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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony  wrote:
> 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 also tend to side with Creative Commons. It is not very wise of ODbL 
proponents to claim that CC say that CC-BY-SA doesn't work for data 
without also admitting that CC recommend CC0 for data.

Matt Amos wrote:
> i have listened to what they have to say, and it makes perfect sense.
> they recognise that databases like OSM's don't have much basis for
> protection in copyright law, so they correctly deduce that there are
> two options:
> 
> 1) drop requirements enforced by copyright law. this results in a
> "PD-like" license, to whit: CC0.
> 2) enforce requirements by law other than copyright law. this results
> in a database rights/contract license, to whit: ODbL.
> 
> creative commons decided, as a policy, that option (1) was preferable,
> as it places fewer restrictions on the use of the data. however, it
> drops the share-alike and attribution requirements. they clearly felt
> that this would provide the best benefit to the scientific community.

This "as a policy" is something that Steve claims as well, implying that 
rather than working things out, they just decreed something. But I don't 
think this does them justice, and anyone who has followed legal-talk 
should know. They claim to have invested considerable brainpower in 
finding a share-alike license (or, at least, an attribution license) for 
data that works, and failed. One of the big obstacles they saw was 
endless attribution chains. There was a posting in John Wilbanks' blog 
about this:

http://network.nature.com/people/wilbanks/blog/2007/12/17/open-access-data-boring-but-important

Proponents of the ODbL are of the opinion that CC simply were too 
skeptical, that a license which CC thought wouldn't be good enough is 
indeed good enough. But that's not a matter of "policy", that's a matter 
of judgment. You an accuse them of bad judgment but you cannot accuse 
them of blindly choosing a license "out of policy". Or if you do, then 
OSM sticking to share-alike is just the same kind of "policy".

The best rebuttal of the CC (or Science Commons, to be more precise) 
position came, like so often, from Richard Fairhurst, here:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002317.html

In short, he says that Science Commons was thinking too much about 
research and education, and that thus their results may not necessarily 
apply to OSM. If your prime example of data is, say, a deciphered human 
genome, then it is understandable that you'd rather not have endless 
layers of some kind of viral license slapped onto 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] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

[80n]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Matt Amos  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Stefan de Konink  wrote:
> > 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.
>
> it does neither of the above. imagine a situation in which source code
> were considered not to generate copyrights. any project licensed under
> "GPL2.0" would lose protection. this is the situation we're in:
> copyright very probably doesn't apply to our database, yet the license
> we're using is based entirely on copyright.
>
> also, CC BY-SA isn't compatible with everyone. it's compatible with
> PD, attribution-only and itself. the exact same is true of ODbL.
>
> > Some folks here think that BSD style should be our target.
>
> indeed. but wouldn't it be better to find a license which works first,
> then discuss what an even better license might be?
>
> > 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?
>
> well, such is the nature of legal documents :-(
>
> although, maybe it's familiarity talking, but i find ODbL less formal
> and easier to read than CC BY-SA's legal code.
>
> > 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.
>
> i'm afraid i can't dispel your skepticism, then. it's possible we
> could just keep all the old CC BY-SA data, since the license governing
> it doesn't work, but i think this would be too radical a step for the
> OSMF board ;-)
>

It's shocking that you could even have such a thought.  Nevermind the
smiley.

You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim to have
a deep understanding of the issues.  If CC BY-SA is as broken as you claim
it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others would all have helped
themselves to our data by now.

You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some evidence of
our data being abused.  Put up or shut up, please.

You'll remember that one of the original reasons a license change was even
contemplated was because the license *prevented* people from using the
data.  In what way can a license that is broken actually do that?

Show us the evidence of license abuse please.



>
> our choices are basically the following:
> 1) continue to use a license which legal experts seem to agree doesn't
> work for us.
> 2) move to a new license.
>
> option (2) will likely mean that some data is lost and i don't think
> option (1) is what people really want. which do you prefer?
>
> cheers,
>
> matt
>
> ___
> 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

[Patrick Kilian]

Hi all,

> I live in the United States.  I can do whatever the heck I want with the
> OSM database.  Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those
> rights.  So I'll ask again:  What's in it for me?
My data. The streets I mapped. The trails I mapped. The POIs I mapped.
The Indonesian islands I traced from aerial imagery. All that and all
the data I'm going to add. For free and in my spare time and with the
assumptions that I would get credit for it. Not personally but in the
form of "this dataset was collected by the collaborators of the OSM
project". If the copyright law in you're place allows you to take my
data and use it with out attributing me and my fellow mappers I consider
it broken. And if the copyright law was that broken in the whole world I
would never have invested as much time as I have.

Nearly all of my data doesn't concern the US and is totally
uninteresting to you. Which I consider a good thing. Because I sure as
hell don't want to help somebody who has the attitude "I can use the
data no matter who collected it and how much effort is was. It's just
facts."

Oh and by the way: I'm not totally convinced that ODbL is great or the
right move. I want a open (as in "go and do incredible cool stuff with
the data I collected"), free (as in "collecting the data was fun, no
need to pay me") license with a attribution clause (forcing you to say
"btw, the base data was collected by the diligent contributors of OSM").

When I joined up, I though that CC-BY-SA did that. Talking to people
knowledgeable in matters of law and copyright I learn that this is not
the case _in_ _countries_ _like_ _yours_. And as I don't want to hand my
data to people with your attitude I see a clear need to relicense, not
matter how difficult and painful.

Patrick "Petschge" Kilian

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

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

[Frederik Ramm]

Anthony,

Anthony wrote:
> I looked at the license and I said "Why are they bothering with this 
> crap?  It's not like this stuff is copyrightable in the first place.  
> Well, I guess that this stuff is protected by some laws in some 
> jurisdictions, so CC-BY-SA is useful for waiving those rights in those 
> jurisdictions.  For me, in a state with sane laws, I don't have to worry 
> about it.  What the heck, sure, I'll license my data under CC-BY-SA.  
> Can't hurt."

Ah, now I get it. You are a PD advocate by heart like myself, and you 
were actually *happy* with the non-working CC-BY-SA. Or put it this way, 
for you the major point of CC-BY-SA was the "you are granted the 
following rights..." bit (which wasn't required for your jurisdiction 
but might have been in others), and you sort of ignored the "under the 
following conditions..." bit.

It's nice to see that point of view, given that some people endlessly 
drone on about how there was a "consensus" in OSM to have a share-alike 
license; now there's you having "consented" to CC-BY-SA but only because 
you knew it wasn't binding for you anyway. Sweet!

I am also pro-PD but I am based in Europe where it is less clear which 
aspects of CC-BY-SA work and which don't; for me, ODbL at least brings 
more safety and clarity about what is allowed and what isn't, so I will 
support it. If I were in the States where it seems blatantly obvious 
that CC-BY-SA doesn't protect our data, and thus ODbL only adds 
restrictions, I might think differently.

However, one thing you should perhaps consider is this argument of 
"project sanity": We're all in this together. It's no good having a 
license that has different effects in different countries. This has the 
potential to disrupt community efforts - a US-based project using OSM 
data but people from Europe cannot participate for fear of prosecution 
in their countries. Or, you are a US company and create an OSM based 
product but cannot sell to Europe because your customers fear legal 
trouble. ODbL doesn't completely harmonise jurisdictions but it goes a 
long way there, and I find this desirable.

Another thing is of course the "moral" component. The non-working 
CC-BY-SA in your country might let you get away with taking OSM data, 
printing a map from it and claiming full copyright on that. But even if 
legally non-working, the community still expects you to adhere to the 
share-alike terms of the license, and will scorn you for that activity. 
Whereas with ODbL, this is perfectly allowed, and will be accepted by 
the community.

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 ...

[80n]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Matt Amos  wrote:

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


...except the context is different.  With CC BY-SA you are giving everyone
the same rights.  With the Contributor Terms the only one to have those
rights is the OSMF.




> 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

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:14PM -0700, SteveC 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.

So we should do the YOU or the OSMF asks us to do?

Ulf is not alone - I havent asked  ... And a lot of people did
not do so too.

Even that i didnt ask for a license change - the new license is much to complex
for my mind - CC-BY-SA hasnt shown any real problems up to now so i see the
whole discussion as an artificial problem. 

I started with OSM to get free GeoData and IMHO any restriction
put on the data limits its usefulness. I accepted the Attribution and
the Share alike - now a lot more rules on what i am allowed and what not
come down on me. This is a change in rules of the game while half
way.

AFAIK The only problem which could ever arise from CC-BY-SA is that its void
which would probably (not proven) make data Public Domain which would also be
fine with me.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org
"Es ist ein grobes Missverständnis und eine Fehlwahrnehmung, dem Staat
im Internet Zensur- und Überwachungsabsichten zu unterstellen."
- - Bundesminister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble -- 10. Juli in Berlin 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Full Database dump request - forking possible Was: [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 11:44:40PM +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
> 
> 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.".

I hereby request that the OSMF publishes a full (including history) 
Database Dump just prior deleting non ODbL relicensed data to allow
a forking of OpenStreetmap under the old licensing terms.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org
"Es ist ein grobes Missverständnis und eine Fehlwahrnehmung, dem Staat
im Internet Zensur- und Überwachungsabsichten zu unterstellen."
- - Bundesminister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble -- 10. Juli in Berlin 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG

[Jonas Krückel]

Am 06.12.2009 um 10:47 schrieb Florian Lohoff:

> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:14PM -0700, SteveC 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.
> 
> So we should do the YOU or the OSMF asks us to do?
> 
> Ulf is not alone - I havent asked  ... And a lot of people did
> not do so too.
> 
> Even that i didnt ask for a license change - the new license is much to 
> complex
> for my mind - CC-BY-SA hasnt shown any real problems up to now so i see the
> whole discussion as an artificial problem. 

I'm not sure if the CC-BY-SA license is really simpler than ODbL. Just look at 
this website here http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ and 
you'll see that the ODbL is as simple as CC-BY-SA. Plus it's now clear how to 
attribute correct and when your derived work also has to be ShareAlike and when 
not.

Personally I'm also a PD fan and the only thing I was missing from the LWG was 
a survey to see if the majority of the OSM contributors wants to keep the 
attribution and Share alike component in a new license or if they would want 
completely free data under PD or CC0.

Jonas


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Full Database dump request - forking possible Was: [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

[Tom Hughes]

On 06/12/09 09:59, Florian Lohoff wrote:

> I hereby request that the OSMF publishes a full (including history)
> Database Dump just prior deleting non ODbL relicensed data to allow
> a forking of OpenStreetmap under the old licensing terms.

Which has exactly what to so with me?

Of course they've already said they're going to, so your request is 
basically pointless, but I'm not an OSMF board member or LWG member so I 
don't know why you're including me in your request.

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] Thank you, LWG

[80n]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Jonas Krückel wrote:

>
> Am 06.12.2009 um 10:47 schrieb Florian Lohoff:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:14PM -0700, SteveC 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.
> >
> > So we should do the YOU or the OSMF asks us to do?
> >
> > Ulf is not alone - I havent asked  ... And a lot of people did
> > not do so too.
> >
> > Even that i didnt ask for a license change - the new license is much to
> complex
> > for my mind - CC-BY-SA hasnt shown any real problems up to now so i see
> the
> > whole discussion as an artificial problem.
>
> I'm not sure if the CC-BY-SA license is really simpler than ODbL. Just look
> at this website here http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/and 
> you'll see that the ODbL is as simple as CC-BY-SA. Plus it's now clear
> how to attribute correct and when your derived work also has to be
> ShareAlike and when not.
>
> ODbL appears simple when expressed like this:

As long as you: * Share-Alike: If you publicly use any adapted version of
this database, or works produced from an adapted database, you must also
offer that adapted database under the ODbL.

But in combination with the Contributor Terms it becomes complex and has
unexpected properties.

For example I could take some OSM data, modify it, and publish it.  But you
couldn't then add my modifications back into OSM.  Why not?  Because in
order to do that you have to agree to the Contributor Terms.  But you don't
have the rights to do that for my ODbL licensed data, only I have the right
to do that.  So while I can add my ODbL data to OSM you can't.  And if I
choose not to then OSM loses.

Simple?  No.





Personally I'm also a PD fan and the only thing I was missing from the LWG
> was a survey to see if the majority of the OSM contributors wants to keep
> the attribution and Share alike component in a new license or if they would
> want completely free data under PD or CC0.
>
> Jonas
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] License - simple example

[bernhard]

hi all

If somebody creates a printed map, is it allowed to make copies of this 
map and distribute the copies?

With CC-BY-SA I think it is allowed to copy the map.
Is it also allowed with ODBL?


Bernhard

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

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

[Lester Caine]

SteveC wrote:
> 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.

Just to stick my oar in 
I think part of the problem here is that the 'license' problem DOES go back 
several years, and I have many emails about it. BECAUSE it had moved from the 
'front line' while all the facts were gathered, newcomers would not have been 
aware of the REAL problem, which is that courts were separating 'data' from 
'documents' and allowing commercial organizations free use of the underlying 
data simply because it was not a breach of copyright. There are a couple of 
commercial organization in the US using freely gathered data for their own 
purposes without putting anything back into the project that generated it - the 
courts have found they are not in breach of copyright!

The bottom line is that courts all over the world will make up their own mind 
on 
how THEY think licenses are interpreted and because there is not a single 
'jurisdiction' ANYTHING we draft will be ignored somewhere in the world!

I probably do not support the current offering, but that is more because I see 
it as restrictive and I would prefer free access. HOWEVER it HAS to be 
restrictive otherwise any commercial organization can walk over it. If we could 
get a world wide agreement then there would not be a problem, but TODAY I see 
many government sources fully supporting the SPIRIT if OSM and providing data 
to 
be included. We DO need to protect the use of that data - something which 
'copyright' simply does not do - and is an area where there is NO case law to 
fall back on? SO we need something which can then become acceptable case law?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

[Steve Bennett]

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>1, 2. Dual carriageway
>
> 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Dual carriageway
>

Alright, but let's be practical. It's a lot of effort to create and maintain
pairs of roads (let's not call them "dual carriageways" - that's really a
specific type of motorway). Let's imagine this tag is implemented and there
is renderer support. What value do you see in mapping examples 2 and 10 as
pairs of roads rather than a single road with divided=median?

Is the benefit just so you can get more precise with area micromapping?
Let's assume, because it's true, that volunteer mapping time is limited, and
the use of areas to micromap roads is rare, and certainly not expected by
end users. Why is a pair of roads better in 2 than a single, divided road?

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

[OSM-talk] OSM/GoogleMap mashup

[Steve Bennett]

Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps (or any
other site, for that matter)? Not for tracing, but for checking
completeness. It would be very interesting.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM/GoogleMap mashup

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Steve Bennett wrote:
> Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps (or 
> any other site, for that matter)? 

Several, for example

http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc

with a side-by side comparison and

http://sautter.com/map/

with a transparent overlay.

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] OSM/GoogleMap mashup

[Sam Vekemans]

I use the google earth KML overlay for that, it also has yahoo imagery also.

There are GoogleMap hacks available, but thats too complicated.

Its (google earth link) not on the wiki because its a sensative issue.

Google search 'openstreetmap kml overlay google earth'

AFAIK there are 2 versions out there.

cheers,
Sam


On 12/6/09, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps (or any
> other site, for that matter)? Not for tracing, but for checking
> completeness. It would be very interesting.
>
> Steve
>


-- 
Twitter: @Acrosscanada
Blog:  http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
Skype: samvekemans
OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org
@Acrosscanadatrails

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM/GoogleMap mashup

[Steve Bennett]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

>
> http://sautter.com/map/
>
> with a transparent overlay.
>
>
That's really cool, thanks!

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM/GoogleMap mashup

[Ciprian Talaba]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Steve Bennett wrote:
> > Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps (or
> > any other site, for that matter)?
>
> Several, for example
>
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc
>
> with a side-by side comparison and
>
> http://sautter.com/map/
>
> with a transparent overlay.
>
>
Or (sorry it is available only in romanian, but try Hibrid): www.openmap.ro.
The data is available worldwide.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License - simple example

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El Domingo, 6 de Diciembre de 2009, bernhard escribió:
> hi all
>
> If somebody creates a printed map, is it allowed to make copies of this
> map and distribute the copies?

Yes.

> With CC-BY-SA I think it is allowed to copy the map.
> Is it also allowed with ODBL?

Yes.

The main difference between CC-by-sa and ODbL is that, with CC-by-sa, the 
printed map would be also CC-by-sa. With ODbL, the map just has to attribute 
OSM.


-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega 

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] Divided roads proposal

[Lester Caine]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Anthony  > wrote:
>  >1, 2. Dual carriageway
> 
> 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Dual carriageway
> 
> 
> Alright, but let's be practical. It's a lot of effort to create and 
> maintain pairs of roads (let's not call them "dual carriageways" - 
> that's really a specific type of motorway). Let's imagine this tag is 
> implemented and there is renderer support. What value do you see in 
> mapping examples 2 and 10 as pairs of roads rather than a single road 
> with divided=median?
> 
> Is the benefit just so you can get more precise with area micromapping? 
> Let's assume, because it's true, that volunteer mapping time is limited, 
> and the use of areas to micromap roads is rare, and certainly not 
> expected by end users. Why is a pair of roads better in 2 than a single, 
> divided road?

Many of the example pictures have end cases that need to be handled by 
separated 
roads, so why not just draw the reality on the ground? Having to add MORE 
complexity such as you can turn off this side of the road is just as wrong? So 
map the dual carriage way section, and show the other detail joining to the 
physical situation?

In many areas, the macro level view is complete and people are starting to look 
at the micro view. Just because a few areas 'might look better' in the macro 
view is no reason to remove the existing format, and I see little point adding 
tags for something that is hiding the micro view?

SOME roads do need a 'divider' tag, but only to add 'white line' and other 
'micro' data that can't be included by areas or other means. The crosshatch 
area 
is just another edge case that needs to be handled in bother levels.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Full Database dump request - forking possible Was: [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

[Simone Cortesi]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:59, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> I hereby request that the OSMF publishes a full (including history)
> Database Dump just prior deleting non ODbL relicensed data to allow
> a forking of OpenStreetmap under the old licensing terms.

There already is a plan for a complete dump (with history). This will
not happen tomorrow. Because we are not going to change the licence
anyday this month.

I'm really hoping that nobody will effectively go on with a fork of the project.

The strenght of OpenStreetMap is in its community. We dont need a second one.

-- 
-S

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

Re: [OSM-talk] License - simple example

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
>> If somebody creates a printed map, is it allowed to make copies of this
>> map and distribute the copies?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> With CC-BY-SA I think it is allowed to copy the map.
>> Is it also allowed with ODBL?
> 
> Yes.

Well... that's only half the answer.

With CC-BY-SA, it is always allowed to make copies of the map no matter 
what the map maker wants.

With ODbL, the map maker can decide whether he wants to allow copying or 
not.

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

[Mike Collinson]

At 10:26 PM 5/12/2009, Ian Dees wrote:
>On Dec 5, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Mike Collinson  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? 


Ian,

A little at a time. This is a key test for change after all the community-wide 
input and consultation over the last two years. If it gets through here, then 
all contributors will be asked for their consent.

Some OSMF members also question this strategy, and that would be a reason for 
them to vote no:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#Who_owns_OSM.3F_You.21

Mike
License Working Group




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

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

[Mike Collinson]

At 01:58 AM 6/12/2009, John Smith wrote:
>2009/12/6 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.
>
>How many of them are practising copyright lawyers?

None.

Which is why we elected to work with Open Data Commons. The ODbL 1.0 license 
itself is theirs, not ours. Our relationship with them has worked very well. We 
have provided our special, but often generalisable, requirements for geodata 
and they have provided the big picture and, of course, specific legal 
discipline.  Their general jurisdictional background is UK and Europe: 
http://www.opendatacommons.org/about/advisory-council/ .

The OSMF also directly engaged legal counsel specifically for OpenStreetMap; 
Clark Asay of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, http://www.wsgr.com . They 
generously provided hours pro bono and we burned through quite a few. Clark has 
been both enthusiastic and diligent. We asked him to review both ODbL and give 
input to our Contributor Terms as well as presented many specific concerns 
raised by us and the OpenStreetMap community. Based in Silicon Valley also gave 
us the advantage of a US jurisdictional perspective and in the heart of 
technical intellectual property land.

Hope that helps,
Mike Collinson
OSMF License Working Group





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

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

[Steve Bennett]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Lester Caine  wrote:

> Many of the example pictures have end cases that need to be handled by
> separated
> roads, so why not just draw the reality on the ground?


Because, as someone else pointed out, "drawing the reality on the ground"
isn't the only, or even, best approach for mapping. The slightly more
abstract "this is a single road, divided" works better than "this is two
roads" in some cases.

It seems to me that to almost any proposal you could argue "why not just
draw the reality on the ground?":
Q: Can we have a cinema tag?
A: Why not just draw the reality on the ground? It's a building, with
chairs, a room with a projector...

Q: Can we have a swimming pool tag?
A: Why not just draw the reality on the ground? It's a waterway,
surface=tiles, foot=yes, bicycle=no...



> Having to add MORE
> complexity such as you can turn off this side of the road is just as wrong?


I don't think a single road with a single junction leading to a side road,
with a single tag, could possibly be construed as "more complex" than two
roads with an extra road for the gap.


> In many areas, the macro level view is complete and people are starting to
> look
> at the micro view. Just because a few areas 'might look better' in the
> macro
> view is no reason to remove the existing format,


I repeat: I am not proposing "removing" anything.

I'm proposing *adding* a tag, primarily to allow *adding* information about
*new* streets. It's possible this will mean that some streets that *would
have* been mapped as two roads will instead be mapped as one road, but it's
a stretch to call that "removing" anything.

(Sorry for the irritated tone, but...c'mon.)




> and I see little point adding
> tags for something that is hiding the micro view?
>

If and when roads are mapped as areas (in addition to ways), I'm sure you'll
be able to map the individual halves of the divided road to your heart's
content. Just like you'll be able to map every lane, every slipway, every
traffic island and every painted arrow.

Honestly though, the primary function of OSM is not "the micro view". We're
not primarily interested in centimetre perfect placement of lumps of
concrete. Are you really suggesting that we don't use a feature because it
might interfere with the micro view, even though it works better at the
macro view?

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

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

[Richard Fairhurst]

80n wrote:
> You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim 
> to have a deep understanding of the issues.  If CC BY-SA is as broken 
> as you claim it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others 
> would all have helped themselves to our data by now.
>
> You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some 
> evidence of our data being abused.  Put up or shut up, please.

Ok.

Assiduous readers of legal-talk will know about the "machine-generated
derivative" loophole which Frederik and I independently identified; which
has been confirmed for us on the CC mailing lists; and which CC will not fix
because they don't believe people should use a creative works licence for
data.

Under CC-BY-SA, attribution and share-alike are required when you distribute
OSM data, or a derivative of it.

They are not required, of course, if you don't distribute the data. If I
write a program that downloads planet.osm to my hard disc, then replaces the
word "node" with "nude" throughout, I don't have to give it back or
attribute OSM. 

In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or
share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the
derivative, rather than the derivative itself. This is perfectly permissible
under CC-BY-SA.

This is trivial because you can distribute programs as part of a webpage -
for example, as JavaScript (e.g. Cartagen) or Flash (e.g. Halcyon).

To this end, because you would like to see some evidence of the data being
'abused', I've temporarily removed the attribution from
http://www.geowiki.com/halcyon/ . This is now using OSM data without any
credit, perfectly legally.

I also give notice that I intend to write an iPhone application which uses
the same loophole to download OSM data, creates a derivative, and neither
attributes OSM nor offers the derivative under the terms of CC-BY-SA.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A--Announce--OSMF-license-change-vote-has-started-tp26659536p26665018.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] Divided roads proposal

[Lester Caine]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> Honestly though, the primary function of OSM is not "the micro view". 
> We're not primarily interested in centimetre perfect placement of lumps 
> of concrete. Are you really suggesting that we don't use a feature 
> because it might interfere with the micro view, even though it works 
> better at the macro view?

Why do you say THAT ?
Many of the additions currently being discussed ARE because the macro view is 
now complete, and adding the fine detail is now being carried out. There is no 
PRIMARY interest. Everybody has their own views on what is important!

I think my only problem with 'divided' is "At what point do you apply it?" The 
samples being shown are quite clearly - on the whole - dual carriageway 
structures. Example 10 clearly has a more complex structure than can be mapped 
by showing a 'divided' tag, since there is no access to the joining road from 
the other carriageway?

Example 6 has some quite complex slip roads that really need isolated ways for 
the main carriageway. Trying to ADD tags to supplement a simple 'divided' tag 
to 
explain the slips on and off at the end is handled much easier with a simple 
dual carriage way? And many of the other examples need the same end cases. So 
at 
what level does a simple 'divided' tag actually work in practice? However 
'double white lines' on a single carriage way road IS a divider that needs 
tagging?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php

___
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 ...

[Dave Stubbs]

>>
>> as far as i can see the contributor terms definition says the same
>> thing, except ...
>
> ...except the context is different.  With CC BY-SA you are giving everyone
> the same rights.  With the Contributor Terms the only one to have those
> rights is the OSMF.
>
>

But only with the condition that they give everyone else those rights
when publishing the data (via cc-by-sa or odbl). There's a slight
change to attribution in that redirection which is just a
formalisation of the current practice of attribution to OSM, and a
wiki page for large contributors.

