meeting of the minds,
consideration, etc.) are met.  The result is that the ODbL can in certain
circumstances impose obligations and restrictions on users under a contract
theory, rather than based on a protection afforded by statute, common law,
or other recognized right.

Thus, it is not clear under the ODbL whether providers would have an
independent breach of contract claim, in addition to an infringement claim,
or even in the absence of an infringement claim, for any violations of the
“license” (or alternatively, contract).

This is important for several reasons. First, as discussed above, due to
legal variations in copyright doctrines among different countries, as well
as the availability of sui generis protection in some countries but not in
others, there may be cases where an infringement claim is not available to a
provider because no underlying property right exists. However, in such
cases, could the provider seek to enforce a provision of the ODbL, such as
the share-alike provision, under a contract theory instead? And if it could
do so, would that constitute an extension of protection beyond the scope
intended by existing statutory schemes? For example, could data or databases
that fail to qualify for copyright protection under U.S. law due to lack of
the requisite level of creativity nevertheless be made subject to the
share-alike provision in the U.S. under a contract theory? Could this be
applied to individual data elements that are not themselves
copyrightable—such as sensor readings or basic facts and ideas? Could
European sui generis database rights be enforced against a U.S. user on the
basis of the existence of a contractual relationship created by the ODbL?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Matt Amos schreef:
 we're talking about moving to another
 license with very similar requirements, but a different
 implementation, and that's not open and free anymore? it would
 really help me if i could understand your position.

Its honestly terribly simple. We get into a discussion over moving from
a widely used `GPL2.0' like license that works for everyone, and best of
all is compatible with everyone.

Some folks here think that BSD style should be our target.


Now the stearing committee thinks that for better protection we should
go for OSI-APPROVED-LICENSE-X; that nobody is compatible with yet and
worse. If we were Linux, we would have to remove our cool exotic network
card drivers just to facilitate this move. And worst of all, all the
nice vendors we were just talking with that were moved to going open are
now bound to a contract... that sounds so... formal?


Until anyone can guarantee that every bit of CC-BY-SA could be used
without problems in the new framework; I'm a skeptic. And basically
think about the deletionism in Wikipedia. Or wasting capital in real life.


Stefan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEAREKAAYFAksbQvwACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3Q1wCeLFtNkW2WXORuCShZtv4TI9ju
cxUAn1Q5U1CB+9JDK+Yw4cyFQPTfS0+1
=Ygw9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
  I don't know, I find it somewhat mind-boggling that a site like OSM
  would
  even consider resorting to browse-through license agreements in order
  to
  impose terms which go beyond that of copyright.  It's the exact oppose
  of
  what I'd expect from a site which calls itself open and free.

 i'm not sure i understand your point. OSM has a license which (tries
 to) impose requirements on the re-use of the data, but that's still
 open and free, right?

 CC-BY-SA doesn't try to impose any requirements which go beyond copyright
 law.

you keep saying this, but i still don't understand. CC BY-SA imposes
requirements *using* copyright law. ODbL imposes requirements *using*
database law and contract law.

 Agreeing to CC-BY-SA can only give me, as the licensee, *more* rights,
 not take any away.  Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit,
 or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other
 limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright
 law or other applicable laws.  CC-BY-SA is a unilateral conditional waiver
 of rights.  ODbL, on the other hand, is a standard bilateral contract.

which still gives you *more* rights.

 we're talking about moving to another
 license with very similar requirements, but a different
 implementation, and that's not open and free anymore? it would
 really help me if i could understand your position.

 Creative Commons said it better than I can:

from my reading of creative commons comments they're saying something
very different from what you seem to be saying. but maybe i'm just
misunderstanding you.

[ note: i've excerpted those sections which i thought were relevant]
 The result is that the ODbL can in certain
 circumstances impose obligations and restrictions on users under a contract
 theory, rather than based on a protection afforded by statute, common law,
 or other recognized right.

indeed. this is kind of the point: the US and some other jurisdictions
don't yet have a database rights law, so to enforce similar
restrictions to CC BY-SA it's necessary to use some other method.

 Thus, it is not clear under the ODbL whether providers would have an
 independent breach of contract claim, in addition to an infringement claim,
 or even in the absence of an infringement claim, for any violations of the
 “license” (or alternatively, contract).

 This is important for several reasons. First, as discussed above, due to
 legal variations in copyright doctrines among different countries, as well
 as the availability of sui generis protection in some countries but not in
 others, there may be cases where an infringement claim is not available to a
 provider because no underlying property right exists. However, in such
 cases, could the provider seek to enforce a provision of the ODbL, such as
 the share-alike provision, under a contract theory instead?

i think that's the idea, yes.

 And if it could
 do so, would that constitute an extension of protection beyond the scope
 intended by existing statutory schemes? For example, could data or databases
 that fail to qualify for copyright protection under U.S. law due to lack of
 the requisite level of creativity nevertheless be made subject to the
 share-alike provision in the U.S. under a contract theory?

that's part of the point of ODbL, yes.

 Could this be
 applied to individual data elements that are not themselves
 copyrightable—such as sensor readings or basic facts and ideas?

no, the ODbL explicitly doesn't cover individual elements of the
database, covering the database as a whole (or substantial part)
instead.

 Could
 European sui generis database rights be enforced against a U.S. user on the
 basis of the existence of a contractual relationship created by the ODbL?

i don't really understand this question - the requirements of the ODbL
can be enforced against a US user on the basis of a contractual
relationship, but i don't think that equates to EU database rights.
the ODbL is the ODbL, not an extension of EU law.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL