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

[Emilie Laffray]

Margus Värton wrote:
> 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.
>   
Congratulation!

Emilie Laffray



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG

[Ed Avis]

Grant Slater  firefishy.com> writes:

>>>http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/

>>That summary page is great but unfortunately it's not what is on offer.
>>The real text of the ODbL is much more complex,

>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.

Right.  Which is why I think you shouldn't compare the friendly summary
pages as if that were a way to inform yourself about the differences between
the licences.  You need to look at the full text of both.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

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

[Ed Avis]

John Smith  gmail.com> writes:

>If GPLv3 was inspired by Tivo, I think this license is somewhat
>inspired by Google and other commercial mapping companies, who have a
>habbit of sucking in all the data they can get their hands on and not
>giving anything back.

Google have recently started using their own set of map data for the USA.
If it were possible for them to take OSM data under the current licence they
would have done so.  This suggests that the current share-alike provisions are
working as intended.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

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

[Ed Avis]

Richard Fairhurst  systemed.net> writes:

>Under CC-BY-SA, attribution and share-alike are required when you distribute
>OSM data, or a derivative of it.
>
>They are not required, of course, if you don't distribute the data. If I
>write a program that downloads planet.osm to my hard disc, then replaces the
>word "node" with "nude" throughout, I don't have to give it back or
>attribute OSM. 

I consider this a feature, indeed, a necessary freedom.  If the licence
doesn't allow you to make private modifications to the data then it's no
longer free, in my opinion.

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

Right.  Of course it is up to the user of that program to comply with
licensing if and when they choose to distribute the data further.

Is this really so bad?

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote

[Dave Stubbs]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Jason Cunningham
 wrote:
> 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.
>

See the discussion on porting of the license:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-May/002464.html

Please also note that this isn't an OSMF license. The license has
obviously been developed with a lot of input from OSM based people and
the OSMF, but it is meant to be general purpose open data license.

Dave

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

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

[John Smith]

2009/12/8 Ed Avis :
> John Smith  gmail.com> writes:
>
>>If GPLv3 was inspired by Tivo, I think this license is somewhat
>>inspired by Google and other commercial mapping companies, who have a
>>habbit of sucking in all the data they can get their hands on and not
>>giving anything back.
>
> Google have recently started using their own set of map data for the USA.
> If it were possible for them to take OSM data under the current licence they
> would have done so.  This suggests that the current share-alike provisions are
> working as intended.

Google is already fighting several legal battles maybe they don't need
the additional bad press?

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

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:20 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:

> John Smith  gmail.com> writes:
>
> >If GPLv3 was inspired by Tivo, I think this license is somewhat
> >inspired by Google and other commercial mapping companies, who have a
> >habbit of sucking in all the data they can get their hands on and not
> >giving anything back.
>
> Google have recently started using their own set of map data for the USA.
> If it were possible for them to take OSM data under the current licence
> they
> would have done so.
>

Are you sure they haven't?

Yeah, they haven't taken everything, unreviewed and unedited.  But that
would be a pretty bad idea anyway.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks

[Tobias Knerr]

Grant Slater wrote:
>> A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
>> be forked?
> 
> Yes it does. The LWG sought specific legal advise on this. We wouldn't
> be an open project if this was not allowed.

That fork would have less options than OSMF has, though. Most
importantly, it could only use the published ODbL data. It wouldn't have
the rights granted by the Contributor Terms, namely publishing data as
CC-by-sa or (with contributor support) any other open license.

Considering that the LWG seems to consider these options strategically
important, the fork would be at a disadvantage.

I'm not sure about attribution, either. Wouldn't the fork have to
attribute OSM as well, making attribution significantly less convenient?

Tobias Knerr

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

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

[Sebastian Hohmann]

Anthony schrieb:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
>> However, one thing you should perhaps consider is this argument of "project
>> sanity": We're all in this together. It's no good having a license that has
>> different effects in different countries.
> 
> 
> And that is one of the exact problems with the ODbL.  Under the ODbL, in
> some jurisdictions the database is protected by database, copyright, and
> contract law.  In other jurisdictions, it's protected only by contract law.
> 
> In the United States, which is a prominent example of "anything goes", the
> ODbL would likely not hold up in a court of law anyway.  First of all,
> unless there's some sort of "click-through", there's no real indication of
> assent.  Even if you want to argue that the TOS is binding (and that's
> probably going to be an expensive argument), it's only binding if the site
> you download the data from has the TOS.  Then, once you prove that there's a
> contract in place, it's effectively useless.  You can't sue for injunctive
> relief, that's just not a remedy available for breach of contract.  You
> could try to sue for specific performance, but it's highly unlikely you'd
> get it.  So you're left with a suit under a state law breach of contract and
> you get actual damages, likely nothing.
> 
> OSM absolutely *should* be released under a license which is treated as
> similarly as possible in all jurisdictions.  That license is CC0.
> 

I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree that CC0 
would probably be the best licence. If OSM won't go and really try to 
sue people, why protect the data? And why protect the data at all? It's 
not something that can be stolen. The data will always be there, even if 
some bad company comes and uses it. We don't have to protect our data to 
make money, like some company might have to, to pay their expenses. Even 
if some big company would use OSM to earn a lot of money without 
attributing, it would still be advertising for OSM, because it shows how 
much the data is worth. And everyone can make a free alternative, 
because even if the data is worth that much, it is still free.

And after all, any licence that restricts the use to "keep the data 
free" makes it less free for many uses, including ones that most people 
would probably support. With CC0 and some "non-binding contract" that 
says "please attribute OSM if you want to support it", there would be 
very few legal ambiguities.

What troubles me is that nobody ever asked the community what they want. 
To just asume that everyone who joined OSM is happy with what CC-BY-SA 
tries to do (if it would for OSM), is wrong in my opinion:

* People change their mind. They might have liked the licence in the 
first place, but after some time they might actually prefer another one.
* People might not have realized what licence OSM actually used when 
they joined because they were so excited with all that "free" and 
"open"-data stuff.
* People had no choice. They might have accepted CC-BY-SA just because 
there was no alternative.

Whatever the reason is, contributors might have a different opionion on 
CC-BY-SA than what is assumed by some people. It probably wouldn't have 
mattered, since they, after all, agreed to the licence. But now we are 
changing the licence anyway. So why not ask the people who contribute to 
OSM what they really want? The result might be quite different from what 
some see as consensus, it might turn out to be exactly as expected, 
based on the fact that all contributors agreed to the current licence. 
But the fact is, we don't really know.

Greetings

___
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 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
> I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree that CC0 
> would probably be the best licence. If OSM won't go and really try to 
> sue people, why protect the data? And why protect the data at all?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=bsd+vs+gpl&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g5

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM, SteveC  wrote:

>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
> > I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree that CC0
> > would probably be the best licence. If OSM won't go and really try to
> > sue people, why protect the data? And why protect the data at all?
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=bsd+vs+gpl&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g5
>

doesn't apply to Geodata.
___
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 8, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Anthony wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> 
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
> > I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree that CC0
> > would probably be the best licence. If OSM won't go and really try to
> > sue people, why protect the data? And why protect the data at all?
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=bsd+vs+gpl&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g5
> 
> doesn't apply to Geodata.

Because...?

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

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

SteveC schreef:
>> doesn't apply to Geodata.
> 
> Because...?

Factual data. What you are attempting to enforce is the viral effect,
which directly is what you also try to overcome...


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksen48ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0nLACfXx/T1yYnWXfkOgThxtKdFQy7
VnEAnAxqnTT32cSte4ToMqJMEQusXaSq
=sOzE
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:43 PM, SteveC  wrote:

> On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Anthony wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
> > > I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree that CC0
> > > would probably be the best licence. If OSM won't go and really try to
> > > sue people, why protect the data? And why protect the data at all?
> >
> >
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=bsd+vs+gpl&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g5
> >
> > doesn't apply to Geodata.
>
> Because...?
>

Same reason that CC-BY-SA doesn't apply to geodata.  It mostly isn't
protected by copyright law.

The purpose of copyleft is to free data from copyright - not to force people
to share.
___
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 8, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> SteveC schreef:
>>> doesn't apply to Geodata.
>> 
>> Because...?
> 
> Factual data. What you are attempting to enforce is the viral effect,
> which directly is what you also try to overcome...

So I can't license data because it's factual?

Anyway, back on planet Earth, there are lots of people who do want OSM to be 
virally licensed. You guys reiterating the great BSDvGPL holy war with pseudo 
legal arguments isn't going to change that.

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 8, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Anthony wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:43 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Anthony wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Sebastian Hohmann wrote:
> > > I don't know about that legal stuff in detail, but I agree that CC0
> > > would probably be the best licence. If OSM won't go and really try to
> > > sue people, why protect the data? And why protect the data at all?
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=bsd+vs+gpl&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g5
> >
> > doesn't apply to Geodata.
> 
> Because...?
> 
> Same reason that CC-BY-SA doesn't apply to geodata.  It mostly isn't 
> protected by copyright law.

What do you think TeleAtlas and NavTeq think about that? Have they been wasting 
their time all these years?

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:54 PM, SteveC  wrote:

> On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > SteveC schreef:
> >>> doesn't apply to Geodata.
> >>
> >> Because...?
> >
> > Factual data. What you are attempting to enforce is the viral effect,
> > which directly is what you also try to overcome...
>
> So I can't license data because it's factual?
>

There's no reason to license data if it's factual.  The purpose of a license
is to give permission to do something.  You don't need a license if you
already have permission to do it.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:54 PM, SteveC  wrote:

> On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Anthony wrote:
> > Same reason that CC-BY-SA doesn't apply to geodata.  It mostly isn't
> protected by copyright law.
>
> What do you think TeleAtlas and NavTeq think about that? Have they been
> wasting their time all these years?
>

I think TeleAtlas and NavTeq don't like it, but they've learned how to deal
with it.  No, they haven't been wasting their time all these years.  But
their days are probably numbered.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

SteveC schreef:
> So I can't license data because it's factual?

You cannot /copyright/ the data because it is factual. A license for
what you couldn't /copyright/ in the first place is not an analogy of
GPL vs BSD.


> Anyway, back on planet Earth, there are lots of people who do want 
> OSM to be virally licensed. You guys reiterating the great BSDvGPL 
> holy war with pseudo legal arguments isn't going to change that.

The amount of people wanting to go PD with their data is probably the
inverse to the amount of people to want to keep viral. So try to win the
battles you can win, otherwise maybe the best way forward is to ask the
users if /any fork/ could continue with PD/CC0.


> What do you think TeleAtlas and NavTeq think about that? Have they
> been wasting their time all these years?

Basically getting in contracts with users. Asking a per user fee for a
mapping service. As pointed out by lawyers before, the only thing in
OpenStreetMap that is getting protection by law is the rendered map, and
where applicable the database. Same count for TeleAtlas and NavTeq.


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAkseox0ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3RQgCfY0ki/CXZRdemiq3apmybyVNN
h2oAnA3JPXVsYcBZTx6kbCoa231AW1LY
=Rdht
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

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

[SteveC]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Anthony wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:54 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
> 
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > SteveC schreef:
> >>> doesn't apply to Geodata.
> >>
> >> Because...?
> >
> > Factual data. What you are attempting to enforce is the viral effect,
> > which directly is what you also try to overcome...
> 
> So I can't license data because it's factual?
> 
> There's no reason to license data if it's factual.

You're jumping from your pseudo-legal argument to your moral argument. It would 
help you if you separated them.

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:04 PM, SteveC  wrote:

> On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Anthony wrote:
> > There's no reason to license data if it's factual.
>
> You're jumping from your pseudo-legal argument to your moral argument. It
> would help you if you separated them.
>

It'd help if you looked up the definition of "license".
___
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 8, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> SteveC schreef:
>> So I can't license data because it's factual?
> 
> You cannot /copyright/ the data because it is factual. A license for
> what you couldn't /copyright/ in the first place is not an analogy of
> GPL vs BSD.

Why not? It's incredibly similar. You're on the BSD side, morally. I'm on the 
GPL side.

> 
> 
>> Anyway, back on planet Earth, there are lots of people who do want 
>> OSM to be virally licensed. You guys reiterating the great BSDvGPL 
>> holy war with pseudo legal arguments isn't going to change that.
> 
> The amount of people wanting to go PD with their data is probably the
> inverse to the amount of people to want to keep viral.

Sigh. Based on what? Based on that crappy poll? You have to be kidding. The 
universe doesn't only consist only of PD people on this list you know. There's 
a ton of people who are pro-SA and they tend to be the more rational ones who 
can't be bothered with yet another dumb poll or to comment back whenever 
someone brings up some pseudo-legal argument based on their 'university of 
life' education.

> So try to win the
> battles you can win, otherwise maybe the best way forward is to ask the
> users if /any fork/ could continue with PD/CC0.

I would love to watch a PD fork slowly die. Please start one.

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 8, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Anthony wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:04 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Anthony wrote:
> > There's no reason to license data if it's factual.
> 
> You're jumping from your pseudo-legal argument to your moral argument. It 
> would help you if you separated them.
> 
> It'd help if you looked up the definition of "license". 

Done. Now, I give you license to explain why?

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

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

SteveC schreef:
>> SteveC schreef:
>>> So I can't license data because it's factual?
>> You cannot /copyright/ the data because it is factual. A license
>> for what you couldn't /copyright/ in the first place is not an
>> analogy of GPL vs BSD.
> 
> Why not? It's incredibly similar. You're on the BSD side, morally.
> I'm on the GPL side.

Anyone that traces their trails might think this action is creative. If
that was as creative as writing a computer program or an algorithm[1]
that did this for you... then one probably understand that one is not
making a Rembrandt.

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapgenerator

>>> Anyway, back on planet Earth, there are lots of people who do
>>> want OSM to be virally licensed. You guys reiterating the great
>>> BSDvGPL holy war with pseudo legal arguments isn't going to
>>> change that.
>> The amount of people wanting to go PD with their data is probably
>> the inverse to the amount of people to want to keep viral.
> 
> Sigh. Based on what? Based on that crappy poll? You have to be
> kidding. The universe doesn't only consist only of PD people on this
> list you know. There's a ton of people who are pro-SA and they tend
> to be the more rational ones who can't be bothered with yet another
> dumb poll or to comment back whenever someone brings up some
> pseudo-legal argument based on their 'university of life' education.

The OSM universe doesn't end at the OSMF members either. So I wonder
what you are trying to prove here with /your/ vote. Statistical relevance?


>> So try to win the battles you can win, otherwise maybe the best way
>> forward is to ask the users if /any fork/ could continue with
>> PD/CC0.
> 
> I would love to watch a PD fork slowly die. Please start one.

If we can get into a contractual agreement that your... [oh nevermind]


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAkseplIACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1W1wCeJgH2SgC3mxEcKHAdr1YrHBVr
iwgAnj/p+jJHxF1a8A3NzuX9nKUy4mXx
=qsVh
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

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

[SteveC]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> SteveC schreef:
>>> SteveC schreef:
 So I can't license data because it's factual?
>>> You cannot /copyright/ the data because it is factual. A license
>>> for what you couldn't /copyright/ in the first place is not an
>>> analogy of GPL vs BSD.
>> 
>> Why not? It's incredibly similar. You're on the BSD side, morally.
>> I'm on the GPL side.
> 
> Anyone that traces their trails might think this action is creative. If
> that was as creative as writing a computer program or an algorithm[1]
> that did this for you... then one probably understand that one is not
> making a Rembrandt.

Don't run away from the point. Stop switching between your legal and moral 
arguments. I know all about the legal side. Well done.

The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want it 
to be SA. The legal points you make are just supporting cases that you're 
cherry picking to help you.

> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapgenerator
> 
 Anyway, back on planet Earth, there are lots of people who do
 want OSM to be virally licensed. You guys reiterating the great
 BSDvGPL holy war with pseudo legal arguments isn't going to
 change that.
>>> The amount of people wanting to go PD with their data is probably
>>> the inverse to the amount of people to want to keep viral.
>> 
>> Sigh. Based on what? Based on that crappy poll? You have to be
>> kidding. The universe doesn't only consist only of PD people on this
>> list you know. There's a ton of people who are pro-SA and they tend
>> to be the more rational ones who can't be bothered with yet another
>> dumb poll or to comment back whenever someone brings up some
>> pseudo-legal argument based on their 'university of life' education.
> 
> The OSM universe doesn't end at the OSMF members either. So I wonder
> what you are trying to prove here with /your/ vote. Statistical relevance?

Mine? It's the LWGs. Asking the membership is a very credible thing to do - ask 
those who care enough to be a member. They're the ones the OSMF represents.

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:08 PM, SteveC  wrote:

> You're on the BSD side, morally. I'm on the GPL side.
>

I know you weren't referring to me when you said that, but I get the
impression you think that's my position as well.  Here's the thing.  I'm not
on the BSD side, morally.  I'm a strong believer in copyleft (and I think
that's the most appropriate term for the difference between GPL and BSD).
But as I said before, I see copyleft as principle which deals with
copyright, not a principle which deals with forcing people to share in the
absence of copyright.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC  wrote:

> The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want
> it to be SA.


Morally, I want my data to be SA.  CC-BY-SA, to be specific.
___
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 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want 
> it to be SA.
> 
> Morally, I want my data to be SA.  CC-BY-SA, to be specific.

Well that doesn't work, and ODbL is the next best thing. So we all agree, yay!

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

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

SteveC schreef:
>> Anyone that traces their trails might think this action is 
>> creative. If that was as creative as writing a computer program or 
>> an algorithm[1] that did this for you... then one probably 
>> understand that one is not making a Rembrandt.
> 
> Don't run away from the point. Stop switching between your legal and 
> moral arguments. I know all about the legal side. Well done.

Wait what? You are blaming me for giving you a full blown proof that a
computer program can do the same as all the GPS tracers and I get
slapped? So what *do* you want to hear? That these persons should be
protected against theirselves for doing this work for free?

> The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* 
> I want it to be SA. The legal points you make are just supporting 
> cases that you're cherry picking to help you.

I don't *morally* want PD, I *morally* want attribution. And if
companies or individual are sucking out only. The viral aspect will only
affect what they produce, not what they bring back. Since the people
that are against attribution INCLUDE the companies you want to open to;
for example the broadcast industry, the choice is limited to *use* or
*not use*. I go for the *use*, if the work is done anyway.

Just because that Indian tracing on the otherside of the world could do
something better with his time and energy.


> Mine? It's the LWGs. Asking the membership is a very credible thing 
> to do - ask those who care enough to be a member. They're the ones 
> the OSMF represents.

And you represent the OSMF, so it is your LWG :) Next to that "care
enough to be a member", please... you almost make me cry.


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAkseq04ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3nDgCgkX4NXL8SsPWkwngcjtQBFwGJ
wcoAoJWjsqgoFD4O38c3/1/gCS0/f8nq
=5dem
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, SteveC  wrote:

> On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> > The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I
> want it to be SA.
> >
> > Morally, I want my data to be SA.  CC-BY-SA, to be specific.
>
> Well that doesn't work,


Why doesn't it work?


> and ODbL is the next best thing.


CC0 is the next best thing.


> So we all agree, yay!
>

Except that we don't.

Actually, if I could use any license for my own personal works, I'd probably
use this, which I think is morally equivalent to CC-SA, but a lot simpler:

"Copying, distribution, public performance, public display, digital audio
transmission, and use of this work is permitted without restriction.
Circumvention of any technological measure or measures which effectively
control access to this work is permitted without restriction. Preparation of
derivative works is permitted provided that you cause any such work to be
licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
this License."

Of course, it's based on US law.  So while it's fine for my works, it's not
the best for an international project.  So it's great that we had Creative
Commons to come up with an international equivalent.
___
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 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
>> The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* 
>> I want it to be SA. The legal points you make are just supporting 
>> cases that you're cherry picking to help you.
> 
> I don't *morally* want PD, I *morally* want attribution.

There you go! Everything else is window dressing to support your moral 
argument. Now I can in good conscience point you at the decades of BSDvGPL 
argument. Why do you want to sit around repeating it?

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 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Anthony wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> > The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I want 
> > it to be SA.
> >
> > Morally, I want my data to be SA.  CC-BY-SA, to be specific.
> 
> Well that doesn't work,
> 
> Why doesn't it work?

See legal-talk ad nauseum.

>  and ODbL is the next best thing.
> 
> CC0 is the next best thing.

It is if you like BSD. But I like CCBYSA and the GPL. So I like ODbL as the 
next best thing.

> So we all agree, yay!
> 
> Except that we don't.

So what are you hoping to achieve in debating this?

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:44 PM, SteveC  wrote:

>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> > > The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I
> want it to be SA.
> > >
> > > Morally, I want my data to be SA.  CC-BY-SA, to be specific.
> >
> > Well that doesn't work,
> >
> > Why doesn't it work?
>
> See legal-talk ad nauseum.
>

Done. Now, I give you license to explain why?
___
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 8, 2009, at 12:47 PM, Anthony wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:44 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> 
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Anthony wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> > > The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I 
> > > want it to be SA.
> > >
> > > Morally, I want my data to be SA.  CC-BY-SA, to be specific.
> >
> > Well that doesn't work,
> >
> > Why doesn't it work?
> 
> See legal-talk ad nauseum.
> 
> Done. Now, I give you license to explain why?

You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information on the list 
and the wiki... which you probably know because you're just trolling. But I 
like feeding trolls. You can be my pet troll. I name you trevor the troll.

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

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ed Avis wrote:
> Google have recently started using their own set of map data for the 
> USA. If it were possible for them to take OSM data under the current 
> licence they would have done so. This suggests that the current 
> share-alike provisions are working as intended.

No, it suggests that our US data, on aggregate, is an abominable heap of
crap compared to that which Google can generate for itself.

I'm not decrying the hard work of our US mappers and those who have worked
with them. Much of our UK coverage is a heap of crap compared to the
Ordnance Survey's, too.

But Google use our US data? You have to be kidding. You can't route with it.
The raw TIGER geometry looks like a bunch of baboons let loose with crayons.
There are interstates which have one carriageway where there should be two,
and crossroads where there should be overpasses. And so on.

Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A--Announce--OSMF-license-change-vote-has-started-tp26659536p26699654.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM, SteveC  wrote:

> You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information on the
> list and the wiki...
>

There are a lot of claims on the list and the wiki that CC-BY-SA "doesn't
work", but that doesn't make them true.