The only extra right you give OSMF here, over and above everyone else,
is the license change part -- and that can only be initiated by OSMF,
the rest has to go to a vote of the OSM contributors. With cc-by-sa
you currently give this right to Creative Commons, who think we should
be using CC0 for data anyway.

Dave

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

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

[80n]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

>
> 80n wrote:
> > You've spent many many hours studying the licensing issues and claim
> > to have a deep understanding of the issues.  If CC BY-SA is as broken
> > as you claim it is then Google, Navteq, Teleatlas and many others
> > would all have helped themselves to our data by now.
> >
> > You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some
> > evidence of our data being abused.  Put up or shut up, please.
>
> Ok.
>
> Assiduous readers of legal-talk will know about the "machine-generated
> derivative" loophole which Frederik and I independently identified; which
> has been confirmed for us on the CC mailing lists; and which CC will not
> fix
> because they don't believe people should use a creative works licence for
> data.
>
> Under CC-BY-SA, attribution and share-alike are required when you
> distribute
> OSM data, or a derivative of it.
>
> They are not required, of course, if you don't distribute the data. If I
> write a program that downloads planet.osm to my hard disc, then replaces
> the
> word "node" with "nude" throughout, I don't have to give it back or
> attribute OSM.
>
> In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or
> share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the
> derivative, rather than the derivative itself. This is perfectly
> permissible
> under CC-BY-SA.
>
> This is trivial because you can distribute programs as part of a webpage -
> for example, as JavaScript (e.g. Cartagen) or Flash (e.g. Halcyon).
>
> To this end, because you would like to see some evidence of the data being
> 'abused', I've temporarily removed the attribution from
> http://www.geowiki.com/halcyon/ . This is now using OSM data without any
> credit, perfectly legally.
>


This is a nice demonstration of a flaw in CC BY-SA.  So apart from you
making this site in order to demonstrate the flaw, can you point to anyone
who is actually really using this loophole?  The fact is that given a
reasonable license most people respect the spirit of it.

And the ODbL fixes this by making it permissible to do what you've just
done, right?

Do you have any real world examples that you can share?






> I also give notice that I intend to write an iPhone application which uses
> the same loophole to download OSM data, creates a derivative, and neither
> attributes OSM nor offers the derivative under the terms of CC-BY-SA.
>
> cheers
> Richard
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A--Announce--OSMF-license-change-vote-has-started-tp26659536p26665018.html
> Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:48 AM, John Smith wrote:

> What I'm curious about is if a document is written in XML can be
> considered copyrighted, why can't geo-data be copyrighted as well
> since it's not a database of facts, but a document of information
> created, in this case, by crowd sourcing.
>

A document in XML may or may not be copyrightable.  It depends on the
underlying content, the selection of that content, the arrangement of that
content, etc.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Lester Caine  wrote:

> I think my only problem with 'divided' is "At what point do you apply it?"
> The
> samples being shown are quite clearly - on the whole - dual carriageway
> structures.


(Just on terminology, I'm used to "dual carriageway" only being applied to
motorways, but Wikipedia says it technically applies to any road. We'll go
with that, then, ok.)

By "are clearly dual carriageway structures", I take it you're
distinguishing between roads which have a shortish traffic island of some
type, versus those which are divided for a long stretch. Is this important?

Example 10 clearly has a more complex structure than can be mapped
> by showing a 'divided' tag, since there is no access to the joining road
> from
> the other carriageway?
>

Have you read the proposal?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divided_road

It covers *exactly* this case. In my proposal (ie, not Vovanium's, which
cohabits the page),  when there's a junction (like the road entering from
SW), by default that road can't cross the median - there is no gap. You can
see how this looks in my mocked up Halcyon image.


>
> Example 6 has some quite complex slip roads that really need isolated ways
> for
> the main carriageway. Trying to ADD tags to supplement a simple 'divided'
> tag to
> explain the slips on and off at the end is handled much easier with a
> simple
> dual carriage way?


Do slip ways need to be modelled at all? At the moment, they're not, as far
as I have seen. Essentially what is going on at that intersection is very
straight forward: divided road meets (temporarily) divided road, and all
turns are possible. Currently, I don't think many people would map the N/S
as divided (ie, two ways). With this proposal, you could do so, without
creating a mess.


> And many of the other examples need the same end cases. So at
> what level does a simple 'divided' tag actually work in practice? However
>

IMHO, the divided tag is well suited to all cases except 6, 7, and 9. Number
2 in particular is a perfect example. Worth tagging, not worth splitting the
road in two for.


> 'double white lines' on a single carriage way road IS a divider that needs
> tagging?
>
>
Yeah, I deliberated over whether or not to include that. What do you think -
same proposal, or separate? Double white lines really aren't a "divider",
they're a restriction on overtaking.

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 ...

[80n]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Dave Stubbs wrote:

> >>
> >> as far as i can see the contributor terms definition says the same
> >> thing, except ...
> >
> > ...except the context is different.  With CC BY-SA you are giving
> everyone
> > the same rights.  With the Contributor Terms the only one to have those
> > rights is the OSMF.
> >
> >
>
> But only with the condition that they give everyone else those rights
> when publishing the data (via cc-by-sa or odbl). There's a slight
> change to attribution in that redirection which is just a
> formalisation of the current practice of attribution to OSM, and a
> wiki page for large contributors.
>
> The only extra right you give OSMF here, over and above everyone else,
> is the license change part -- and that can only be initiated by OSMF,
>

Yes, one of the major consequences is that OSMF gets to change the license.

If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned by
companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting
target.  The safeguards that have been put in place (a vote of the OSMF
membership and recent contributors) would be very easy to circumvent.

There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing the
Contributor Terms.  They can do that at any point in the future without any
kind of vote or other formality.  That's a pretty big hole in itself 




> the rest has to go to a vote of the OSM contributors. With cc-by-sa
> you currently give this right to Creative Commons, who think we should
> be using CC0 for data anyway.
>
> Dave
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Full Database dump request - forking possible Was: [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

[Ulf Lamping]

Simone Cortesi schrieb:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:59, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
>> I hereby request that the OSMF publishes a full (including history)
>> Database Dump just prior deleting non ODbL relicensed data to allow
>> a forking of OpenStreetmap under the old licensing terms.
> 
> There already is a plan for a complete dump (with history). This will
> not happen tomorrow. Because we are not going to change the licence
> anyday this month.
> 
> I'm really hoping that nobody will effectively go on with a fork of the 
> project.
> 
> The strenght of OpenStreetMap is in its community. We dont need a second one.

I agree that forking the project would be ugly.

However - the strength of OSM is *not* in the OSMF or the LWG.

If the OSMF thinks it has to tell the mappers out there what they have 
to do (and accepting a license change "by force" is definitely one of 
this), this is the point in time to think about the OSMF.

The current OSMF behaviour as it appears to me is: "We're the good guys, 
you can trust us, so shut up and go on mapping".

Is this still a free and open project if we follow this road? No, it's a 
project with a steering committee where you can become a member of the 
committee for a royalty fee.

Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Anthony  wrote:
> >1, 2. Dual carriageway
>
>> 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Dual carriageway
>>
>
> Alright, but let's be practical. It's a lot of effort to create and
> maintain pairs of roads (let's not call them "dual carriageways" - that's
> really a specific type of motorway). Let's imagine this tag is implemented
> and there is renderer support. What value do you see in mapping examples 2
> and 10 as pairs of roads rather than a single road with divided=median?
>
> Is the benefit just so you can get more precise with area micromapping?
> Let's assume, because it's true, that volunteer mapping time is limited, and
> the use of areas to micromap roads is rare, and certainly not expected by
> end users. Why is a pair of roads better in 2 than a single, divided road?
>

If you don't see how it's more accurate, I can't help you.

Yes, in many of those cases you outline, it's overkill.  But in those same
cases, just leaving a single way and not worrying about the divider at all
is fine.  Only in a case where the divider provides routing information
(other than the ability to U-turn) would I say that it's important to use a
dual carriageway (seems to me to fit the dictionary definition).  The
"divided=median" tag is already micromapping.  All I'm saying is if you're
going to start micromapping, do it right.

OTOH, if you don't intend to use divided=* to represent routing information,
so routers and renderers can safely ignore the tag, then do whatever you
want with it.  Like I suggested, I'll just treat it as a type of todo tag.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Logo status?

[Robert Martinez]

After some research & coincidence I found out about the logo contest for 
the foundation.
Is there a contest for the actual logo, too?

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

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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> However, one thing you should perhaps consider is this argument of "project
> sanity": We're all in this together. It's no good having a license that has
> different effects in different countries.


And that is one of the exact problems with the ODbL.  Under the ODbL, in
some jurisdictions the database is protected by database, copyright, and
contract law.  In other jurisdictions, it's protected only by contract law.

In the United States, which is a prominent example of "anything goes", the
ODbL would likely not hold up in a court of law anyway.  First of all,
unless there's some sort of "click-through", there's no real indication of
assent.  Even if you want to argue that the TOS is binding (and that's
probably going to be an expensive argument), it's only binding if the site
you download the data from has the TOS.  Then, once you prove that there's a
contract in place, it's effectively useless.  You can't sue for injunctive
relief, that's just not a remedy available for breach of contract.  You
could try to sue for specific performance, but it's highly unlikely you'd
get it.  So you're left with a suit under a state law breach of contract and
you get actual damages, likely nothing.

OSM absolutely *should* be released under a license which is treated as
similarly as possible in all jurisdictions.  That license is CC0.
___
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 ...

[Niklas Cholmkvist]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing the
> Contributor Terms.  They can do that at any point in the future without any
> kind of vote or other formality.  That's a pretty big hole in itself 

At least the data before the license change will be under the previous
license. I also don't think the community will let this happen. I left
wikimapia because of empty promises, and also because the community
didn't care the least about the data being non-free .(a few people
only cared, and I guess they left too)

Niklas
--
Niklas Holmkvist

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

[Steve Bennett]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> Is the benefit just so you can get more precise with area micromapping?
>> Let's assume, because it's true, that volunteer mapping time is limited, and
>> the use of areas to micromap roads is rare, and certainly not expected by
>> end users. Why is a pair of roads better in 2 than a single, divided road?
>>
>
> If you don't see how it's more accurate, I can't help you.
>

I said "better". You say "accurate", but you probably mean "precise".

Let's say I ask you the time. You reply "Sun Dec  6 06:11:07 2009 PST". A
"better" answer would have been "ten past one AM".

I can understand your temptation to think that increasing levels of
precision are always better: usually it is. But the problem here is:
1) The extra precision of precisely mapping two ways means extra complexity,
hence more difficulty in rendering, and it maps less well onto the user's
mental model. Just like "amenity=swimming_pool" is better, if less precise,
than a natural=water, with precise details of surface materials and whatnot.
2) Extra precision requires more information, which we don't necessarily
have. How would you map a divided road which you don't have an aerial photo
for? You have a GPS trace with points every 10 metres, with an accuracy of
about 5 metres. How would you map this: two ways? Now you see the difference
between precision and accuracy: you have precisely mapped out two ways, when
in fact neither is particularly accurate.
3) Extra precision requires more time, which we don't necessarily have.
Let's say that we agree that all divided roads "should" be mapped as two
ways. Let's also say it takes on average 1 minute to trace out a single way.
There's a volunteer with 60 divided roads to map in front of him, and he's
got one hour to spend. See where I'm going?


> Yes, in many of those cases you outline, it's overkill.  But in those same
> cases, just leaving a single way and not worrying about the divider at all
> is fine.
>

Absolutely. We agree on two situations:

1) Roads with a division too trivial to map, which we map as a single way.

3) Large, dual-carriage roads with a division too complex to model with a
simple "divided=*" tag, which we map as two separate ways.

Can you guess what number 2) is?


> Only in a case where the divider provides routing information (other than
> the ability to U-turn) would I say that it's important to use a dual
> carriageway (seems to me to fit the dictionary definition).  The
> "divided=median" tag is already micromapping.
>

I disagree, but I accept that the line of what is considered to be
"micromapping" is subjective. You explain very well the current conundrum:
there are currently only two choices, either map out the division as two
separate roads (a "dual carriageway"), or declare it "micromapping" and
ignore it. I'm proposing a third choice, that lets you capture some useful
information without the overhead of the dual carriageway.


> All I'm saying is if you're going to start micromapping, do it right.
>

This is the most compelling argument against my proposal, and I'm surprised
no one has brought it up yet: the divider=* tag can be used for certain
kinds of traffic islands (namely those that run down the middle of a two way
road), but not others (such as slipway dividers, islands in one way streets,
islands in intersections...)

However, I think "do it right" is an immense, open-ended, complex task. This
proposal addreses enough common situations that it's worth implementing,
even if we still can't map *everything*.


