Re: [OSM-talk] CORINE Land Cover import in Estonia completed

[Margus Värton]

Margus Värton wrote:
> I am glad to inform You that CORINE Land Cover data for Estonia is 
> currently being imported. It takes some time and some manual or 
> semi-manual intervention but in few days we should have much improved 
> map data.
>   
CORINE Land Cover data import for Estonia completed, coastline and 
administrative boundaries being fixed manually. In addition to CORINE 
data administrative boundaries for Estonia itself, counties, parishes, 
cities, towns and villages imported from official data. Enjoy the results:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=58.3523&lon=26.7218&zoom=12&layers=B000FTF.

- M -


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

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

[Ed Avis]

Anthony  inbox.org> writes:

>What about dual licensing under CC-BY-SA and ODbL?  That way you can keep the
>CC-BY-SA contributions.Of course, it doesn't make much sense, because the whole
>point of ODbL is that it's more restrictive than CC-BY-SA.

It makes a little bit of sense: the ODbL does have looser attribution
requirements and would (I believe) make it possible to produce public domain map
tiles, rather than having them CC-BY-SA.  That might open up a few new
applications or encourage a few companies which have been reluctant to use the
data under CC to start using it under ODbL.  (Though personally I doubt that 
many
will - legal departments frightened by Creative Commons licences are unlikely to
look kindly on the much more legalistic ODbL.)

I think it would be a better transition, though - start using ODbL in parallel
now, and if at some point in the future CC-BY-SA licensing is shown to cause
real problems with enforcing share-alike (which on all available real-world
evidence so far looks unlikely, but I'm told the possibility exists) then there
could be a separate decision to move to ODbL only (which would not require
deleting people's data).

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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?

[John Smith]

2009/12/8 Anthony :
> But if it's copyrighted, who owns the copyright on it?  Each person who uses
> the tag?  The people who participate in the list discussion?  The OSMF?

You own the copyright on your changes but you also agreed to release
it at present under CC-BY-SA, as does everyone else, so all
contributors own the copyright, but you also license your changes
under cc-by-sa so there is no one owner.

___
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 Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Mike Collinson  wrote:

> We really, really, really, like to keep your and everyone's edits going
> forward. But we have to respect your choice. Under the current regime, you
> are allowing your contributions to be used only under CC BY SA 2.0.  We
> could duck the issue now, but does even the most diehard  CC BY SA 2.0
> supporter expect us to want the same license in 5 years, in 50 years?
>

What about dual licensing under CC-BY-SA and ODbL?  That way you can keep
the CC-BY-SA contributions.

Of course, it doesn't make much sense, because the whole point of ODbL is
that it's more restrictive than CC-BY-SA.  But it shows that the problem at
least some of us have is not any change, it's this particular change.
___
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 Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Michael Barabanov <
michael.baraba...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Really, considering how many discussions about how to map things (just
> recall all those footway/cycleway discussions) have been on these lists, at
> least tagging seems to be a creative process right now.
>

But if it's copyrighted, who owns the copyright on it?  Each person who uses
the tag?  The people who participate in the list discussion?  The OSMF?

If the OSM database were a work for hire, and all of us mappers were
employees, it'd be one thing.  Then, I think a thin copyright would probably
be meaningful.  But it isn't a work for hire, so whatever copyright there is
is spread out among 100,000 different people.

Arguably, if there is a copyright on the OSM database, it is collectively
owned as a work of joint authorship with 100,000 or so joint authors.  That
means any one of the 100,000 authors can use the OSM database any way they
want, and all they have to do is split the profits 100,000 ways.  Of course,
that's ridiculous, so it's unlikely a judge would ever hold that to be the
case (unless maybe she'd recently read a book on jurisprudence written by
King Solomon).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote

[Henk Hoff]

2009/12/8 Jason Cunningham 

>
> (I think I support the licence/license change, but I need to read more.
> Sadly not a member of the OSMF because of their links with Paypal, a point
> of principle for me)
>
>
You might want to take a look that this page...
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Join/International_Bank_Transfer

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ??? Compatibility of OSM w/ CC-BY-SA sources ???

[Henk Hoff]

2009/12/7 Paul Houle 

>My major concern with a license change is compatibility with
> CC-BY-SA sources such as dbpedia,  wikipedia,  etc.
>
>In the short term I'm primarily concerned w/ displaying slippy maps
> to display CC-BY-SA and PD-derived coordinates and shapes on.  That's
> one issue.


A slippy map is an image (a creative work bases on factual data [= OSM]),
which may be CC-BY-SA or any other license of your choice.
If the coordinates and shapes you want to show on the map are in a different
and separate database, you're fine. ODbL makes distinction between
collective and derivative databases. This example is the first.


> Another,  longer-term,  issue would be the construction of
> new products based on automated reasoning applied to ways in OSM.
>
> This sounds like a derivative database. As long as you make this database
publicly available under a compatible license as OSM you're fine.


>Note that freebase seems to be safe to merge with OSM data,  but I'm
> not sure if using OSM data prevents me from pushing
> corrections/enhancements that are found in my processing chain back into
> Freebase.
>

Depends on whether the license of Freebase is considered a "compatible
license".


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote

[Jason Cunningham]

Can I also be "sorry for being pedantic" and point out an issue with the
"license".

The OSMF decided to base themselves in the UK and is
"A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales. Company
Registration Number: 05912761"

The Articles of Association [
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association] details the role
/ function of the organisation in detail, and offers definitions of words
used. What is clear is that the decision to base themselves in the UK as a
British Company means the 'legal language' of the OSMF is British English.

Now for the pedantic part
The proposed licence appears to be in American English, but doesn't state
that.
I think it is important that the 'core' or 'main copy' uses the language of
the country in which this company has based themselves, and the same
language as the 'The Articles of Association'
At the very least its 'bad practice' to have your 'Articles of Association'
in one language and your licence in second.

It's a small issue to have someone suitably qualified read through the
American license and translate it into British 'legalese', but something
that should be done. Suppose you could move the foundation to the USA.

It would also be worth looking at what Creative Common do, and provide the
licence in several different languages.

(I think I support the licence/license change, but I need to read more.
Sadly not a member of the OSMF because of their links with Paypal, a point
of principle for me)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Coastlines and Structures

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "David Fawcett" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 5:51 PM
Subject: [OSM-talk] Coastlines and Structures


>
> I have some questions about standard practices for coastlines and
> structures that define or protrude from the coast.  Is there a
> specific place for discussion of this topic area, or is this list the
> best place?
>
> Thanks,

I guess either here or the tagging list, but I suspect the answer is that 
there is no standard practice.

David

>
> David.
>
> ___
> 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] Coastlines and Structures

[John Smith]

2009/12/8 David Fawcett :
> I have some questions about standard practices for coastlines and
> structures that define or protrude from the coast.  Is there a
> specific place for discussion of this topic area, or is this list the
> best place?

For tagging, there is now a tagging list to discuss such things.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ??? Compatibility of OSM w/ CC-BY-SA sources ???

[John Smith]

2009/12/8 Paul Houle :
>    My major concern with a license change is compatibility with
> CC-BY-SA sources such as dbpedia,  wikipedia,  etc.
>
>    So far as I'm concerned,  dbpedia and freebase are the core of a
> linked data space that assigns taxonomic identifiers to (most) "things"
> that exist,  and will really be critical to machine understanding
> efforts going forward.  I think we're going to see additional data
> 'stuck' to a growing katamari ball of facts and relationships.  I think
> that that ball of data is going to form a 'giant component' that grows
> explosively,  and anything that isn't legally compatible with that space
> is effectively going to 'disappear;'  one of the reasons why Cyc really
> failed to make a splash is that organizations needed to make a huge
> investment just to get a good look at it.
>
>    In the short term I'm primarily concerned w/ displaying slippy maps
> to display CC-BY-SA and PD-derived coordinates and shapes on.  That's
> one issue.  Another,  longer-term,  issue would be the construction of
> new products based on automated reasoning applied to ways in OSM.
>
>    Note that freebase seems to be safe to merge with OSM data,  but I'm
> not sure if using OSM data prevents me from pushing
> corrections/enhancements that are found in my processing chain back into
> Freebase.

This is my personal opinion, based on probably wrong information, but
since no one else answered this might inspire someone to come up with
a better answer :)

Wikipedia is US based, and in the US a collection of facts can't be
copyrighted and neither can a location, so even though wikipedia is
cc-by-sa the factual information + location data isn't copyrightable
so cc-by-sa doesn't apply.

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

[OSM-talk] ODL - my use case

[hanoj]

Hello,
I'm making clear my knowledge about OpenData License and I have
specified a practical example from cartographic practice on the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases#Map_composite_from_OSM_and_commercial_data

Is there anyone to answer "OK" or "not OK" according to the new OSM license?
And eventually anyone to create new use case with same contents and
correct it to a legal variant?

PS: my use case is without butterflies and kids´ game

thanks

Hanoj

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Share Alike images

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Pieren wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Liz  wrote:
> > That poll is evidence that the poll should cover all users.
> > 225 respondents out of tens of thousands of contributors will not reach
> > significance.
>
> I agree, this poll has no scientific value as people might reply
> multiple times and nobody can say if the sample is representative or
> not. But at least, I tried to do what the OSMF never did : "see what
> contributors , not the 15 same people talking on the list but the
> silent majority, are thinking about the new licence".
>
> Pieren

More than that, you added additional questions, and the results are important.
I think that the pilot study shows that contributors - the current copyright 
holders - have different views to those assumed by the protectionist lobby.





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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Share Alike images

[Pieren]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Liz  wrote:
>
> That poll is evidence that the poll should cover all users.
> 225 respondents out of tens of thousands of contributors will not reach
> significance.
>

I agree, this poll has no scientific value as people might reply
multiple times and nobody can say if the sample is representative or
not. But at least, I tried to do what the OSMF never did : "see what
contributors , not the 15 same people talking on the list but the
silent majority, are thinking about the new licence".

Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Share Alike images

[Liz]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Matt Amos wrote:
> let's take a look at some evidence, the doodle.com poll. currently there
> are 225 respondents, breaking down into 76% yes, 12% no and 12% don't
> know. that's a significant proportion of yes.
>
> furthermore, 62% of yes correspondents feel that their data should be
> PD. overall 5 times more people feel that their data is PD than that we
> should continue with CC BY-SA*.
>
> in about three weeks we'll have more evidence from the OSMF members and
> we will be able to see what the views of the community really are,
> rather than making trolling statements about based on our own
> expectations of them are.
>
> cheers,
>
> matt
>
>
> *: although i'm sure that'll change now...


That poll is evidence that the poll should cover all users. 
225 respondents out of tens of thousands of contributors will not reach 
significance.
The high response for PD indicates that a number of people want open data and 
that any question on licence should contain a lot of options.
I would expect then a run-off poll like in France, we eliminate the least 
popular choices and revote.
I do not want preferential voting as in Australia (we are all always confused 
by it)


I presume the terms of reference for the LWG were to "find and modify an 
alternate licence" rather than to find out "what alternate licence did 
contributors want?" because if the majority go PD they have wasted all that 
work and effort in "protecting data" when the copyright owners (ie 
contributors) decide to give it away instead.


What is the plan from the OSMF Board if ODbL is not accepted?
Is it to try again every 6 months?
Is it to leave the licence as is?
Is it to go PD?





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

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

[SteveC]

On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Ed Avis wrote:

> SteveC  asklater.com> writes:
> 
>>> With a gun at their head: "Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th 
>>> February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed 
>>> downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.".
>>> 
>>> If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding 
>>> about voting.
> 
>> For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the members of the
>> OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in the first place and then 
>> move
>> on to thousands of contributors once the members had decided what to do.
> 
> But this is exactly what is objected to!  First the LWG 'decides what
> to do'

I'll stop you right there. They decided with open minutes, phone calls and open 
calls to be on the working group. How much more open would you like it to be?

Just because you disagree with the result doesn't make the process invalid.

Yours &c.

Steve


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG

[Grant Slater]

2009/12/7 Ed Avis :
> Jonas Krückel  jonas-krueckel.de> writes:
>
>>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.
>
> That summary page is great but unfortunately it's not what is on offer.
> The real text of the ODbL is much more complex, starting off with advice to
> 'Please seek the advice of a suitably qualified legal professional licensed to
> practice in your jurisdiction before using this document' and not getting any
> simpler from there.
>

Quote from Creative Commons BY SA Summary Disclaimer:
"The Commons Deed is not a license. It is simply a handy reference for
understanding the Legal Code (the full license) — it is a
human-readable expression of some of its key terms. Think of it as the
user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath. This Deed itself
has no legal value, and its contents do not appear in the actual
license.

Creative Commons is not a law firm and does not provide legal
services. Distributing of, displaying of, or linking to this Commons
Deed does not create an attorney-client relationship. "

Look familiar? :-)

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
Click the disclaimer link bottom right, it is hidden behind a popup.

/ Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] Are closed issues really closed & post ODbL data removal plan

[80n]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
>  wrote:
> > So my question is:
> >
> >  1. The closed issue I referred to contains the text "OSMF counsel
> > does not believe" on something that seems to have fundamental
> > significance to how the transition will be performed. Specifically the
> > question of (addressed in my December 2008 mail) how we determine
> > whether ODbL licensed works are derived from things still under the
> > CC-BY-SA in February.
> >
> > The OSMF counsel seems to suggest that we only have to worry about
> > this on a per-object basis, i.e. if there are some CC-BY-SA-only edits
> > in the history of a given node/way/relation but I'd have thought we'd
> > also have to worry about the case where someone has traced hundreds of
> > amenity=* nodes from the layout of what's now a CC-BY-SA-only road
> > network. But OSMF counsel thinks it's "not necessary to remove nearby
> > or adjoining elements".
> >
> > I know the OSMF contacted outside legal counsel to comment on the ODbL
> > itself but has it solicited a second pair of eyes on these open/closed
> > issues? It would be interesting to know whether other lawyers take
> > such a narrow view of what constitutes a derived work.
>
> it would be interesting, and OSMF have contacted other lawyers for
> their opinion on other matters, but we only had one response. this
> doesn't fill me with confidence that if we asked for legal advice we
> would have many responses. on the other hand, OSMF counsel is a good
> lawyer, and i would expect him to know what he's talking about.
>
> if you know any lawyers who would be willing to give legal advice
> pro-bono, LWG would be very happy to hear about it.
>
> > 2. Is anyone working on the technical side of the CC-BY-SA-only data
> > removal, e.g. filtering the planet to throw out objects which have
> > CC-BY-SA-only data in their history? I haven't seen anything on dev@
> > about this or on the wiki. What's the plan?
>
> yes. the plan (subject to change based on technical feasibility, of
> course) is here:
>
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan#Marking_elements_.22OK.22
>
> the key is that there must be an uninterrupted chain of ODbL-licensed
> elements from the first version of the element, followed by a
> referential integrity cleanup. at this point it's not clear that the
> relicensing will go ahead, but if it does you'll see more discussion
> of this on d...@.
>
> How will way splits and merges be handled?  The history is only retained
for one half of any way that is split, and the history is discarded for one
of the two ways when merged.

There is no information recorded about split and merge events, so you can
never be sure that you have a complete history for any way.  Unless you plan
to do some very complex analysis that can spot that a block of nodes moved
from one way to another then you don't have a complete history.

The same is probably true for relations.

Additionally, in one of the early api changes, when segments were combined
into ways all of the history was discarded.  I assume it was archived
somewhere.  Ways that were created from a series of segments will not have a
complete history unless this archive is recovered and incorporated into the
analysis.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Mike Collinson]

At 09:24 PM 6/12/2009, 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?

Good idea. ;-) 

We really, really, really, like to keep your and everyone's edits going 
forward. But we have to respect your choice. Under the current regime, you are 
allowing your contributions to be used only under CC BY SA 2.0.  We could duck 
the issue now, but does even the most diehard  CC BY SA 2.0 supporter expect us 
to want the same license in 5 years, in 50 years?  

Our intent is that ODbL is designed with the same rights as current license in 
mind, but clears up CC BY-SA ambiguities.  One of the objectives of current 
activity is to get reasonable community consensus that is indeed the case, 
before presenting you with this choice.

Mike

http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf - An overview of 
the whole shebang

http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ ODbL Plain Language 
Summary

http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/  ODbL 1.0









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

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

[Ed Avis]

SteveC  asklater.com> writes:

>>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.
> 
>Personally I don't because the former is a legal opinion and the latter is a
>moral crusade opinion.

...and that is your opinion.  But not universally shared.

It is usually better to try hard to acknowledge the other side, so I really
think you need to be careful about mentioning CC's verdict on CC-BY-SA
without also mentioning their view about the ODbL.  Even if you think one
of the two views is wrongheaded or a 'moral crusade', if you would like to
mention Creative Commons to back up an argument against CC-BY-SA, you really
have a duty to give both sides.  If nothing else, doing so avoids starting
yet another side-discussion as people jump in to point out what you
deliberately omitted.

(As I read the CC people's comments on the ODbL, they genuinely are legal
and practical ones, being concerned with legal certainty and with the
licence's understandability to non-experts.)

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM/GoogleMap mashup

[Sam Vekemans]

Hi all,
Here's the link to the Google earth kml overlay that can do transparencies.

I use it with the yahoo imagery & the OpenCycleMap layer on, and all the
other layers off.
It works great!

Cristian Streng  is working on
it, so far the OSM Appribution is in yellow next in the bottom left corner.
but that can be changed.   Last i chatted, i asked about that and because
its un clear what the 'offical' representation is (it's not listed on the
main OSM map).  So it's hard to say.

I think its ok that i display it when recording on uStream.tv since it's OSM
stuff, and im not making any money from it.

http://www.mgmaps.com/kml/

cheers,
Sam


On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Ciprian Talaba wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Claudius  wrote:
>
>> > Or (sorry it is available only in romanian, but try Hibrid):
>> > www.openmap.ro . The data is available
>> worldwide.
>> >
>> > --Ciprian
>>
>> Now that's a cool presentation. Did you ever thought about rendering
>> rivers/lakes/areas half-transparent? Or maybe event tried to set the OSM
>> layer transparency to 20%?
>>
>> Claudius
>>
>>
>  No, but I will start to think about it right now :)
>
> --Ciprian
>
> ___
> 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

[Ed Avis]

SteveC  asklater.com> writes:

>>With a gun at their head: "Refuse: After the migration (currently 26th 
>>February 2010), your contributions will not be included in ODbL licensed 
>>downloads and you will not be able to continue contributing.".
>> 
>>If you call this a vote, then we have pretty different understanding 
>>about voting.

>For some crazy reason the LWG thought it should start with the members of the
>OSMF, you know, the OSMF which set up the LWG in the first place and then move
>on to thousands of contributors once the members had decided what to do.

But this is exactly what is objected to!  First the LWG 'decides what
to do' and then the ordinary contributors are given a stark choice:
agree or have your data deleted from OSM.

Shouldn't the contributors 'decide what to do' without the 'gun to
their head', as Ulf called it?  One way to do that would be to have a
vote of all contributors, not just OSMF members, and only if that
shows clear support for relicensing (defined as 'yes, I think it is a
good idea' - not 'yes, I will reluctantly agree to avoid seeing my
hard work deleted') move on to the unpleasant but sadly necessary
business of getting permission to relicense and deleting data that
can't be relicensed.

Now, this might be what is planned; there is a lot of confusion on
this subject.  I know that the final decision on whether to proceed
will depend on how many contributors are willing to relicense, though
I don't know what exact numbers are being considered.  However, if the
choice offered is 'say yes or be kicked out' then this is not a fair
choice.

It would reassure everyone if you and the OSMF could state that there
will be a fair consultation or vote of the members, rather than
presenting them with a fait accompli from the LWG.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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 ...

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Frederik Ramm schreef:
> Totally true, and actually a good argument for the PD case. Anyone who 
> takes OSM data and improves it privately is likely to to invest much 
> more in tracking OSM than it would cost him to just release his data 
> into OSM and save the effort.

But exactly the same goes for OSM. If there is a high quality source
that updates lets say every 3 months. It will be more easy to destroy
all changes than track them. Which is kinda... unwanted.


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksdTdEACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1PPACePujvfO1NlrBrBWsGWA3FcZJw
dBAAnjkaPP6BrSUL9XmQPFFYJK9yqRXg
=hMRZ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG

[Ed Avis]

Jonas Krückel  jonas-krueckel.de> writes:

>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.

That summary page is great but unfortunately it's not what is on offer.
The real text of the ODbL is much more complex, starting off with advice to
'Please seek the advice of a suitably qualified legal professional licensed to
practice in your jurisdiction before using this document' and not getting any
simpler from there.

If someone turned that summary page into a licence document, I'd be pretty
happy to use that.  (Such a licence would look pretty similar to the CC-BY-SA we
use currently.)

>Plus it's now clear how to attribute correct and when your derived work also
>has to be ShareAlike and when not.

Well, perhaps.  The attribution is certainly clearer.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM/GoogleMap mashup

[Ciprian Talaba]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Claudius  wrote:

> > Or (sorry it is available only in romanian, but try Hibrid):
> > www.openmap.ro . The data is available worldwide.
> >
> > --Ciprian
>
> Now that's a cool presentation. Did you ever thought about rendering
> rivers/lakes/areas half-transparent? Or maybe event tried to set the OSM
> layer transparency to 20%?
>
> Claudius
>
>
 No, but I will start to think about it right now :)

--Ciprian
___
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 ...

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Michael Barabanov wrote:
> To create a value-add, a commercial 
> entity would have to extend it.

That surely is one way to create added value.

> So let's say they do in some 
> non-trivial way (e.g. not just copy the data wholesale or just create POIs).
> The next few updates of OSM in the area in question will likely break 
> those extensions, as there doesn't seem to be a way to merge non-trivial 
> changes (e.g. topology changes).
> The best course of action for such a commercial entity would be to 
> contribute things back then.

Totally true, and actually a good argument for the PD case. Anyone who 
takes OSM data and improves it privately is likely to to invest much 
more in tracking OSM than it would cost him to just release his data 
into OSM and save the effort.

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-legal-talk] OSMF license change vote has started

[Mike Collinson]

At 12:28 AM 7/12/2009, Simon Ward wrote:

>I’ve received the mail, answered the poll, and also the preference poll.
>
>In the preference poll, I understand the term “viral license” but ask
>that people refrain from using that term:  It has the implication that
>it is a bad thing - it may be in some peoples’ minds, but while we’re
>trying to prevent all sides equally it should be avoided.  An
>alternative term is “reciprocal license”.
>
>Simon

I believe there was a discussion that "viral" does necessarily mean 
"reciprocal", hence the use of the word. I'll check tomorrow if no one else 
comes back.

Mike 



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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM/GoogleMap mashup

[Claudius]

Am 06.12.2009 12:24, 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

Now that's a cool presentation. Did you ever thought about rendering 
rivers/lakes/areas half-transparent? Or maybe event tried to set the OSM 
layer transparency to 20%?

Claudius


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

[OSM-talk] Coastlines and Structures

[David Fawcett]

I have some questions about standard practices for coastlines and
structures that define or protrude from the coast.  Is there a
specific place for discussion of this topic area, or is this list the
best place?

Thanks,

David.

___
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 ...

[SteveC]

On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> SteveC schreef:
>> I think that developing their own tools, infrastructure, branding,
>> product management... for MapMaker might give away what they think
>> about that.
> 
> I think you are a little bit biased. Only a little bit :) And if this
> is/becomes the OSM Foundation standpoint, I am not surprised such things
> will never get any follow up ;)

Google was asked publicly at SOTM all about this, of course it's been followed 
up.

Yours &c.

Steve


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

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

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

SteveC schreef:
> I think that developing their own tools, infrastructure, branding,
> product management... for MapMaker might give away what they think
> about that.

I think you are a little bit biased. Only a little bit :) And if this
is/becomes the OSM Foundation standpoint, I am not surprised such things
will never get any follow up ;)


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksdPfMACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0iAACeJGYhj22d1S/IAGudXIWXbzbf
BOoAn0z31NuMjdDubX7yRZhQBA5d8vRS
=13aP
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

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

[SteveC]

On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> SteveC schreef:
>> I have no idea what that means.
> 
> I had no idea about reciprocal license either.
> 
>> Ask Google. It might have something to do with the fact that they
>> want to own all the data. Hint hint.
> 
> I have asked Google; Tim was sitting there too. The only thing *we* have
> to present is a business case why it would be good for Google to provide
> us the 'can trace' material.
> 
> I think the best business case would be: "We trace your photo's for OSM,
> we provide you the traces."

I think that developing their own tools, infrastructure, branding, product 
management... for MapMaker might give away what they think about that.

Yours &c.

Steve


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

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

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

SteveC schreef:
> I have no idea what that means.

I had no idea about reciprocal license either.

> Ask Google. It might have something to do with the fact that they
> want to own all the data. Hint hint.

I have asked Google; Tim was sitting there too. The only thing *we* have
to present is a business case why it would be good for Google to provide
us the 'can trace' material.

I think the best business case would be: "We trace your photo's for OSM,
we provide you the traces."

I see a total win-win here. Anyone that wants to make OSM better can
help OSM by contributing to OSM and GoogleMaps. This is not cheap labor,
this is value for photo's.


>> I don't see how CM can compete in giving back new data, opposed to 
>> Google.
> 
> See above. The world has moved on from thinking Google is a
> benevolent force, get with the times.

And so do they about CM... and probably any company that doesn't give
them Christmas presents.


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksdO7EACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0QdgCgg5HtkAHX8NNijTrQw4Cggh6i
i4UAmgNUP55QVRwi9GoSY+g0kwy9Og9Z
=CMdO
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

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

[SteveC]

On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> SteveC schreef:
>> You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others
>> process their data.
>> 
>>> Well the huge difference is that OSM is under a reciprocal license,
> 
> What a difficult set of words were that; honestly never heard of those
> before.

I have no idea what that means.

> 
>>> Google and others want us to be PD because they don't want to give
>>> anything back. 
> 
> Never heard that, if Yahoo is giving us aerial photography to trace, why
> wouldn't Google do that for us?

Ask Google. It might have something to do with the fact that they want to own 
all the data. Hint hint.

> I don't see how CM can compete in giving back new data, opposed to
> Google.

See above. The world has moved on from thinking Google is a benevolent force, 
get with the times.

Yours &c.

Steve


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

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

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

SteveC schreef:
> You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others
> process their data.
> 
>> Well the huge difference is that OSM is under a reciprocal license,

What a difficult set of words were that; honestly never heard of those
before.


>> Google and others want us to be PD because they don't want to give
>> anything back. 

Never heard that, if Yahoo is giving us aerial photography to trace, why
wouldn't Google do that for us?


>> CM wants to give back all the time, and does.

I don't see how CM can compete in giving back new data, opposed to
Google. Google is not related to OSM an anyway and they still 'do good'
in sponsoring and like for many other OpenSource related projects GSOC.

If CM's primary focus is on creating additional value to the data, for
CM to profit from available data, then what CM is giving back is not in
terms of being a data provider, but just a commercial user like any
other. That makes asking for example for the optimized routing tables
irrelevant because the data is a derived product, but useless for the
community that doesn't have the software.



If we go back to the no advantage not to share equilibrium where we all
started from, that would be a great step a head. It already shows that
when working on PD data we are making data better, I just can't see any
argument that will debunk that statement when company X makes our data
better.


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksdOK4ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3xeQCgk95LVr3rIZvJmxAzYS0B1olf
IMEAmwXCLEVN3mzEMxxSadJxdrCtHh8F
=la/Q
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

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

[SteveC]

On Dec 5, 2009, at 8:25 PM, 80n 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.

I think matt killed this.

Yours &c.

Steve


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

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

[SteveC]

On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Michael Barabanov wrote:

> I wonder how easy it is in fact to usefully take the OSM data without giving 
> things back, even with the current license.  Seems to me, not so easy. OSM 
> data is not perfect. To create a value-add, a commercial entity would have to 
> extend it.  So let's say they do in some non-trivial way (e.g. not just copy 
> the data wholesale or just create POIs).
> The next few updates of OSM in the area in question will likely break those 
> extensions, as there doesn't seem to be a way to merge non-trivial changes 
> (e.g. topology changes).
> The best course of action for such a commercial entity would be to contribute 
> things back then.

I take your point, but right now you can basically assume Google is infinitely 
smart with infinite resources unless it's something that involves a community, 
as we've seen. And PD wouldn't involve one.

Yours &c.

Steve


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

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

[Michael Barabanov]

I wonder how easy it is in fact to usefully take the OSM data without giving
things back, even with the current license.  Seems to me, not so easy. OSM
data is not perfect. To create a value-add, a commercial entity would have
to extend it.  So let's say they do in some non-trivial way (e.g. not just
copy the data wholesale or just create POIs).
The next few updates of OSM in the area in question will likely break those
extensions, as there doesn't seem to be a way to merge non-trivial changes
(e.g. topology changes).
The best course of action for such a commercial entity would be to
contribute things back then.

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:50 AM, SteveC  wrote:

>
> On Dec 7, 2009, at 5:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > Lambertus schreef:
> >>> I'm just curious... why?
> >>>
> >> You misunderstand: Google would get my data for free and keep it closed.
> >> You'd only be able to use it the way Google intends it to be used: their
> >> map and their navigation software. OSM on the other hand allows you to
> >> do exactly the same as CM, GF, KPN whatever. There's an huge difference,
> >> you know that.
> >
> > You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others process
> > their data.
>
> Well the huge difference is that OSM is under a reciprocal license, Google
> and others want us to be PD because they don't want to give anything back.
> CM wants to give back all the time, and does.
>
> > You do not get anything back from how companies that use OSM
> > for visual representation. And if Google offers OSM in GoogleEarth and
> > maps you are actually benefiting from several things that you cannot get
> > now:
> >
> > - - Massive adoption, visibility to the general public
> > - - Hosting, no more slow world wide tile servers
> > - - And most likely if this `evil' company was involved the 'do trace'
> > photos
> >
> >
> > Honestly, you are only spreading FUD around a company that does nothing
> > more with respect to Geodata then another company in this list wanted to
> > do exclusively on OSM data.
> >
> > You can claim that with 'yournavigation' you do elaborate on the process
> > on how routing is done. You are the 'free' side of OSM. Don't forget
> > that the amount of 'free' commercial projects here are very small.
> > Basically because everyone here seems to be protecting their goods.
> >
> > If the last thing is the only reason for them to vote yes, then I'm very
> > happy I'm having {{PD-user}} and {{OSM-anarchist}} because I want my
> > work on this small blue planet to be build upon not duplicated by some
> > cheap Indian. (nofi)
> >
> >
> > Stefan
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> > Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> >
> > iEYEAREKAAYFAksc+ZoACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1CnQCfRkC14ik2wJ1s43JmiaciCdSD
> > Hy8AoIbd84MEpnNOB3fRcHrP7DoMFst3
> > =h31Z
> > -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
>
> Yours &c.
>
> Steve
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[SteveC]

On Dec 6, 2009, at 2:03 AM, 80n wrote:

> 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.

No, because there is social pressure too.

> 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.

Absence of evidence...

Yours &c.

Steve


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

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

[SteveC]

On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:48 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> 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.

Personally I don't because the former is a legal opinion and the latter is a 
moral crusade opinion.

> 
> 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

Not even if John Wilbanks admitted it?

Yours &c.

Steve


___
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?

[Michael Barabanov]

Really, considering how many discussions about how to map things (just
recall all those footway/cycleway discussions) have been on these lists, at
least tagging seems to be a creative process right now.

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:
>
>> Anthony  inbox.org> writes:
>>
>> >Why do people believe that there no creative copyright in OSM data
>>
>> >I'm going with that assumption because that's what the OSM, Creative
>> Commons,
>> >and Open Data Commons, all are telling us.
>>
>> Do you have sources for that?  I haven't seen any statement by the OSMF
>> saying that there is no creativity (and hence, in some countries, no
>> copyright)
>> in the OSM data.
>>
>
> I'm basically going on what I read in
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf and the
> supporting documents.  Rereading it, I guess it doesn't come right out and
> say that OSM isn't protected by US copyright (although I'd find it extremely
> unlikely for such a definitive legal statement to be made even if it were
> true).  It implies it, though, and says "full background can be read" at
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable ,
> which in turn says "*Conclusion*: It is quite likely that OSM data is not
> protected by U.S. (and other jurisdictions') copyright laws."  About as
> definitive of a legal statement as you're likely to get for free.  I'm not
> sure who the author of that conclusion was, though.  But the OSMF seemingly
> endorsed it by linking to it for "full background".
>
> Similarly I don't think Creative Commons have said that.  They have
>> published
>> opinions on what licences might be suitable for factual data, but they
>> haven't
>> made any pronouncement on the legal status of OSM data in particular.
>>
>
> You're probably right on that.  Again, I didn't read the license proposal
> carefully enough, and while it makes the implication that CC made that
> conclusion, presenting the CC statement: "In the United States, data will be
> protected by copyright only if they express creativity." after "Creative
> Commons themselves have said several times that CC BY-SA is not suitable for
> OSM.", I now realize that this is misleading.
>
> Good catch.
>
> ___
> 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] New OpenStreetMap iPhone Editor - Mapzen POI Collector

[SteveC]

On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Nick, Oleg,
> 
>thank you for answering.
> 
> I'm quite surprised that you are working directly from the API. Nick writes:
> 
>> The server is actually quite responsive for POIs - maybe its because
>> node queries are faster than way queries and because the bboxes are
>> generally very small (equal to a few tiles).
> 
> I can imagine that the server is responsive enough if you query for a 
> simple POI, or a number of them. But to the best of my knowledge, the 
> 0.6 API has no call that lets you retrieve only nodes in a certain bbox. 
> So do you initially do a slow "give me everything in this bbox" call and 
> simply discard ways and relations?

I guess so, I've not looked at the code, but even then it only lets you do that 
when you're zoomed all the way to z17 or something, so there are very few other 
things to return.

Yours &c.

Steve


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

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

[SteveC]

On Dec 7, 2009, at 5:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> Lambertus schreef:
>>> I'm just curious... why?
>>> 
>> You misunderstand: Google would get my data for free and keep it closed.
>> You'd only be able to use it the way Google intends it to be used: their
>> map and their navigation software. OSM on the other hand allows you to
>> do exactly the same as CM, GF, KPN whatever. There's an huge difference,
>> you know that.
> 
> You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others process
> their data.

Well the huge difference is that OSM is under a reciprocal license, Google and 
others want us to be PD because they don't want to give anything back. CM wants 
to give back all the time, and does.

> You do not get anything back from how companies that use OSM
> for visual representation. And if Google offers OSM in GoogleEarth and
> maps you are actually benefiting from several things that you cannot get
> now:
> 
> - - Massive adoption, visibility to the general public
> - - Hosting, no more slow world wide tile servers
> - - And most likely if this `evil' company was involved the 'do trace'
> photos
> 
> 
> Honestly, you are only spreading FUD around a company that does nothing
> more with respect to Geodata then another company in this list wanted to
> do exclusively on OSM data.
> 
> You can claim that with 'yournavigation' you do elaborate on the process
> on how routing is done. You are the 'free' side of OSM. Don't forget
> that the amount of 'free' commercial projects here are very small.
> Basically because everyone here seems to be protecting their goods.
> 
> If the last thing is the only reason for them to vote yes, then I'm very
> happy I'm having {{PD-user}} and {{OSM-anarchist}} because I want my
> work on this small blue planet to be build upon not duplicated by some
> cheap Indian. (nofi)
> 
> 
> Stefan
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iEYEAREKAAYFAksc+ZoACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1CnQCfRkC14ik2wJ1s43JmiaciCdSD
> Hy8AoIbd84MEpnNOB3fRcHrP7DoMFst3
> =h31Z
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Yours &c.

Steve


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

[OSM-talk] ??? Compatibility of OSM w/ CC-BY-SA sources ???

[Paul Houle]

My major concern with a license change is compatibility with 
CC-BY-SA sources such as dbpedia,  wikipedia,  etc.

So far as I'm concerned,  dbpedia and freebase are the core of a 
linked data space that assigns taxonomic identifiers to (most) "things" 
that exist,  and will really be critical to machine understanding 
efforts going forward.  I think we're going to see additional data 
'stuck' to a growing katamari ball of facts and relationships.  I think 
that that ball of data is going to form a 'giant component' that grows 
explosively,  and anything that isn't legally compatible with that space 
is effectively going to 'disappear;'  one of the reasons why Cyc really 
failed to make a splash is that organizations needed to make a huge 
investment just to get a good look at it.

In the short term I'm primarily concerned w/ displaying slippy maps 
to display CC-BY-SA and PD-derived coordinates and shapes on.  That's 
one issue.  Another,  longer-term,  issue would be the construction of 
new products based on automated reasoning applied to ways in OSM.

Note that freebase seems to be safe to merge with OSM data,  but I'm 
not sure if using OSM data prevents me from pushing 
corrections/enhancements that are found in my processing chain back into 
Freebase.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New OpenStreetMap iPhone Editor - Mapzen POI Collector

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Peter Körner schreef:
>> Well TRAPI already exists for the purpose of providing efficient read 
>> only access to the data for an area.
> 
>  From the TRAPI wiki page:
>  > Trapi does not store all tags, so Trapi data should not be used to
>  > edit and upload back to openstreetmap.

There are other implementation that current serve all tags ;)


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksdKSoACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1jwwCdHzOUUiiWj6Km0wyZLEQK2tqq
12QAni37FuAgUvtJ36YF25l+URe7uwBp
=vEgH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New OpenStreetMap iPhone Editor - Mapzen POI Collector

[Peter Körner]

> Well TRAPI already exists for the purpose of providing efficient read 
> only access to the data for an area.

 From the TRAPI wiki page:
 > Trapi does not store all tags, so Trapi data should not be used to
 > edit and upload back to openstreetmap.

Peter

___
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 Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:

> Anthony  inbox.org> writes:
>
> >Why do people believe that there no creative copyright in OSM data
>
> >I'm going with that assumption because that's what the OSM, Creative
> Commons,
> >and Open Data Commons, all are telling us.
>
> Do you have sources for that?  I haven't seen any statement by the OSMF
> saying that there is no creativity (and hence, in some countries, no
> copyright)
> in the OSM data.
>

I'm basically going on what I read in
http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf and the
supporting documents.  Rereading it, I guess it doesn't come right out and
say that OSM isn't protected by US copyright (although I'd find it extremely
unlikely for such a definitive legal statement to be made even if it were
true).  It implies it, though, and says "full background can be read" at
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable , which
in turn says "*Conclusion*: It is quite likely that OSM data is not
protected by U.S. (and other jurisdictions') copyright laws."  About as
definitive of a legal statement as you're likely to get for free.  I'm not
sure who the author of that conclusion was, though.  But the OSMF seemingly
endorsed it by linking to it for "full background".

Similarly I don't think Creative Commons have said that.  They have
> published
> opinions on what licences might be suitable for factual data, but they
> haven't
> made any pronouncement on the legal status of OSM data in particular.
>

You're probably right on that.  Again, I didn't read the license proposal
carefully enough, and while it makes the implication that CC made that
conclusion, presenting the CC statement: "In the United States, data will be
protected by copyright only if they express creativity." after "Creative
Commons themselves have said several times that CC BY-SA is not suitable for
OSM.", I now realize that this is misleading.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] Are closed issues really closed & post ODbL data removal plan

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 14:32, Matt Amos  wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
>  wrote:
>> So my question is:
>>
>>  1. The closed issue I referred to contains the text "OSMF counsel
>> does not believe" on something that seems to have fundamental
>> significance to how the transition will be performed. Specifically the
>> question of (addressed in my December 2008 mail) how we determine
>> whether ODbL licensed works are derived from things still under the
>> CC-BY-SA in February.
>>
>> The OSMF counsel seems to suggest that we only have to worry about
>> this on a per-object basis, i.e. if there are some CC-BY-SA-only edits
>> in the history of a given node/way/relation but I'd have thought we'd
>> also have to worry about the case where someone has traced hundreds of
>> amenity=* nodes from the layout of what's now a CC-BY-SA-only road
>> network. But OSMF counsel thinks it's "not necessary to remove nearby
>> or adjoining elements".
>>
>> I know the OSMF contacted outside legal counsel to comment on the ODbL
>> itself but has it solicited a second pair of eyes on these open/closed
>> issues? It would be interesting to know whether other lawyers take
>> such a narrow view of what constitutes a derived work.
>
> it would be interesting, and OSMF have contacted other lawyers for
> their opinion on other matters, but we only had one response. this
> doesn't fill me with confidence that if we asked for legal advice we
> would have many responses. on the other hand, OSMF counsel is a good
> lawyer, and i would expect him to know what he's talking about.
>
> if you know any lawyers who would be willing to give legal advice
> pro-bono, LWG would be very happy to hear about it.

I've contacted Wikimedia legal about this. Since we'll be using OSM
data this is a concern for Wikimedia. We'll see if they're interested
in reviewing it.

>> 2. Is anyone working on the technical side of the CC-BY-SA-only data
>> removal, e.g. filtering the planet to throw out objects which have
>> CC-BY-SA-only data in their history? I haven't seen anything on dev@
>> about this or on the wiki. What's the plan?
>
> yes. the plan (subject to change based on technical feasibility, of
> course) is here:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan#Marking_elements_.22OK.22
>
> the key is that there must be an uninterrupted chain of ODbL-licensed
> elements from the first version of the element, followed by a
> referential integrity cleanup. at this point it's not clear that the
> relicensing will go ahead, but if it does you'll see more discussion
> of this on d...@.

Cool. I'll stay posted.

___
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?

[Ed Avis]

Anthony  inbox.org> writes:

>Why do people believe that there no creative copyright in OSM data

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

Do you have sources for that?  I haven't seen any statement by the OSMF
saying that there is no creativity (and hence, in some countries, no copyright)
in the OSM data.

Similarly I don't think Creative Commons have said that.  They have published
opinions on what licences might be suitable for factual data, but they haven't
made any pronouncement on the legal status of OSM data in particular.

As for Open Data Commons, I don't know, but I would welcome any references.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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 ...

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Lambertus schreef:
> I have no problems with Google using my data, but only if others can
> use it too, which means that the database should be accessible (the
> planet dump). Your contributions are PD, which goes ever further, so
> you agree with this?

Yes. From your standpoint Google could make maps out of OSM data today,
if changes to that data are contributed back, or make available. Nowhere
is required to give up software that does the transformation.


Anthony schreef:
> I think you are confusing me, because I think data use is a good
> thing too.  In fact, that's why I'm against the ODbL, since it's
> *more restrictive* than CC-BY-SA.

I see your point, but it is not my main concern to be against the change :)


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksdGf8ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0FnQCfRNK96VnBsgfTvlcDmnv2/4PJ
XNYAnizlvBdfx7h2n2yydr++G+pBaxS8
=/3DF
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New OpenStreetMap iPhone Editor - Mapzen POI Collector

[Nick Whitelegg]

>A call to get only points is certainly something we could add and it 
>would certainly save quite a bit of work on the server over the normal 
>map call and hence hopefully speed things up.

What would be really good, I think, to avoid conflicts is to add some API 
code which refuses to add a POI if there is a POI with the same name and 
"type" tags within a certain distance. It could be optional (the client 
could send a flag to the server to tell it to reject duplicates) but it 
would certainly open up a lot of possibilities client-side to develop easy 
to use POI editing applications.

Nick

___
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 ...

[Anthony]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Stefan de Konink  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Anthony schreef:
> > You're confusing me with Lambertus.  I never said anything good about
> > Cloudmade.
>
> I'm not confusing you; it is current practice that the data is used. I
> thought that was a /good/ thing.
>

I think you are confusing me, because I think data use is a good thing too.
In fact, that's why I'm against the ODbL, since it's *more restrictive* than
CC-BY-SA.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] Are closed issues really closed & post ODbL data removal plan

[Matt Amos]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
 wrote:
> So my question is:
>
>  1. The closed issue I referred to contains the text "OSMF counsel
> does not believe" on something that seems to have fundamental
> significance to how the transition will be performed. Specifically the
> question of (addressed in my December 2008 mail) how we determine
> whether ODbL licensed works are derived from things still under the
> CC-BY-SA in February.
>
> The OSMF counsel seems to suggest that we only have to worry about
> this on a per-object basis, i.e. if there are some CC-BY-SA-only edits
> in the history of a given node/way/relation but I'd have thought we'd
> also have to worry about the case where someone has traced hundreds of
> amenity=* nodes from the layout of what's now a CC-BY-SA-only road
> network. But OSMF counsel thinks it's "not necessary to remove nearby
> or adjoining elements".
>
> I know the OSMF contacted outside legal counsel to comment on the ODbL
> itself but has it solicited a second pair of eyes on these open/closed
> issues? It would be interesting to know whether other lawyers take
> such a narrow view of what constitutes a derived work.

it would be interesting, and OSMF have contacted other lawyers for
their opinion on other matters, but we only had one response. this
doesn't fill me with confidence that if we asked for legal advice we
would have many responses. on the other hand, OSMF counsel is a good
lawyer, and i would expect him to know what he's talking about.

if you know any lawyers who would be willing to give legal advice
pro-bono, LWG would be very happy to hear about it.

> 2. Is anyone working on the technical side of the CC-BY-SA-only data
> removal, e.g. filtering the planet to throw out objects which have
> CC-BY-SA-only data in their history? I haven't seen anything on dev@
> about this or on the wiki. What's the plan?

yes. the plan (subject to change based on technical feasibility, of
course) is here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan#Marking_elements_.22OK.22

the key is that there must be an uninterrupted chain of ODbL-licensed
elements from the first version of the element, followed by a
referential integrity cleanup. at this point it's not clear that the
relicensing will go ahead, but if it does you'll see more discussion
of this on d...@.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New OpenStreetMap iPhone Editor - Mapzen POI Collector

[Tom Hughes]

On 07/12/09 14:16, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Nick, Oleg,
>
>  thank you for answering.
>
> I'm quite surprised that you are working directly from the API. Nick writes:
>
>> The server is actually quite responsive for POIs - maybe its because
>> node queries are faster than way queries and because the bboxes are
>> generally very small (equal to a few tiles).
>
> I can imagine that the server is responsive enough if you query for a
> simple POI, or a number of them. But to the best of my knowledge, the
> 0.6 API has no call that lets you retrieve only nodes in a certain bbox.
> So do you initially do a slow "give me everything in this bbox" call and
> simply discard ways and relations?

A call to get only points is certainly something we could add and it 
would certainly save quite a bit of work on the server over the normal 
map call and hence hopefully speed things up.

>> around conflicts though.  An alternative is to speed up the main OSM
>> server - this is good because then everyone in the community benefits
>> (eg Potlatch and other editor users) and mainly because it reduces
>> issues around conflicts.  If we ended up doing a CM XAPI, we'd open up
>> access to anyone who wanted to use it anyway, so other editors and
>> mappers could benefit.
>
> There's surely a lot of potential benefits for the community at large in
> there. I think the OSM admins may already have the idea of replication
> on their radars, where read requests are fulfilled from a different
> server than the writes go to. I don't know if that would be a
> replication on the Postres level or on the application level.

Well TRAPI already exists for the purpose of providing efficient read 
only access to the data for an area.

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

[Lambertus]

I still think that you misunderstand me, or maybe I misunderstand you. I 
thought that Jonh Smith was talking about users starting to map in 
Google's MapMaker and I responded that I would never do that. There is a 
big difference between CM, GF etc that use OSM and Google owning the 
data and not sharing that raw data.

I have no problems with Google using my data, but only if others can use 
it too, which means that the database should be accessible (the planet 
dump). Your contributions are PD, which goes ever further, so you agree 
with this?


Stefan de Konink wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> Lambertus schreef:
>>> I'm just curious... why?
>>>
>> You misunderstand: Google would get my data for free and keep it closed.
>> You'd only be able to use it the way Google intends it to be used: their
>> map and their navigation software. OSM on the other hand allows you to
>> do exactly the same as CM, GF, KPN whatever. There's an huge difference,
>> you know that.
> 
> You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others process
> their data. You do not get anything back from how companies that use OSM
> for visual representation. And if Google offers OSM in GoogleEarth and
> maps you are actually benefiting from several things that you cannot get
> now:
> 
> - - Massive adoption, visibility to the general public
> - - Hosting, no more slow world wide tile servers
> - - And most likely if this `evil' company was involved the 'do trace'
> photos
> 
> 
> Honestly, you are only spreading FUD around a company that does nothing
> more with respect to Geodata then another company in this list wanted to
> do exclusively on OSM data.
> 
> You can claim that with 'yournavigation' you do elaborate on the process
> on how routing is done. You are the 'free' side of OSM. Don't forget
> that the amount of 'free' commercial projects here are very small.
> Basically because everyone here seems to be protecting their goods.
> 
> If the last thing is the only reason for them to vote yes, then I'm very
> happy I'm having {{PD-user}} and {{OSM-anarchist}} because I want my
> work on this small blue planet to be build upon not duplicated by some
> cheap Indian. (nofi)
> 
> 
> Stefan
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iEYEAREKAAYFAksc+ZoACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1CnQCfRkC14ik2wJ1s43JmiaciCdSD
> Hy8AoIbd84MEpnNOB3fRcHrP7DoMFst3
> =h31Z
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: [OSM-talk] New OpenStreetMap iPhone Editor - Mapzen POI Collector

[Frederik Ramm]

Nick, Oleg,

thank you for answering.

I'm quite surprised that you are working directly from the API. Nick writes:

> The server is actually quite responsive for POIs - maybe its because
> node queries are faster than way queries and because the bboxes are
> generally very small (equal to a few tiles).

I can imagine that the server is responsive enough if you query for a 
simple POI, or a number of them. But to the best of my knowledge, the 
0.6 API has no call that lets you retrieve only nodes in a certain bbox. 
So do you initially do a slow "give me everything in this bbox" call and 
simply discard ways and relations?

> around conflicts though.  An alternative is to speed up the main OSM
> server - this is good because then everyone in the community benefits
> (eg Potlatch and other editor users) and mainly because it reduces
> issues around conflicts.  If we ended up doing a CM XAPI, we'd open up
> access to anyone who wanted to use it anyway, so other editors and
> mappers could benefit.

There's surely a lot of potential benefits for the community at large in 
there. I think the OSM admins may already have the idea of replication 
on their radars, where read requests are fulfilled from a different 
server than the writes go to. I don't know if that would be a 
replication on the Postres level or on the application level.

Bye
Frederik


___
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 ...

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Anthony schreef:
> You're confusing me with Lambertus.  I never said anything good about
> Cloudmade.

I'm not confusing you; it is current practice that the data is used. I
thought that was a /good/ thing. At least I came here for the usage of
data and being making it better, for me that implicitly meant sharing back.


> Actually, Cloudmade is one of the main reasons I fear handing so much
> power (the power to relicense) to OSMF.  Too much of a potential
> conflict of interest there.

Come on; if you want to see a conspiracy there is always one. I think
the best way to prevent this 'power' is to give more people the freedom
to do what they want.

The point now with the license seems to be a copyright claim by the OSMF
prevents /any/ future forks. While the only possible fork point is
actually created by this license change.


If you read the first line of the last paragraph again you might notice
that this might also prevent any commercial party to run away with OSM.
  But I need an law degree to confirm that.


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksdCscACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3CNACfR11pvhwhYgiU990atBV/mMcE
/p8Ania59HhkCUBXx/2sZ3U/b+BBSyPB
=2VZl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

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

[Anthony]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Stefan de Konink  wrote:

> Anthony schreef:
> > There's nothing stopping them from putting the tile servers behind a
> > restrictive TOS, requiring a key to use the API, and limiting the number
> > of accesses per key, is there?
>
> Is there for Cloudmade? The routing api, their custom tiles?
>

You're confusing me with Lambertus.  I never said anything good about
Cloudmade.

Actually, Cloudmade is one of the main reasons I fear handing so much power
(the power to relicense) to OSMF.  Too much of a potential conflict of
interest there.
___
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 ...

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Anthony schreef:
> There's nothing stopping them from putting the tile servers behind a
> restrictive TOS, requiring a key to use the API, and limiting the number
> of accesses per key, is there?

Is there for Cloudmade? The routing api, their custom tiles?

It is `free' data, if they want to offer a service they can limit it to
what they want. The competition is here that someone else can offer it
without the restrictions and /without/ the SLA.


Stefan

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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksdB00ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn11/wCeMGCiDobyviAQfSl7LLB4k7Ww
IZYAn1ZOSZgl1O6pf5f5wJgzYvuEuEEv
=8LuO
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

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

[Anthony]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Stefan de Konink  wrote:

> And if Google offers OSM in GoogleEarth and
> maps you are actually benefiting from several things that you cannot get
> now:
>
> - - Massive adoption, visibility to the general public
> - - Hosting, no more slow world wide tile servers
> - - And most likely if this `evil' company was involved the 'do trace'
> photos
>

There's nothing stopping them from putting the tile servers behind a
restrictive TOS, requiring a key to use the API, and limiting the number of
accesses per key, is there?
___
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 ...

[Steve Bennett]

Dunno about the rest of you, but I fantasise about the day that a taxi
driver takes me through a shortcut that I added to OSM... I map on OSM
because I want everyone to have the changes, not because I'm on an open
source crusade.

(I'll be quiet again.)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

[Steve Bennett]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Richard Weait  wrote:

> You could easily choose to not show secondary_link at scales of your
> choice.  Whether that is an improvement in rendering quality or not
> would be a judgment call and should consider the intent of your
> rendering and the interests of your audience.
>

Ok, but I was really thinking about the standard Mapnik run at OSM. And I
think it would take more than simply not rendering *any* trunk_links, for
example. It would have to check that the link was actually "redundant": I
think links that do a 360 or cross another road should always be shown, and
probably all motorway_links for that matter.

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 ...

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Maarten Deen schreef:
>> You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others process
>> their data. You do not get anything back from how companies that use OSM
>> for visual representation. And if Google offers OSM in GoogleEarth and
>> maps you are actually benefiting from several things that you cannot get
>> now:
> 
> I thought that using OSM data now means also contributing to OSM. With the
> new license, is this not necessary anymore? Can you just take the data and
> not give back?

Contribution 'upstream' (as in OSM) is not required now, the
contribution and the derived works are made available on the same license.

If your question is; "Can anyone use OSM without giving back?", sure
they can. Since 80n already pointed it out that the license change was
actually invented to facilitate more usage (hence BBC Broadcasts for
example) the chances that the big 'G' company is going to use OSM, might
even increase by the license change.


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksc/nkACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn2AtACgkULm2iInI49Lld0iLaYl5Jdo
7AoAn2NG0PqZT9izweWQ7sG/5Z0bsg2w
=G2D1
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

[Richard Weait]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> Can renderers improve their render quality at lower zoom levels by not
> rendering (certain) link roads? Ie, given road A-B-C, with incoming road
> D-B, and link D-A, perhaps it could not render D-A.

Cartographers (people) can do most anything.  Renderers (software) are
pretty good too.  ;-)

In Mapnik, for example, you could select by zoom-level to either
render or not render all highway=secondary_link.

This is a rendering rule from Mapnik for secondary_link (secondary as
well) when zoomed all the way in (from 1:1000 to 1:5000). It shows
that the secondary_link will be rendered as 17 pixels wide.  Zooming
out causes the width to reduce to 12 pixels, 10 pixels, 4 pixels then
disappear at scales beyond 1:15


  [highway] = 'secondary' or [highway] = 'secondary_link'
  5000
  1000
  
#a37b48
17
4,2
  


You could easily choose to not show secondary_link at scales of your
choice.  Whether that is an improvement in rendering quality or not
would be a judgment call and should consider the intent of your
rendering and the interests of your audience.

___
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 ...

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Lambertus schreef:
>> I'm just curious... why?
>>
> You misunderstand: Google would get my data for free and keep it closed.
> You'd only be able to use it the way Google intends it to be used: their
> map and their navigation software. OSM on the other hand allows you to
> do exactly the same as CM, GF, KPN whatever. There's an huge difference,
> you know that.

You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others process
their data. You do not get anything back from how companies that use OSM
for visual representation. And if Google offers OSM in GoogleEarth and
maps you are actually benefiting from several things that you cannot get
now:

- - Massive adoption, visibility to the general public
- - Hosting, no more slow world wide tile servers
- - And most likely if this `evil' company was involved the 'do trace'
photos


Honestly, you are only spreading FUD around a company that does nothing
more with respect to Geodata then another company in this list wanted to
do exclusively on OSM data.

You can claim that with 'yournavigation' you do elaborate on the process
on how routing is done. You are the 'free' side of OSM. Don't forget
that the amount of 'free' commercial projects here are very small.
Basically because everyone here seems to be protecting their goods.

If the last thing is the only reason for them to vote yes, then I'm very
happy I'm having {{PD-user}} and {{OSM-anarchist}} because I want my
work on this small blue planet to be build upon not duplicated by some
cheap Indian. (nofi)


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksc+ZoACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1CnQCfRkC14ik2wJ1s43JmiaciCdSD
Hy8AoIbd84MEpnNOB3fRcHrP7DoMFst3
=h31Z
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
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 9:12 AM, Richard Bullock  wrote:

> > Maybe we should be mapping slipways, hopefully there's a better approach
> > than marking them all as fully fledged roads though.
> >
> Sliproads are tagged as highway=xyz_link
>
> e.g. a sliproad to a motorway would be highway=motorway_link
> sliproad to a trunk road would be highway=trunk_link etc.
>
> Ah, I didn't know it went all the way down to secondary_link. (But not
tertiary_link?)

Can renderers improve their render quality at lower zoom levels by not
rendering (certain) link roads? Ie, given road A-B-C, with incoming road
D-B, and link D-A, perhaps it could not render D-A.

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

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

[Emilie Laffray]

2009/12/7 Jukka Rahkonen 

> Steve Bennett  gmail.com> writes:
>
> > What about "architect=yes", like you get for bridge, area, building...
> Seems
> to work well. And then, if and when you have more information to add (eg,
> lawyer=immigration), you have somewhere to add it.Steve
>
> For people using OSM data through some "normal" GIS tools, for example by
> importing data first to PostGIS database with osm2pgsql, it is much more
> painfull if each profession will have an own tag like "architect=yes",
> "lawyer=yes" etc. If "amenity" category is not enough I would like better
> to
> have a limited number of other category tags and values which suit well for
> filtering, like "something=architect", "something=lawyer" etc.  Even now a
> limit
> between amenity and shop is a bit unclear, for example in
> amenity=veterinary and
> shop=hairdresser.
>
>
I am afraid that "normal" GIS tools will always be lossy compared to the
structure of OSM. Almost all formats have a fixed number fields (except
maybe GeoJSON). I don't think you can reconcile that easily with OSM whose
richness is linked to the multiplicity of tags that we have.
So the lawyer=yes is a pain for "normal" gis, but at the same time very
powerful for the rest of us who feel limited by the number of fields that
you have in there. To some extent, osm2pgsql works like normal GIS, while
Osmosis produces a schema that keeps the spirit of OSM.
I think your something= is a good compromise in the end.
I don't think there is an easy answer here, and I really don't want to go
back to some limitations.

Emilie Laffray
___
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 ...

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Lambertus schreef:
> Sorry, but I don't see a lot of OSM people going over to 'the dark 
> side'. No matter how good or bad OSM is being run.
> 
> If I don't agree with how things are being done here at OSM then I'll 
> try to fix it, work around it or quit, but I'm *not* going to be an 
> unpaid employee for Google's mega profits.

So you do not mind to be part of the (mega-) profits and success of
Cloudmade, GeoFabrik, KPN, Bliin, Nulaz, Cyclomedia, Ilse Media,
Trackrr, Flickr, [...], etc. but you do mind to be part of the success
of Google.

I'm just curious... why?


Stefan

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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksc7SwACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn294ACbBEuRElmH4JteQC3+QOk/2msF
7VwAn28U/BJP8mNHH5/dMiRdpX5TiEYB
=Vl63
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Stubbs" 
To: "David Groom" 
Cc: "talk openstreetmap.org" 
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote


>
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:19 PM, David Groom  
> wrote:
>> Sorry to be pedantic but the wording of the OSMF member vote is:
>>
>> Do you approve the process of moving OpenStreetMap to the ODbL?
>> Yes, I approve.
>> No, I do not approve.
>>
>> Unfortunately this sentence on which we are asked to vote has at least 
>> two
>> meanings
>>
>> 1) Do you approve of the process? [as in the procedural method used]
>>
>> 2) Do you approve of the change.
>>
>> I presume the intention is it to mean (2), but the wording is much closer 
>> to
>> (1).
>
>
> I'm actually fairly sure it means (1) & (2). The LWG have put forward
> a proposal of how OSM to move on wrt licensing, it's that proposal
> we're voting on. That proposal includes what is to change (CC BY-SA ->
> ODbL + Contrib Terms), as well as timetable and mechanism, including
> basic wording of the question contributors will be required to agree
> to.
>
>>
>> Ironically simply by definition of the poor wording it is unlikely I 
>> could
>> agree to the process, irrespective of my actual views on CC-BY-SA v ODbL.
>
> They are intimately linked. Saying we want ODbL without how we intend
> to get there isn't so useful, and a lot of people wouldn't agree to
> changing unless they knew how that change was to be implemented.
> What it is about the process you don't want to agree to?

That the wording of the vote is ambiguous.

You start your response "I'm fairly sure", implying that you don't know for 
certain what it is you are being asked to vote on.

If we are being asked to vote on a issue of such fundamental importance to 
the future of OSM there should be no room for people saying "I don't know 
what the vote means" , or, even worse, after the vote saying "I didn't think 
that was what I was voting for".

David

>
> Dave




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

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

[Peter Körner]

> 
> Seems fine for me. I'm still looking for a new key for jobs like
> lawyers, architects, notary, etc. It was suggested to use "office=*"
> in some older thread. I will create a similar proposal as yours on the
> wiki.

Yes, that's cool! It has been supposed to get a list from an external 
resource (in Germany eg. the Handwerkskammer or Handelskammer) and use 
this as a basis. The aim is to have a comprehensive list before going 
into the proposal/vote phase, thus avoiding the problems with the grown 
nature of the shop-tag.

Some of the listed crafts provide somehow also a service, eg. locksmith, 
so there should be clear definitions how to distinguish between shop, 
craft and .

Peter

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote

[Dave Stubbs]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:19 PM, David Groom  wrote:
> Sorry to be pedantic but the wording of the OSMF member vote is:
>
> Do you approve the process of moving OpenStreetMap to the ODbL?
> Yes, I approve.
> No, I do not approve.
>
> Unfortunately this sentence on which we are asked to vote has at least two
> meanings
>
> 1) Do you approve of the process? [as in the procedural method used]
>
> 2) Do you approve of the change.
>
> I presume the intention is it to mean (2), but the wording is much closer to
> (1).


I'm actually fairly sure it means (1) & (2). The LWG have put forward
a proposal of how OSM to move on wrt licensing, it's that proposal
we're voting on. That proposal includes what is to change (CC BY-SA ->
ODbL + Contrib Terms), as well as timetable and mechanism, including
basic wording of the question contributors will be required to agree
to.

>
> Ironically simply by definition of the poor wording it is unlikely I could
> agree to the process, irrespective of my actual views on CC-BY-SA v ODbL.

They are intimately linked. Saying we want ODbL without how we intend
to get there isn't so useful, and a lot of people wouldn't agree to
changing unless they knew how that change was to be implemented.
What it is about the process you don't want to agree to?

Dave

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

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

[Jukka Rahkonen]

Steve Bennett  gmail.com> writes:

> What about "architect=yes", like you get for bridge, area, building... Seems
to work well. And then, if and when you have more information to add (eg,
lawyer=immigration), you have somewhere to add it.Steve 

For people using OSM data through some "normal" GIS tools, for example by
importing data first to PostGIS database with osm2pgsql, it is much more
painfull if each profession will have an own tag like "architect=yes",
"lawyer=yes" etc. If "amenity" category is not enough I would like better to
have a limited number of other category tags and values which suit well for
filtering, like "something=architect", "something=lawyer" etc.  Even now a limit
between amenity and shop is a bit unclear, for example in amenity=veterinary and
shop=hairdresser.

-Jukka Rahkonen-


___
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 ...

[Lambertus]

Sorry, but I don't see a lot of OSM people going over to 'the dark 
side'. No matter how good or bad OSM is being run.

If I don't agree with how things are being done here at OSM then I'll 
try to fix it, work around it or quit, but I'm *not* going to be an 
unpaid employee for Google's mega profits.

John Smith wrote:
> 2009/12/6 Ulf Lamping :
>> Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb:
>>> So you think that the OSMF is forcing people to do things, and controlling
>>> instead of supporting?
>> Does: "Say yes to the new license or we'll delete your data" sound more
>> like supporting or controlling to you?
> 
> I had the unfortunate experience to be involved with a project that
> did something similar, it set the project's momentum back a lot and
> with Google breathing down OSM's neck this would be the perfect
> oportunity to give them all the human resources they could ever wish
> for, at which point people will question if there is any point to OSM
> any more since so much data might vanish and well I can't see that
> being a good outcome.
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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