>
> OTOH, if you don't intend to use divided=* to represent routing
> information, so routers and renderers can safely ignore the tag, then do
> whatever you want with it.  Like I suggested, I'll just treat it as a type
> of todo tag.
>

I suggest you read the "Routing" section of the proposal.
Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Full Database dump request - forking possible Was: [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

[Klaus-Guenter Leiss]

Am 6 Dec 2009 um 12:53 hat Simone Cortesi geschrieben:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:59, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> > I hereby request that the OSMF publishes a full (including history)
> > Database Dump just prior deleting non ODbL relicensed data to allow
> > a forking of OpenStreetmap under the old licensing terms.
> 
> There already is a plan for a complete dump (with history). This will
> not happen tomorrow. Because we are not going to change the licence
> anyday this month.

That is nice to hear.
 
> I'm really hoping that nobody will effectively go on with a fork of the
project.

Since some people feel about the vote like being held hostage with a gun
to their head somebody should solve their dilemma. Fork now and everybody
that might compelled to vote yes for fear to lose their data can vote no  
and know they have a new project that has all the data but does not ignore 
their objections.
  
> The strenght of OpenStreetMap is in its community. We dont need a second
one.

But some people seem to need no second license. I may not the only one 
that sees similarities to the CDDB fiasco. I think the wording of the 
license about future possible changes to the license is vague enough that 
some people are uncomfortable. Maybe it is nessesary to state clearly in 
the license that any further changes can not deprive the community of any
rights.

I have seen some of the license discussion in the past but could never 
fathom who did give the OSMF the to  initiate the new license process.
I would assume only a majority of the community would be able to do that. 
But I have not found any mention of a vote where a majority of the 
community said the wanted another license.

I would assume the correct way would have been to state the problem that 
some people see with the license. Then ask if the majority feels the same. 
 And only then initiatiate a process to change it. But even then only in 
the direction the majority want since there seems to be people that want a
more open license. Maybe a majority is quite kool with Google stealing
their data since this people only want free map data. If one looks at how
much contributors Google has for their maps this is not unreasonable.


Klaus Leiss


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM/GoogleMap mashup

[Dave F.]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps 
> (or any other site, for that matter)? Not for tracing, but for 
> checking completeness. It would be very interesting.
Within GM There's the My Maps tab. Then click the 'Browse the Directory' 
& search for OSM.

This link may take you directly to it:

http://maps.google.co.uk/gadgets/directory?synd=mpl&hl=en&gl=&q=open+street+map

Cheers
Dave F.



___
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 ...

[Matt Amos]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned by
> companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting
> target.  The safeguards that have been put in place (a vote of the OSMF
> membership and recent contributors) would be very easy to circumvent.

they would have to first gain a majority of the OSMF members, which
would take a lot of resources but i guess it's doable. but then they'd
*further* need to gain a majority of active contributors, which would
mean they'd need to find a majority of contributors editing in three
out of the last six months. given that this number appears to be in
the region of 70,000 mappers at the moment, and will presumably grow
over time, i think this is too much effort even for a large mapping
company.

but, let's be constructive instead; what do you think would be an
adequate safeguard while still allowing the license to change in
response to community needs?

> There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing the
> Contributor Terms.  They can do that at any point in the future without any
> kind of vote or other formality.  That's a pretty big hole in itself 

the funny thing is, OSMF can't change the contributor terms once
you've signed it. it's a contract between you and OSMF which follows
the usual rule - it can only be amended by a further agreement in
writing signed by both parties. so, no. OSMF can't change the
contributor terms for existing contributors.

cheers,

matt

___
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 OSMdata ...

[John F. Eldredge]

It is my (possibly mistaken) impression that, once the new contract goes into 
effect, any old data that had been entered, previous to the new contract, by 
someone who does not agree to the new contract, will be removed from the 
database.

-- 
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: Niklas Cholmkvist 
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 16:25:47 
To: 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM
data ...

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing the
> Contributor Terms.  They can do that at any point in the future without any
> kind of vote or other formality.  That's a pretty big hole in itself 

At least the data before the license change will be under the previous
license. I also don't think the community will let this happen. I left
wikimapia because of empty promises, and also because the community
didn't care the least about the data being non-free .(a few people
only cared, and I guess they left too)

Niklas
--
Niklas Holmkvist

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM/GoogleMap mashup

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Sunday 06 Dec 2009 4:32:08 pm Steve Bennett wrote:
> Wondering if there is a site that overlays OSM data over GoogleMaps (or any
> other site, for that matter)? Not for tracing, but for checking
> completeness. It would be very interesting.
> 

should that not be overlaying GoogleMaps over OSM data for checking 
completeness?
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Senior Project Officer
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/

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

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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Patrick Kilian  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> > I live in the United States.  I can do whatever the heck I want with the
> > OSM database.  Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those
> > rights.  So I'll ask again:  What's in it for me?
> My data. The streets I mapped. The trails I mapped. The POIs I mapped.
> The Indonesian islands I traced from aerial imagery. All that and all
> the data I'm going to add. For free and in my spare time and with the
> assumptions that I would get credit for it. Not personally but in the
> form of "this dataset was collected by the collaborators of the OSM
> project".


Well, first of all, that's not "your data".  That's data, which you happened
to discover.  Just because you discovered something doesn't mean you own
it.  Secondly,


> Nearly all of my data doesn't concern the US and is totally
> uninteresting to you.


So I ask again, what's in it for me?

> If the copyright law in you're place allows you to take my
> data and use it with out attributing me and my fellow mappers I consider
> it broken. And if the copyright law was that broken in the whole world I
> would never have invested as much time as I have.

And I say the opposite.  If the copyright law was so broken that one had to
keep a chain of attribution every time one learned of a fact, I would have
never been interested in OSM in the first place.

But attribution, collectively, to OSM, isn't really my problem.  If it was
as simple as writing "some data from OSM" next to any map I created, I'd be
perfectly fine with it.

One big problem, and the biggest change I can find from CC-BY-SA, is "4.6
Access to Derivative Databases."  Sure, some will claim that it's a
"feature" that I can't print out maps which mix OSM data and non-OSM data
without "offer[ing] to recipients of the [...] Produced Work a copy in a
machine readable form of [...] A file containing all of the alterations made
to the Database or the method of making the alterations to the Database
(such as an algorithm), including any additional Contents, that make up all
the differences between the Database and the Derivative Database".

Actually, I was planning on doing exactly this with a map of my office on
the back of my business card.  I'm not about to start handing out CDs along
with my business cards.

The other big problem is that I just don't have the time or money to figure
out *exactly* what the ODbL means.  And Open Data Commons is just not anyone
I've ever heard of (and Creative Commons, who *is* someone I've heard of,
and respect the legal opinion of, has torn apart the ODbL).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Matt Amos]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:03 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some evidence of
> our data being abused.  Put up or shut up, please.
>
> Show us the evidence of license abuse please.

http://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg24536.html

cheers,

matt

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

[OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

I've been following the CC-ODbL license discussions for quite long time and
I have persistent question that I've been meaning to ask. The recent lively
debates on osmf-talk that have spilled over here prompted me to ask now.

Why do people believe that there no creative copyright in OSM data (i.e.,
why is CC-BY-SA supposedly indefensible for OSM data)? I'm talking about the
US-type of copyright that is based on sufficient creativity, and not on the
sweat-of-the-brow copyright that is part of UK IP.

The argument is that geodata, being factual, is not creative and therefore
not afforded copyright protection.

That is certainly true for individual pieces of geodata, like each and every
node of a road. But I would argue that a selection of a finite set from an
infinite possible nodes that can represent the centerline of a road is a
sufficiently creative endeavor that is automatically afforded copyright
according to the US copyright system. Therefore, the set of nodes that
represent a particular road in OSM is a creative output and is copyrighted.
By extension, the OSM database, that consists of such creative selections of
road nodes is also copyrighted.

As a comparative example, the fact that Obama is the 44th President of the
United States and the fact that Obama is the first African-American to
become U.S. President are two uncopyrightable facts, but those facts can be
represented in many creative ways. And you can mix and match that with other
facts. In the same way, while the factual data (e.g., position) attached to
individual nodes is uncopyrightable, particular selections of such nodes,
especially when the selection process is sufficiently creative, should be
copyrightable.

Sure, the copyright afforded might be "thin copyright" [1], but I don't
think this matters because anyone who tries to derive a proprietary database
from OSM data by relying on the underlying facts would be essentially be
doing what Richard Fairhurst mentioned in his popular blog post [2] and is
therefore allowed. Not to mention that they would have to expend a
considerable amount of effort to avoid copyright infringement (by selecting
a different set of nodes to represent a road) that they might be better off
doing their geo database from scratch.

[1] http://www.ivanhoffman.com/scenes.html
[2] http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100


Eugene Villar
(OSM: seav)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Logo status?

[Henk Hoff]

No, at the moment there is only a contest for the logo of the OSM
Foundation.

Cheers,
Henk

2009/12/6 Robert Martinez 

> After some research & coincidence I found out about the logo contest for
> the foundation.
> Is there a contest for the actual logo, too?
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Pieren]

Because the foundation is deciding now if the current Odbl 1.0 licence
proposal will be the next OSM licence you will have to accept or
refuse in February 2010, I would like to know what the community
itself thinks about this Odbl 1.0.
As Ulf Lamping said, it will be a gun on your head in Feb. 2010 where
you will have the choice between accepting this licence or stop
contributing to OSM and all your contributions will be removed.

Therefore, I would like to know what "you", the contributor, thinks
today about the transition to Odbl 1.0 licence in this opinion poll:

http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w

Feel free to add comments to explain your choice.

Pieren

___
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 ...

[80n]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned
> by
> > companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting
> > target.  The safeguards that have been put in place (a vote of the OSMF
> > membership and recent contributors) would be very easy to circumvent.
>
> they would have to first gain a majority of the OSMF members, which
> would take a lot of resources but i guess it's doable. but then they'd
> *further* need to gain a majority of active contributors, which would
> mean they'd need to find a majority of contributors editing in three
> out of the last six months. given that this number appears to be in
> the region of 70,000 mappers at the moment, and will presumably grow
> over time, i think this is too much effort even for a large mapping
> company.
>
> Easy enough to create fake accounts and bots to provide contributions.  The
contributor terms do not define the term "contributor" and it would be very
onerous to sift through 70,000 accounts to try to differentiate between real
and fake accounts.  Not something that you'd be able to enforce very
practically.


> but, let's be constructive instead; what do you think would be an
> adequate safeguard while still allowing the license to change in
> response to community needs?
>

You could get the contributor terms reviewed by a decent lawyer for a start,
with a brief to look at the terms with a view to protecting the rights of
the contributors.  If you've had any legal review what brief did you give
them?




>
> > There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing
> the
> > Contributor Terms.  They can do that at any point in the future without
> any
> > kind of vote or other formality.  That's a pretty big hole in itself 
>
> the funny thing is, OSMF can't change the contributor terms once
> you've signed it. it's a contract between you and OSMF which follows
> the usual rule - it can only be amended by a further agreement in
> writing signed by both parties. so, no. OSMF can't change the
> contributor terms for existing contributors.
>
> So existing contributors would be denied access until they assent to the
new Contributor Terms.  This is pretty common practice and most contributors
would be inclined to click through without giving it much thought.  Indeed
it's how the OSMF propose to implement these terms in the first place.




> cheers,
>
> matt
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:

> Why do people believe that there no creative copyright in OSM data (i.e.,
> why is CC-BY-SA supposedly indefensible for OSM data)? I'm talking about the
> US-type of copyright that is based on sufficient creativity, and not on the
> sweat-of-the-brow copyright that is part of UK IP.
>

I'm going with that assumption because that's what the OSM, Creative
Commons, and Open Data Commons, all are telling us.

But I think you're right that there could be argued to be some creative
content in the OSM database.  Essentially every time someone decides to "map
for the renderer" rather than "map what's on the ground", they're making a
creative decision.

I think *most* of the OSM database is uncopyrightable here in the US.  The
road networks, at least the public road networks, are probably public
domain.  The service roads, maybe not - there was a certain amount of
selectivity to them.  The POIs, yes and no.  If I extract all the "police
stations" from the OSM database, that's probably public domain.  But if I
take all the POIs, maybe not.  There was a selective process used to
determine which types of POIs to include and which not to include.  On the
other hand, who owns the copyright on this selection process?  Probably we
all do.


> But I would argue that a selection of a finite set from an infinite
> possible nodes that can represent the centerline of a road is a sufficiently
> creative endeavor that is automatically afforded copyright according to the
> US copyright system.


Inaccuracy isn't copyrightable.  Mistakes aren't copyrightable (see Feist).
The intent of OSM is to represent the centerline of a road as accurately as
possible.  There aren't an infinite number of possibilities which we
creatively choose from.  (First of all, the number of possibilities that can
be represented is finite, as the number of decimal places is finite.  But
more to the point, the purpose is to record exactly one result, and any
deviation from that is simply an error.)  Mistakes and inaccuracy do not
represent creative input.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Dave F.]

Shalabh wrote:
> 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.
>
+1

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

[Lester Caine]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Lester Caine  > wrote:
> 
> I think my only problem with 'divided' is "At what point do you
> apply it?" The
> samples being shown are quite clearly - on the whole - dual carriageway
> structures. 
> 
> (Just on terminology, I'm used to "dual carriageway" only being applied 
> to motorways, but Wikipedia says it technically applies to any road. 
> We'll go with that, then, ok.)

MANY major routes in the UK are trunk roads and most routes around cities will 
have one way elements that split and join at different points. YES it is the 
A?? 
and a single name, but the structure can only be mapped as a dual carriage way. 
Which then takes us to some of the 'green way' areas where cars go down either 
side of a grass verge. A simple 'divided' in your tag, but the separation may 
grow from nothing to several meters. At what point do you change from 'divided' 
to separate ways, which then begs the question - why have divided if it's just 
a 
  shorthand for two ways with opposite directions.

> By "are clearly dual carriageway structures", I take it you're 
> distinguishing between roads which have a shortish traffic island of 
> some type, versus those which are divided for a long stretch. Is this 
> important?
> 
> Example 10 clearly has a more complex structure than can be mapped
> by showing a 'divided' tag, since there is no access to the joining
> road from
> the other carriageway?
> 
> Have you read the proposal?
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Divided_road

You need to justify the real need for it. I'll continue to map the actual 
structure, and add the additional ways for the related footpaths. I don't see 
the need for this shorthand for many of the cases you are trying to make?

> It covers *exactly* this case. In my proposal (ie, not Vovanium's, which 
> cohabits the page),  when there's a junction (like the road entering 
> from SW), by default that road can't cross the median - there is no gap. 
> You can see how this looks in my mocked up Halcyon image.

I think what YOU are missing is that in most cases where there are traffic 
islands which add one way sections of way, they ARE mapped. Around here there 
was an attempted to remove some of them, but that has been rolled back, so 
where 
a road splits, the correct direction ways are added. Routing does not then need 
to run through lots of additional tags to find if it can then do a maneuver ...

> Example 6 has some quite complex slip roads that really need
> isolated ways for
> the main carriageway. Trying to ADD tags to supplement a simple
> 'divided' tag to
> explain the slips on and off at the end is handled much easier with
> a simple
> dual carriage way? 
> 
> Do slip ways need to be modelled at all? At the moment, they're not, as 
> far as I have seen. Essentially what is going on at that intersection is 
> very straight forward: divided road meets (temporarily) divided road, 
> and all turns are possible. Currently, I don't think many people would 
> map the N/S as divided (ie, two ways). With this proposal, you could do 
> so, without creating a mess.

I think it is essential that slipways are mapped. ESPECIALLY when one is trying 
to add the right routing instructions. TomTom has started showing motorway and 
major road slipway details properly. You need to know when to get to an inside 
lane and take a slip road PRIOR to the actual junction. These are no different 
to the island details approaching a roundabout, so trying to 'save time' by not 
actually adding quite important detail does seem wrong? A tag saying you should 
have taken the slip 10 mts before this junction is not sensible.

> And many of the other examples need the same end cases. So at
> what level does a simple 'divided' tag actually work in practice?
> However
> 
> IMHO, the divided tag is well suited to all cases except 6, 7, and 9. 
> Number 2 in particular is a perfect example. Worth tagging, not worth 
> splitting the road in two for.
> 
> 'double white lines' on a single carriage way road IS a divider that
> needs tagging?
> 
> Yeah, I deliberated over whether or not to include that. What do you 
> think - same proposal, or separate? Double white lines really aren't a 
> "divider", they're a restriction on overtaking.

Example 3 is no more than a wide 'double line' road marking. SO is it a 
'divided' or is it simply a road marking? The problem with the proposal is that 
it does not have any indication on when it should be used ... or when the more 
detailed current methods are actually more appropriate?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql

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

[Patrick Kilian]

>>> I live in the United States.  I can do whatever the heck I want 
>>> with the OSM database.  Now you want me to agree to a contract 
>>> limiting those rights.  So I'll ask again:  What's in it for me?
>> My data. The streets I mapped. The trails I mapped. The POIs I 
>> mapped. The Indonesian islands I traced from aerial imagery. All
>> that and all the data I'm going to add. For free and in my spare
>> time and with the assumptions that I would get credit for it. Not
>> personally but in the form of "this dataset was collected by the
>> collaborators of the OSM project".
> Well, first of all, that's not "your data".  That's data, which you 
> happened to discover. Just because you discovered something doesn't 
> mean you own it.
Sure it is. If I learn something, I own my knowledge and my description
of it. I don't own the street or might not be able to distribute my
knowledge if my source is there are restrictions on my source.
And sure enough somebody else could have come up with his or her own
valid description of the real world which they would own. But they
didn't. So it's MY DATA. (And I don't take it kindly if somebody tries
to take it away from me.)


> Secondly,
>> Nearly all of my data doesn't concern the US and is totally 
>> uninteresting to you.
> So I ask again, what's in it for me?
The mappers in the US who feel like me but haven't spoken up (yet).


>> If the copyright law in you're place allows you to take my data and
>>  use it with out attributing me and my fellow mappers I consider it
>>  broken. And if the copyright law was that broken in the whole 
>> world I would never have invested as much time as I have.
> And I say the opposite.  If the copyright law was so broken that one
>  had to keep a chain of attribution every time one learned of a fact,
>  I would have never been interested in OSM in the first place.
So we map for different reason, fine. But that doesn't give you the
right to circumvent the license terms on MY DATA. And to stop you from
doing that I want to switch away from the broken CC-BY-SA license.


> One big problem, and the biggest change I can find from CC-BY-SA, is 
> "4.6 Access to Derivative Databases."  Sure, some will claim that 
> it's a "feature" that I can't print out maps which mix OSM data and 
> non-OSM data without "offer[ing] to recipients of the [...] Produced
> Work a copy in a machine readable form of [...] A file containing
> all of the alterations made to the Database or the method of making
> the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm), including any
> additional Contents, that make up all the differences between the 
> Database and the Derivative Database".
Why?


> Actually, I was planning on doing exactly this with a map of my 
> office on the back of my business card.  I'm not about to start 
> handing out CDs along with my business cards.
You don't have to. But if I ask how you created your nice business cards
I would really appreciate a short answer in the form of "I used software
$foo and elevation data from source $bar to generate the hillshading".


> The other big problem is that I just don't have the time or money to 
> figure out *exactly* what the ODbL means.  And Open Data Commons is 
> just not anyone I've ever heard of (and Creative Commons, who *is* 
> someone I've heard of, and respect the legal opinion of, has torn 
> apart the ODbL).
For somebody without time or knowledge you sure are very loud

And Creative Commons didn't tear OBbL but said "CC-BY-SA doesn't apply
to data just use CC0 and you are fine".


Patrick "Petschge" Kilian

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

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

[Peteris Krisjanis]

It is clear that we all have different opinions about this license
change. However, I would like to hear down-to-earth explaining what
and how will happen when license change kicks in? How OSMF will work
with contributors to get their data converted? How they will try to
convince them? etc.

If it will be just deletion, then OSMF heads for sea of trouble and
confusion here. Please guys, be more polite and understanding about
criticism and opposition this license change gets. So far
miscomunication and lack of real life info about this outweights any
useful data so it is quite understandable why there is so much strong
language in this thread.

Please work together on this,
Cheers,
Peter.

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

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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Anthony wrote:
> Actually, I was planning on doing exactly this with a map of my office 
> on the back of my business card.  I'm not about to start handing out CDs 
> along with my business cards.

I think you are only required to hand out the database on which your 
rendering is based. And it doesn't even have to be the database at the 
time; you can hand out a current version. And you don't even have to 
hand it out fully, it is enough to hand out a diff to the original data 
if that is still available. So if you took OSM data and didn't change it 
(which I think is likely), then your diff is empty, and all you have to 
do is point people to planet.openstreetmap.org if anyone should ever ask 
you for the data.

> The other big problem is that I just don't have the time or money to 
> figure out *exactly* what the ODbL means.  And Open Data Commons is just 
> not anyone I've ever heard of (and Creative Commons, who *is* someone 
> I've heard of, and respect the legal opinion of, has torn apart the ODbL).

I wouldn't exactly say "torn apart". In fact, one of the biggest problem 
that they had with ODbL was that Open Data Commons offered this license 
as a general share-alike license suitable for data, and by doing so was 
challenging the Creative Commons quasi-hegemony in the department of 
open licensing. In this message:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002315.html

John Wilbanks of Science Commons writes, "If this were the "Open Street 
Map License" and not the "Open Database License" it's unlikely we would 
have such a strong opinion."

And in

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002318.html

the same guy says:

"Your community cares more about reciprocity than interoperability.
That's fine and dandy for you. But you're proposing to promote your
solution, a complex one engineered and tuned for you, as something that
is a generic solution *without doing the research* as to how it will
work in generic situations. That's not fine and dandy."

I think he's perfectly right; ODbL was very much influenced by OSM, much 
as any product will be influenced by the first large user. But again, 
they didn't really "tear apart" ODbL, they were just unhappy about the 
prospect of more people in science and education using this license 
because that would reduce interoperability.

Which is undoubtedly true; no share-alike license can ever be as 
interoperable as CC0 or PD.

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] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Sebastian Hohmann]

Pieren schrieb:
> Because the foundation is deciding now if the current Odbl 1.0 licence
> proposal will be the next OSM licence you will have to accept or
> refuse in February 2010, I would like to know what the community
> itself thinks about this Odbl 1.0.
> As Ulf Lamping said, it will be a gun on your head in Feb. 2010 where
> you will have the choice between accepting this licence or stop
> contributing to OSM and all your contributions will be removed.
> 
> Therefore, I would like to know what "you", the contributor, thinks
> today about the transition to Odbl 1.0 licence in this opinion poll:
> 
> http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w
> 

I kind of miss the choise of "No, but I consider all my data PD". 
Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no 
sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD. 
Unless there is a mechanisim in OSM to e.g. "Download only PD data" or a 
seperate project that collects PD data (which is also put into 
ODbL-OSM), I don't really see a sense in saying "My data is PD", since 
it will not make any difference to "My data is ODbL". Or am I wrong?

Greetings

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
> I kind of miss the choise of "No, but I consider all my data PD". 
> Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no 
> sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD. 
> Unless there is a mechanisim in OSM to e.g. "Download only PD data" or a 
> seperate project that collects PD data (which is also put into 
> ODbL-OSM), I don't really see a sense in saying "My data is PD", since 
> it will not make any difference to "My data is ODbL". Or am I wrong?

The PD choice has little legal relevance.

I campaigned for the inclusion of the PD choice because, as a basis for 
future licensing discussions and also questions of interpretation, I 
want to know where the community stands. SteveC & others tirelessly 
claim that there is a share-alike consensus in OSM and I don't believe 
that, and I want the issue put to rest one way or the other.

If we find that 80% of OSMers actually are pro PD then this will not 
change the license one bit, but it might perhaps help reduce some 
share-alike zealotry and we might interpret some things in a more 
relaxed way (and ODbL leaves plenty of room for interpretation, 
concerning the big questions of what is substantial, what is a produced 
work, and what is a derived database).

If, on the other hand, we find that 80% of OSMers would not release 
their data PD but prefer a share-alike license, then we would perhaps 
interpret the same questions with a more rigorous share-alike drift.

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 ...

[Matt Amos]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned
>> > by
>> > companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting
>> > target.  The safeguards that have been put in place (a vote of the OSMF
>> > membership and recent contributors) would be very easy to circumvent.
>>
>> they would have to first gain a majority of the OSMF members, which
>> would take a lot of resources but i guess it's doable. but then they'd
>> *further* need to gain a majority of active contributors, which would
>> mean they'd need to find a majority of contributors editing in three
>> out of the last six months. given that this number appears to be in
>> the region of 70,000 mappers at the moment, and will presumably grow
>> over time, i think this is too much effort even for a large mapping
>> company.
>>
> Easy enough to create fake accounts and bots to provide contributions.  The
> contributor terms do not define the term "contributor" and it would be very
> onerous to sift through 70,000 accounts to try to differentiate between real
> and fake accounts.  Not something that you'd be able to enforce very
> practically.
>
>>
>> but, let's be constructive instead; what do you think would be an
>> adequate safeguard while still allowing the license to change in
>> response to community needs?
>
> You could get the contributor terms reviewed by a decent lawyer for a start,
> with a brief to look at the terms with a view to protecting the rights of
> the contributors.  If you've had any legal review what brief did you give
> them?

as you well know, we've had the contributor terms reviewed by Clark,
with the brief to look at if from OSMF's point of view and the
contributor's point of view.

so, having done that, what else do you think would be an adequate
safeguard while still allowing the license to change in response to
community needs?

>> > There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing
>> > the
>> > Contributor Terms.  They can do that at any point in the future without
>> > any
>> > kind of vote or other formality.  That's a pretty big hole in itself
>> > 
>>
>> the funny thing is, OSMF can't change the contributor terms once
>> you've signed it. it's a contract between you and OSMF which follows
>> the usual rule - it can only be amended by a further agreement in
>> writing signed by both parties. so, no. OSMF can't change the
>> contributor terms for existing contributors.
>>
> So existing contributors would be denied access until they assent to the new
> Contributor Terms.  This is pretty common practice and most contributors
> would be inclined to click through without giving it much thought.  Indeed
> it's how the OSMF propose to implement these terms in the first place.

ok, let's try and be constructive about this... what would you
suggest? given that this tactic would work with any service - the only
thing i can think of is to have an organisation governed by its
members; OSMF. this introduces other problems, which we've tried to
work around, but i'd be thrilled to hear if there are better options.

cheers,

matt

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

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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
>
>> Actually, I was planning on doing exactly this with a map of my office on
>> the back of my business card.  I'm not about to start handing out CDs along
>> with my business cards.
>>
>
> I think you are only required to hand out the database on which your
> rendering is based. And it doesn't even have to be the database at the time;
> you can hand out a current version. And you don't even have to hand it out
> fully, it is enough to hand out a diff to the original data if that is still
> available. So if you took OSM data and didn't change it (which I think is
> likely), then your diff is empty, and all you have to do is point people to
> planet.openstreetmap.org if anyone should ever ask you for the data.


And if I did change it (I plan to - there are some features I want to show
which aren't supported by OSM tags)?  I guess I could get away with hosting
a website which contains the data, and printing the url of that website.
But even that is too much of a pain.


>
>  The other big problem is that I just don't have the time or money to
>> figure out *exactly* what the ODbL means.  And Open Data Commons is just not
>> anyone I've ever heard of (and Creative Commons, who *is* someone I've heard
>> of, and respect the legal opinion of, has torn apart the ODbL).
>>
>
> I wouldn't exactly say "torn apart".


I would, and I did.  "The ODbL Fails to Promote Legal Predictability and
Certainty Over Use of Databases"  "The ODbL Is Complex and Difficult for
Non-Lawyers to Understand and Apply"

Now you're saying I should ignore that, and just sign away.

Maybe I would if I thought I could derive some significant benefit from it.
But if the only benefit is that I get the privilege of contributing to OSM,
no thanks.  I'll take my mapping elsewhere.

I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission to use
my previous contributions without any restrictions whatsoever.  I don't have
a problem with that.  What I have a problem with is agreeing to the ODbL.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Pieren]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Sebastian Hohmann  wrote:
> I kind of miss the choise of "No, but I consider all my data PD".
> Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no
> sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD.
> Unless there is a mechanisim in OSM to e.g. "Download only PD data" or a
> seperate project that collects PD data (which is also put into
> ODbL-OSM), I don't really see a sense in saying "My data is PD", since
> it will not make any difference to "My data is ODbL". Or am I wrong?
>
> Greetings
>

I added this entry in the poll because it will be one of the possible
choices you will have in February:
(from http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf)

The current date for complete migration to the new license is 26th
February 2010.
Consent
I hereby agree to the terms of the OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms,
including re-licensing my contributions under the ODbL.
[ Short scrolling box with complete Contributor Terms ]
[Agree button]
[Agree; and declare that I consider all my data PD (Public
Domain) button]
[Refuse button]

Pieren

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

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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or
> share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the
> derivative, rather than the derivative itself. This is perfectly
> permissible
> under CC-BY-SA.
>

And is perfectly permissible under ODbL.  "This License does not apply to
computer programs used in the making or operation of the Database"

I'd like a response to this.  And I'd also like a response to my question
about what license is going to be used for "the Contents".  Is it "the
Database Contents License"?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Dave F.]

SteveC wrote:
> No there's an entire other list for it... But the LWG has tried hard  
> to keep the other lists up to date.
The evidence with the number of posts here suggests that it didn't work.

This situation reminds me of the location of the planning application in 
the opening chapters of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

And some of your replies that come across as a spoilt child certainly 
don't help clarify the situation.

Dave F.

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

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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission to use
> my previous contributions without any restrictions whatsoever.  I don't have
> a problem with that.  What I have a problem with is agreeing to the ODbL.
>

Make that a button, and allow me to click on it without agreeing to a TOS,
and I'll even do that.

1) Agree
2) Agree; and declare that I consider all my data PD
3) Refuse
4) Refuse; and declare that I consider all my data PD
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[andrzej zaborowski]

2009/12/6 Pieren :
> Because the foundation is deciding now if the current Odbl 1.0 licence
> proposal will be the next OSM licence you will have to accept or
> refuse in February 2010, I would like to know what the community
> itself thinks about this Odbl 1.0.

I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in
position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it
is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors).

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Pieren]

And I would like that people reading this thread forwards and
translates this call to other local lists for the widest polling as
possible. Unfortunately, the licence itself is not (yet) translated.

Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Pieren]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
> I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in
> position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it
> is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors).
>
> Cheers
>

As far as I understood (but some experts might rectify if I'm wrong),
only the last contributor of an element will have to accept the new
licence. So if your uploads are based on other authors who will reject
the new licence, the data will remain anyway if "you, the last
contributor in the history of this element" accepts the new licence.
If you think that you could accept the new licence but not in these
conditions, you might select the option "no, I will not accept the new
license Odbl but I will if the license is reworked" and add some
comments below.

Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>
>
>> But I would argue that a selection of a finite set from an infinite
>> possible nodes that can represent the centerline of a road is a sufficiently
>> creative endeavor that is automatically afforded copyright according to the
>> US copyright system.
>
>
> Inaccuracy isn't copyrightable.  Mistakes aren't copyrightable (see
> Feist).  The intent of OSM is to represent the centerline of a road as
> accurately as possible.  There aren't an infinite number of possibilities
> which we creatively choose from.  (First of all, the number of possibilities
> that can be represented is finite, as the number of decimal places is
> finite.  But more to the point, the purpose is to record exactly one result,
> and any deviation from that is simply an error.)  Mistakes and inaccuracy do
> not represent creative input.
>

It's true that the intent of OSM is the represent the centerline of a road
as accurately as possible but I think that only means that the selected
nodes have to be positioned accurately. Now whether one set of 20 nodes or a
different set of 20 nodes better represent the shape of a road is a matter
of creative subjectivity. Neither set is more mistaken nor more inaccurate
than the other.

For practical purposes, we can't add an infinite number of nodes or should
even add 100 nodes to represent a perfectly circular roundabout, so the fact
that we use maybe 8 or even 16 nodes to represent that roundabout is not a
"mistake" or an "inaccuracy". Now the particular selection of 8 or 16 nodes
is what's creative and so those set of nodes deserves copyright.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> If we find that 80% of OSMers actually are pro PD then this will not
> change the license one bit, but it might perhaps help reduce some
> share-alike zealotry and we might interpret some things in a more
> relaxed way (and ODbL leaves plenty of room for interpretation,
> concerning the big questions of what is substantial, what is a produced
> work, and what is a derived database).
>

Then there definitely should be a "Refuse; and declare as PD", since anyone
who truly is "pro-PD" would refuse to accept the draconian terms of the
ODbL.

The ODbL, with contractual enforcement of provisions beyond copyright law,
is extremely anti-PD.  Under it, "protection" lasts forever, meaning the
database never truly goes into the public domain.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Sebastian Hohmann]

Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
>> I kind of miss the choise of "No, but I consider all my data PD". 
>> Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no 
>> sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD. 
>> Unless there is a mechanisim in OSM to e.g. "Download only PD data" or 
>> a seperate project that collects PD data (which is also put into 
>> ODbL-OSM), I don't really see a sense in saying "My data is PD", since 
>> it will not make any difference to "My data is ODbL". Or am I wrong?
> 
> The PD choice has little legal relevance.
> 
> I campaigned for the inclusion of the PD choice because, as a basis for 
> future licensing discussions and also questions of interpretation, I 
> want to know where the community stands. SteveC & others tirelessly 
> claim that there is a share-alike consensus in OSM and I don't believe 
> that, and I want the issue put to rest one way or the other.
> 
> If we find that 80% of OSMers actually are pro PD then this will not 
> change the license one bit, but it might perhaps help reduce some 
> share-alike zealotry and we might interpret some things in a more 
> relaxed way (and ODbL leaves plenty of room for interpretation, 
> concerning the big questions of what is substantial, what is a produced 
> work, and what is a derived database).
> 
> If, on the other hand, we find that 80% of OSMers would not release 
> their data PD but prefer a share-alike license, then we would perhaps 
> interpret the same questions with a more rigorous share-alike drift.
> 

I like that it is included, but I still can't say e.g. "I like PD, but I 
don't like ODbL in the current version". Since the vote is about whether 
the ordinary mapper would accept ODbL, I think it's strange that you 
can't vote against it if you like PD. I haven't read the latest version 
of the ODbL, so I don't know what I would vote, but with the current 
choices, people might either accept ODbL just because they like PD or 
deny PD because they don't like ODbL. And since this is supposed to show 
the current general opinion on the license change, I wouldn't like the 
results to be unintentionally falsified.

Maybe it would be better to split the questions.

Would you accept ODbL: yes/no/if change/dont know
Would you accept PD: yes/no/dont know
What would you prefer: CC-BY-SA/ODbL/PD

I don't know if this is possible, but this way, even if someone would 
accept ODbL if there is no other choice, he could still vote for PD or 
CC-BY-SA. Someone might not prefer PD, but might still accept it if a 
majority would prefer it. Or someone might not prefer PD, but would also 
never accept it. There are a lot of other possible combinations. After 
all, this is a complicated topic and there are many different opinions.

Greetings

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Matt Amos]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Pieren  wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
>> I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in
>> position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it
>> is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors).
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>
> As far as I understood (but some experts might rectify if I'm wrong),
> only the last contributor of an element will have to accept the new
> licence.

this isn't correct. to recover the full history of an element all
authors who have contributed to it will have to agree. for more
details, please see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan#Marking_elements_.22OK.22

> So if your uploads are based on other authors who will reject
> the new licence, the data will remain anyway if "you, the last
> contributor in the history of this element" accepts the new licence.
> If you think that you could accept the new licence but not in these
> conditions, you might select the option "no, I will not accept the new
> license Odbl but I will if the license is reworked" and add some
> comments below.

if you're in the US you could also accept the new license on Anthony's
(as far as i can tell, correct) interpretation, which is that factual
data doesn't gather copyright protection.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Full Database dump request - forking possible Was: [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

[Apollinaris Schoell]

> 
> Since some people feel about the vote like being held hostage with a gun
> to their head somebody should solve their dilemma. Fork now and everybody
> that might compelled to vote yes for fear to lose their data can vote no  
> and know they have a new project that has all the data but does not ignore 
> their objections.

Why should somebody solve their dilemma? These people  must do that themselves. 
It's easy to complain but will any of them have the energy, time, funding to 
setup such a project?


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

Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:

> Now whether one set of 20 nodes or a different set of 20 nodes better
> represent the shape of a road is a matter of creative subjectivity. Neither
> set is more mistaken nor more inaccurate than the other.
>

What set of nodes constitutes a "best fit" to a given shape with a given
number of points, is fairly objective.  You may "creatively" choose
something other than the best solution, but again, I don't think that
constitutes copyrightability.  Not within context.  (If you intentionally
chose something other than the "best fit", for something sort of stylistic
purpose, fine, but I really don't see how that's applicable to road
mapping.)

I think that's borderline at best.  But I do agree with your greater point,
that there probably is some sort of "thin copyright" to the OSM database.
(Of course, that "thin copyright" is then further diluted among a couple
hundred thousand contributors, making it very thin indeed.)


> For practical purposes, we can't add an infinite number of nodes or should
> even add 100 nodes to represent a perfectly circular roundabout,
>

We could, however, introduce a "arc" tag.  And if I was better at making
proposals (and/or the OSM processes were better at accepting proposals), it
would probably already be introduced.  To represent an arc, you only need
three points (start, end, and any third point on the arc uniquely defines a
triangle which is circumscribed by exactly one circle).  This could even be
made backward compatible.  Just split the way at the beginning and end of
the arc and put "arc=yes".  Renderers that don't know about arcs would use
three points (or four, or five, or whatever).  Renderers that do know about
them would use as many as is necessary for the resolution of the image.  (In
the case of an arc=yes tag with more than three points

Of course, I can't copyright this idea...  So you're free to use it if you'd
like with or without attribution to me.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Ulf Lamping]

Pieren schrieb:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
>> I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in
>> position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it
>> is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors).
>>
>> Cheers
>>
> 
> As far as I understood (but some experts might rectify if I'm wrong),
> only the last contributor of an element will have to accept the new
> licence. So if your uploads are based on other authors who will reject
> the new licence, the data will remain anyway if "you, the last
> contributor in the history of this element" accepts the new licence.

Ouch!

So I can write a small script that touches every element in the OSM 
database to own the copyright of the whole database?!?

Well, that's certainly not my understanding of copyright!

Regards, ULFL

BTW: There's a german "user" (spammer?) that exactly does that already 
on a smaller scale (unknown if he's doing it manually or by a script).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[andrzej zaborowski]

2009/12/6 Matt Amos :
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Pieren  wrote:
>> So if your uploads are based on other authors who will reject
>> the new licence, the data will remain anyway if "you, the last
>> contributor in the history of this element" accepts the new licence.
>> If you think that you could accept the new licence but not in these
>> conditions, you might select the option "no, I will not accept the new
>> license Odbl but I will if the license is reworked" and add some
>> comments below.
>
> if you're in the US you could also accept the new license on Anthony's
> (as far as i can tell, correct) interpretation, which is that factual
> data doesn't gather copyright protection.

IANAL but I think in Europe it's the same with factual data.

But, we're a project that has been claiming CC-BY-SA was valid for at
least some time initially and on multiple occasions have sent people
mails if they didn't comply with that license so it really would be
difficult to pull the "your license is not enforceable anyway" now in
relation to other people's datasets.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

[Richard Bullock]

> 3) Extra precision requires more time, which we don't necessarily have.
> Let's say that we agree that all divided roads "should" be mapped as two
> ways. Let's also say it takes on average 1 minute to trace out a single 
> way.
> There's a volunteer with 60 divided roads to map in front of him, and he's
> got one hour to spend. See where I'm going?
>
And you don't have to do all 60 dual carriageways in one sitting.

But to be completely honest, mapping out dual carriageways is really not 
*that* time consuming. In JOSM you could just copy the way you have drawn 
and drag the copied way a few metres to the side and reverse the direction. 
You'd then have to connect up side roads and tweak a few nodes - but should 
take no more than a couple of seconds if you can't be bothered drawing out 
the other carriageway. I'm sure Potlatch probably has a similar feature.

And in a world with a large but finite number of roads, where a relatively 
small fraction of roads are dual carriageway, and an ever increasing army of 
mappers - it's really not that bad.








___
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 ...

[Klaus-Guenter Leiss]

Am 6 Dec 2009 um 16:12 hat Matt Amos geschrieben:
> ok, let's try and be constructive about this... what would you
> suggest? given that this tactic would work with any service - the only
> thing i can think of is to have an organisation governed by its members;
> OSMF. this introduces other problems, which we've tried to work around, but
> i'd be thrilled to hear if there are better options.
> 
I think there is the fundamental misunderstanding. You and some others
seem to assume the organisation is the OSMF while other seem to assume
that the organisation is the community of contributors to OSM. Since even 
the OSMF states that it is all about the contibutors only the contributors 
can initiate a license change.

So the first thing would be to ask them if they want a license change.

The argument that the current license is not a good one does not matter if 
the contributors don't care about that.

Klaus Leiss

 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Pieren]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Ulf Lamping  wrote:
> Ouch!
>
> So I can write a small script that touches every element in the OSM database
> to own the copyright of the whole database?!?
>
> Well, that's certainly not my understanding of copyright!
>
> Regards, ULFL
>

No, Matt corrected me. It means that all the time I spent in the last
two years to improve other contributions (e.g. positioning, tagging )
might disappear depending on others decisions. Sad that I was not
informed earlier as I would have deleted existing contributions and
created mines from scratch.
Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for
me  :"take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the
only one then delete and recreate them identically under my user
account then all my efforts are saved at the licence transition" ?

Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Nop]

Hi!

Pieren schrieb:
> Therefore, I would like to know what "you", the contributor, thinks
> today about the transition to Odbl 1.0 licence in this opinion poll:
> 
> http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w
> 

It is good that there is a general poll of opinion. This is something 
the OSMF should have organized. I have translated the call to German and 
put it on the talk-de.
I am very interested in the outcome and am looking forward to see what 
the actual numbers say.

One the request to those people questioning the poll (in true community 
style) or suggesting more options. Please leave the poll alone, it may 
not be perfect and may not have your personal preferred option, but it 
corresponds to the intended options of the real vote and the major 
realistic outcomes. It is a very good chance to get an overview over the 
opinion of the active people so please just cast your vote as best as 
you can.


bye
Nop

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

Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:59 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>
>> Now whether one set of 20 nodes or a different set of 20 nodes better
>> represent the shape of a road is a matter of creative subjectivity. Neither
>> set is more mistaken nor more inaccurate than the other.
>>
>
> What set of nodes constitutes a "best fit" to a given shape with a given
> number of points, is fairly objective.  You may "creatively" choose
> something other than the best solution, but again, I don't think that
> constitutes copyrightability.  Not within context.  (If you intentionally
> chose something other than the "best fit", for something sort of stylistic
> purpose, fine, but I really don't see how that's applicable to road
> mapping.)
>

Sure, there is only one set of N nodes that best represents a particular
shape, but our problem is determining what exactly is that shape in the
first place. Our GPS-based methodolody is only accurate to so much that the
particular shape can't be defined if you want to be objective (in an Ayn
Rand way) about it. Hence, we OSM as a project cannot determine the "best
fit" per your definition.

Well, unless you specify an accuracy tolerance level AND the number of nodes
for each geographical feature. But then, the selection of both metrics for
each geographical feature can still be considered a creative selection since
they will be both arbitrary.

Moreover, unless there is a ridiculously easy and systematic way of
determining the "best fit", mappers would not bother doing it and will
always use a subjective and personal criteria to determine the "good enough
fit". This good enough fit is "fit" for OSM purposes and just because it's
not mathematically proven to be the best fit doesn't make the data useless.
Thus, the good enough fit (for increasing levels of good enough as time
passes by) is still a product of a creative process deserving of copyright.



> For practical purposes, we can't add an infinite number of nodes or should
>> even add 100 nodes to represent a perfectly circular roundabout,
>>
>
> We could, however, introduce a "arc" tag.  And if I was better at making
> proposals (and/or the OSM processes were better at accepting proposals), it
> would probably already be introduced.  To represent an arc, you only need
> three points (start, end, and any third point on the arc uniquely defines a
> triangle which is circumscribed by exactly one circle).  This could even be
> made backward compatible.  Just split the way at the beginning and end of
> the arc and put "arc=yes".  Renderers that don't know about arcs would use
> three points (or four, or five, or whatever).  Renderers that do know about
> them would use as many as is necessary for the resolution of the image.  (In
> the case of an arc=yes tag with more than three points
>
> Of course, I can't copyright this idea...  So you're free to use it if
> you'd like with or without attribution to me.
>


Maybe a perfectly circular roundabout is not the best example. How about an
S-shaped road? Sure, we can add Bezier curves but we go back to the argument
just above.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Anthony  > wrote:
> 
> I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission
> to use my previous contributions without any restrictions
> whatsoever.  I don't have a problem with that.  What I have a
> problem with is agreeing to the ODbL.
> 
> 
> Make that a button, and allow me to click on it without agreeing to a 
> TOS, and I'll even do that.
> 
> 1) Agree
> 2) Agree; and declare that I consider all my data PD
> 3) Refuse
> 4) Refuse; and declare that I consider all my data PD

But by hitting "Agree" you don't agree to ODbL - you just agree that 
OSMF distribute your data under ODbL.

So if it is really your intention to not use OSM data any more but still 
let us use your past contributions, you can safely check one of the 
Agree options?

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] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Tobias Knerr]

Pieren wrote:
> Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for
> me  :"take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the
> only one then delete and recreate them identically under my user
> account then all my efforts are saved at the licence transition" ?

In my opinion, whether your data is derived from other data isn't
determined by having the same object ID. If I completely remove all tags
from a node, move it somewhere else and add new tags, then it's most
likely not derived from the previous work. If I add a tag to a road,
then it is derived from previous work, and this doesn't change at all if
I choose to copy the road and delete the original.

Using the object history is just an approximation based on the
assumption that mappers will usually keep an object if they are
improving existing data, and create new objects if they add completely
new information. It's not really possible for an automated process to do
anything else.

Tobias Knerr

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Halcyon/MapCSS question

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

> 2009/12/2 Richard Fairhurst 
>
>  You shouldn't need to add :area for it to render. :area just means
>> "only use this rule if the way is closed" (i.e. start and end points
>> are the same).
>>
>> So you might do:
>>
>>way [highway] [!junction] :area { fill-color: grey; }
>>
>> which would mean "fill it in grey if it's a highway area, unless the
>> junction tag is set". (Because you don't want roundabouts to be filled!)
>>
>
> AFAIK all highways require the area=yes-Tag to be set in order to be
> defined as an area, because there are other circular ways that are not
> roundabouts or junctions but still aren't areas. I wouldn't want those to be
> split just because otherwise they would be recognized as areas.
>

I assume that

  way [highway]:area { ... }

is different from

  way [highway][area=yes] { ... }

The first only matches ways that are closed polygons (with the exact same
starting and end node) and the second matches those that have the area=yes
tag.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Full Database dump request - forking possible Was: [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

[Klaus-Guenter Leiss]

Am 6 Dec 2009 um 8:59 hat Apollinaris Schoell geschrieben:
> > 
> > Since some people feel about the vote like being held hostage with a gun
> > to their head somebody should solve their dilemma. Fork now and everybody
> > that might compelled to vote yes for fear to lose their data can vote no 
> > and know they have a new project that has all the data but does not
> > ignore their objections.
> 
> Why should somebody solve their dilemma?

Good question, but I had not assumed that somebody should do it for them. 
Only if somebody of the protestors did start a fork, the whole diskussion 
would be mote. Nobody could complain any longer he was coerced. The 
community would probably split but it would not the first project where a 
fork would be healthy for the common good. I don't think there could be to 
much databases of geographic data  with a more or less free license. Maybe 
a split would slow the growth of OSM, but would that really matter.
  
> These people  must do that themselves. It's easy to complain but will 
> any of them have the energy,  time, funding to setup such a project?

You are correct they must do that themselves.

Klaus Leiss
 
. 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[80n]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr  wrote:

> Pieren wrote:
> > Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for
> > me  :"take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the
> > only one then delete and recreate them identically under my user
> > account then all my efforts are saved at the licence transition" ?
>
> In my opinion, whether your data is derived from other data isn't
> determined by having the same object ID. If I completely remove all tags
> from a node, move it somewhere else and add new tags, then it's most
> likely not derived from the previous work. If I add a tag to a road,
> then it is derived from previous work, and this doesn't change at all if
> I choose to copy the road and delete the original.
>
> Using the object history is just an approximation based on the
> assumption that mappers will usually keep an object if they are
> improving existing data, and create new objects if they add completely
> new information. It's not really possible for an automated process to do
> anything else.
>
> Actually even this doesn't work.  If a way is split into two (using JOSM)
then the database does not record any information about the split and the
history is kept with only one of the ways.

This means that the history and original attribution for half of all the
split ways is just not there.  I don't think there's going to be a way of
deleting all the data for those people who don't accept the new license.







> Tobias Knerr
>
> ___
> 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] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:

> Well, unless you specify an accuracy tolerance level AND the number of
> nodes for each geographical feature. But then, the selection of both metrics
> for each geographical feature can still be considered a creative selection
> since they will be both arbitrary.
>

I don't think it makes sense to argue this further.  Perhaps the selection
of which nodes to include and which nodes not to include can be considered
to "display some minimal level of creativity".  On the other hand, perhaps
it could be successfully argued that "the creative spark is utterly lacking
or so trivial as to be virtually nonexistent".  I really don't know.

And I don't think it particularly matters.  I agree with your basic premise,
that there probably is a (very) thin copyright in the OSM database.  And in
that sense I think I have to disagree with both the OSMF and Creative
Commons that CC-BY-SA is wholly inapplicable to the OSM database.  It's nice
to have CC-BY-SA to fall back on, rather than engaging in a long legal
battle over exactly how sparky the plaintiff's creative sparks were.  To me,
CC-BY-SA says "this database might be copyrighted - if it is, to the extent
it is, we allow you do X anyway, so long as you also do Y".

For that, I'd prefer CC0, or maybe CC-BY, as a statement that "this database
might be copyrighted - if it is, to the extent it is, we allow you to do X
anyway [so long as you tell people where you got the data from]".

If this database is copyrighted, the copyright is thin.  So thin, that's
it's better to just give it away than to go through all the legal hassle of
trying to "protect" it.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG

[Ulf Lamping]

Apollinaris Schoell schrieb:
> On 5 Dec 2009, at 20:03 , Ulf Lamping wrote:
> 
>> I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a 
>> license change at all.
> 
> Sorry but this topic was many times on many lists, it's on the wiki. If you 
> didn't care then why do you care now?

You may search this lists archive about comments I gave in the past. I 
have repeatedly asked for more openness and better inclusion of the 
community in such important topics such as a license change. For example 
the osmf-talk list was a result of complains I had in the past (at least 
it appeared after discussions on this list about the openness of the OSMF).

Is it a requirement to be a member of the OSMF, regular taking part at 
the SOTM and/or actively taking part in the legal-talk list to raise my 
voice about things that are not well done IMHO?

> Richard was the first to say thanks for all the work done bu the LWG and I 
> want to say that too. This is a very difficult task and it has to be done. 
> the new license and the transition is not perfect. But the question must be,  
> Is sticking to the old license better? 

In my opinion: yes. Simply because it is *known* by anyone interested.

Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[andrzej zaborowski]

2009/12/6 80n <80n...@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
>>
>> Pieren wrote:
>> > Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for
>> > me  :"take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the
>> > only one then delete and recreate them identically under my user
>> > account then all my efforts are saved at the licence transition" ?
>>
>> In my opinion, whether your data is derived from other data isn't
>> determined by having the same object ID. If I completely remove all tags
>> from a node, move it somewhere else and add new tags, then it's most
>> likely not derived from the previous work. If I add a tag to a road,
>> then it is derived from previous work, and this doesn't change at all if
>> I choose to copy the road and delete the original.
>>
>> Using the object history is just an approximation based on the
>> assumption that mappers will usually keep an object if they are
>> improving existing data, and create new objects if they add completely
>> new information. It's not really possible for an automated process to do
>> anything else.
>>
> Actually even this doesn't work.  If a way is split into two (using JOSM)
> then the database does not record any information about the split and the
> history is kept with only one of the ways.
>
> This means that the history and original attribution for half of all the
> split ways is just not there.  I don't think there's going to be a way of
> deleting all the data for those people who don't accept the new license.

One way of preserving the actual "logical" history of elements through
the edits that works more often than looking at the id, but not in
100% cases either, is by looking at the tags, such as source= (if
present).  That's why I advocate linking to other databases by
including those database's key in a tag (such as wikipedia= ).

In this case if a changeset creates an element with source= or
source:ref= value identical to some other element in the same
changeset, it probably shares the IP ownership with those other
elements.

In practice I think it's going to be easier because most edits on ways
/ relations only bump up the version on the way / relation object and
you rarely touch the nodes, which actually hold the geo reference
value.  If you create a way using the nodes a different way was using
till that point, it's probably a piece of the same way.

If a way/relation needs to be deleted because its long history
includes a mapper who opted out, it can be easily recreated if you
have the nodes.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
>
>> Using the object history is just an approximation based on the
>> assumption that mappers will usually keep an object if they are
>> improving existing data, and create new objects if they add completely
>> new information. It's not really possible for an automated process to do
>> anything else.
>>
>> Actually even this doesn't work.  If a way is split into two (using JOSM)
> then the database does not record any information about the split and the
> history is kept with only one of the ways.
>
> This means that the history and original attribution for half of all the
> split ways is just not there.  I don't think there's going to be a way of
> deleting all the data for those people who don't accept the new license.
>

There's not going to be a way of doing it perfectly.  Consider the reason
people get so paranoid about someone tracing copyrighted maps.  If you
accept that the data is copyrighted, then a single contribution has the
potential to "taint" a large portion of the database, depending on how
strictly you want to interpret what constitutes a "derivative work".

Part of me suspects that this whole notion of removing contributions from
people who don't agree is going to get dropped.  At least for the
contributors who don't respond one way or the other.  It's just going to
destroy too much of the database.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Anthony wrote:
>
>  On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Anthony > o...@inbox.org>> wrote:
>>
>>I haven't decided, but I'll probably even grant y'all the permission
>>to use my previous contributions without any restrictions
>>whatsoever.  I don't have a problem with that.  What I have a
>>problem with is agreeing to the ODbL.
>>
>>
>> Make that a button, and allow me to click on it without agreeing to a TOS,
>> and I'll even do that.
>>
>> 1) Agree
>> 2) Agree; and declare that I consider all my data PD
>> 3) Refuse
>> 4) Refuse; and declare that I consider all my data PD
>>
>
> But by hitting "Agree" you don't agree to ODbL - you just agree that OSMF
> distribute your data under ODbL.
>
> So if it is really your intention to not use OSM data any more but still
> let us use your past contributions, you can safely check one of the Agree
> options?
>

I don't know.  I've asked the legal list for the answer to this, and I only
got one response, which I found unclear.  My understanding is that "by using
this site you agree to the ODbL" will be part of the terms of service of the
OSM website, so I can't even *reject* the contributor terms without agreeing
to the ODbL.  According to the new terms of service, if I don't agree to the
ODbL, I can't access the site at all, right?  I assume a court will be okay
with me accessing the site once, to read the terms of service, though.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> So if it is really your intention to not use OSM data any more but still
> let us use your past contributions, you can safely check one of the Agree
> options?
>

By the way, I should clarify, I certainly don't plan to stop using the OSM
data from up until the point where the CC-BY-SA only data is removed.

Hopefully someone will have successfully forked this data by then.

If this ever happens.  I'm kind of skeptical that the OSMF is going to go
through with it after they see how many people don't respond.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> My understanding is that "by using this site you agree to the ODbL" will be
> part of the terms of service of the OSM website, so I can't even *reject*
> the contributor terms without agreeing to the ODbL.
>

Hmm, thinking about this more, that wouldn't work.  The TOS can't be updated
until the CC-BY-SA data is removed.  "You may not offer or impose any terms
on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the
recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder."
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG

[Apollinaris Schoell]

On 6 Dec 2009, at 10:25 , Ulf Lamping wrote:

> Apollinaris Schoell schrieb:
>> On 5 Dec 2009, at 20:03 , Ulf Lamping wrote:
>>> I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a license 
>>> change at all.
>> Sorry but this topic was many times on many lists, it's on the wiki. If you 
>> didn't care then why do you care now?
> 
> You may search this lists archive about comments I gave in the past. I have 
> repeatedly asked for more openness and better inclusion of the community in 
> such important topics such as a license change. For example the osmf-talk 
> list was a result of complains I had in the past (at least it appeared after 
> discussions on this list about the openness of the OSMF).
> 

Can you make up your mind? First you write there was no asking in the last 2 
years and now you write you had repeatedly raised concerns? 
The first statement sounds like you accuse the osmf and the LWG didn't care to 
inform mappers. This is simply not true. 


> Is it a requirement to be a member of the OSMF, regular taking part at the 
> SOTM and/or actively taking part in the legal-talk list to raise my voice 
> about things that are not well done IMHO?

yes if you are concerned and interested about license you have to take part in 
legal-* as a minimum. I am not really interested that much in the details but 
still subscribed. this is easy enough to do. flooding anyone on talk with a 
discussion which doesn't belong here isn't the right way.

> 
>> Richard was the first to say thanks for all the work done bu the LWG and I 
>> want to say that too. This is a very difficult task and it has to be done. 
>> the new license and the transition is not perfect. But the question must be, 
>>  Is sticking to the old license better? 
> 
> In my opinion: yes. Simply because it is *known* by anyone interested.

this is such a lame argument. if you really understand the old one it won't be 
difficult to learn about the new one. if you didn't care about the old one why 
bother with the new one?
osm couldn't exist if there was no one starting something new even that 
Navtech, Teleatlas, Google, Yahoo … existed already. If osm turned beeing that 
conservative that everything has to remain the same then the project has no 
future. Let's move forward and fix the problems of the old license. The new 
isn't perfect but again is there a real reason why sticking to the old is 
better?

> 
> Regards, ULFL


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[John F. Eldredge]

If the person who originally mapped the noses does not agree, does this mean 
that all of the information on the way must be deleted?

If a particular contributor has died since making their contributions, they 
cannot either agree nor disagree.  Does this mean that all work derived from 
their contributions must automatically be deleted?  Given the large number of 
contributors, it is a near certainty that some of them will have died by now.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
>From  :balr...@gmail.com
Date  :Sun Dec 06 12:28:50 America/Chicago 2009


2009/12/6 80n <80n...@gmail.com>:

If a way/relation needs to be deleted because its long history
includes a mapper who opted out, it can be easily recreated if you
have the nodes.


-- 
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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG

[Ulf Lamping]

Apollinaris Schoell schrieb:
> On 6 Dec 2009, at 10:25 , Ulf Lamping wrote:
> 
>> Apollinaris Schoell schrieb:
>>> On 5 Dec 2009, at 20:03 , Ulf Lamping wrote:
 I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a 
 license change at all.
>>> Sorry but this topic was many times on many lists, it's on the wiki. If you 
>>> didn't care then why do you care now?
>> You may search this lists archive about comments I gave in the past. I have 
>> repeatedly asked for more openness and better inclusion of the community in 
>> such important topics such as a license change. For example the osmf-talk 
>> list was a result of complains I had in the past (at least it appeared after 
>> discussions on this list about the openness of the OSMF).
>>
> 
> Can you make up your mind? First you write there was no asking in the last 2 
> years and now you write you had repeatedly raised concerns? 

I was saying that *I* didn't ask for a license change.

Regards, ULFL

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

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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Anthony wrote:
> I don't know.  I've asked the legal list for the answer to this, and I 
> only got one response, which I found unclear.  My understanding is that 
> "by using this site you agree to the ODbL" will be part of the terms of 
> service of the OSM website, so I can't even *reject* the contributor 
> terms without agreeing to the ODbL.  

As you corretly point out in your later e-mail, these things will be 
sequenced.

Also, I don't think it is in anybody's intention to put anything else 
than OSM data under the ODbL. So it should really not read "by using 
this site..." but instead "by using OSM data from this site..." or so.

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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Also, I don't think it is in anybody's intention to put anything else than
> OSM data under the ODbL. So it should really not read "by using this
> site..." but instead "by using OSM data from this site..." or so.
>

A specious claim, in any case.  See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_copyright_conflictsfor
what happens when organizations try to enforce restrictions on
uncopyrightable works through a terms of service.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Full Database dump request - forking possible

[Liz]

On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> > Since some people feel about the vote like being held hostage with a gun
> > to their head somebody should solve their dilemma. Fork now and everybody
> > that might compelled to vote yes for fear to lose their data can vote no
> > and know they have a new project that has all the data but does not
> > ignore their objections.
>
> Why should somebody solve their dilemma? These people  must do that
> themselves. It's easy to complain but will any of them have the energy,
> time, funding to setup such a project?
>

It is already being discussed by private mail.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[morb . gis]

Quoting Anthony :

> Part of me suspects that this whole notion of removing contributions from
> people who don't agree is going to get dropped.  At least for the
> contributors who don't respond one way or the other.  It's just going to
> destroy too much of the database.

Wow, this whole issue has kept me up all night, just reading through the emails
and having the implications dawn on me.


Have I got this straight?  That I *must* agree to this odbl licence, or my
(considerable) amount of edits will get *nuked* from the canonical OSM
database?  What a Hobson's choice.

I'd better go and see what this odbl is then?


Brendan





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

[OSM-talk] Wiki help

[Martin Fossdal Guttesen]

Hi 
Can somebody please edit the import catalog page for me 
it is too complex for a newbie wiki like me

fields to insert

Name= us.fo
DataSource= http://www.us.fo
License = public domain
Area=Faroe Islands
Source = Umhvørvisstovan www.us.fo 
there was an spelling mistake in the source tag so many are 
source= Unhvørvisstovan www.us.fo
Start Date= 2009-07-10
End date = updated regulary
Contact = LiFo
Notes = only Addresses

and link to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/usfo




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

[Liz]

On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, morb@beagle.com.au wrote:
> Quoting Anthony :
> > Part of me suspects that this whole notion of removing contributions from
> > people who don't agree is going to get dropped.  At least for the
> > contributors who don't respond one way or the other.  It's just going to
> > destroy too much of the database.
>
> Wow, this whole issue has kept me up all night, just reading through the
> emails and having the implications dawn on me.
>
>
> Have I got this straight?  That I *must* agree to this odbl licence, or my
> (considerable) amount of edits will get *nuked* from the canonical OSM
> database?  What a Hobson's choice.
>
> I'd better go and see what this odbl is then?
>
>
> Brendan

For Australians it means the loss of the coastline, most of which has been re-
edited from government data, and major rivers like the Murray

Coastline from Australian Geoscience, whose data we obtained, 59736km
Murray River 2756km




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