The only plausibly credible claim as to why CC-BY-SA "doesn't work" is that
the database isn't copyrightable in the first place.  But 1) that's not
strictly true, the database is copyrightable, to some extent, in some
jurisdictions.  And 2) there's no harm in giving a license in a case where
the copyrightability of the work is unclear and/or disputed.
___
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 8, 2009, at 12:53 PM, Anthony wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information on the 
> list and the wiki...
> 
> There are a lot of claims on the list and the wiki that CC-BY-SA "doesn't 
> work", but that doesn't make them true.

Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the two 
that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense?

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM, SteveC  wrote:
>
>> You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information on the
>> list and the wiki...
>>
>
> There are a lot of claims on the list and the wiki that CC-BY-SA "doesn't
> work", but that doesn't make them true.
>
> The only plausibly credible claim as to why CC-BY-SA "doesn't work" is that
> the database isn't copyrightable in the first place.  But 1) that's not
> strictly true, the database is copyrightable, to some extent, in some
> jurisdictions.  And 2) there's no harm in giving a license in a case where
> the copyrightability of the work is unclear and/or disputed.
>

Now, please accuse me of making a strawman argument.  Because that's what
you forced me into, by having me respond to "legal-talk ad nauseum", as
opposed to your own well-reasoned argument.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, SteveC  wrote:

> Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the
> two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense?
>

Who's Trevor?

I do feel that some people with actual law degrees are sometimes wrong.  But
until you give me exact quotes, in context, from "the two that helped the
LWG", I'm not going to make any claim as to whether or not they were wrong
in this particular instance.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ed Avis wrote:
>Richard Fairhurst  systemed.net> writes:
>>In other words: If you want to use OSM data without attribution or
>>share-alike, you may do so by distributing the program that makes the
>>derivative, rather than the derivative itself.
>
> Right.  Of course it is up to the user of that program to comply with
> licensing if and when they choose to distribute the data further.
>
> Is this really so bad?

Do I think it's bad? Everything I contribute to OSM is PD. Of course I
don't.

But the point is that by using this loophole, I can create a map which
contains proprietary data/other elements, and is unattributed. The user
_cannot_ choose to distribute it further: to do so would break the
conditions of CC-BY-SA, as the proprietary elements cannot be relicensed.
This, to me, seems to be entirely against what CC-BY-SA seeks to achieve.

Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A--Announce--OSMF-license-change-vote-has-started-tp26659536p26699822.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


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

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

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

SteveC schreef:
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
>>> The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and
>>> *morally* I want it to be SA. The legal points you make are just
>>> supporting cases that you're cherry picking to help you.
>> I don't *morally* want PD, I *morally* want attribution.
> 
> There you go! Everything else is window dressing to support your
> moral argument. Now I can in good conscience point you at the decades
> of BSDvGPL argument. Why do you want to sit around repeating it?

Is it? I'm currently perfectly fine with the fact that attribution is
guaranteed by the OSM license currently used. I'm not fine with the fact
I cannot share with people after a license change because they don't
want to adopt a new license :)

Because I do care; 4.5 basically kills your SA argument...



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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksesbwACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn29CgCfW1URl96VtF3VZN5Tgq2t86Tq
cSQAmQEzZbd0fknO4UF3jWCiz5wStdUH
=pY9F
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

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

[Liz]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> > The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I
> > want it to be SA.
> >
> > Morally, I want my data to be SA.  CC-BY-SA, to be specific.
>
> Well that doesn't work, and ODbL is the next best thing. So we all agree,
> yay!
>
> Yours &c.
>
> Steve
>

I'm sick of hearing "CC-by-SA doesn't work"
You can't even prove this assertion.


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

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, SteveC  wrote:
>
>> Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the
>> two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense?
>>
>
> Who's Trevor?
>
> I do feel that some people with actual law degrees are sometimes wrong.
> But until you give me exact quotes, in context, from "the two that helped
> the LWG", I'm not going to make any claim as to whether or not they were
> wrong in this particular instance.
>

"CC-BY-SA doesn't work" is not the kind of statement I think "some people
with actual law degrees" are any more qualified to answer than anyone else
anyway.  Not until you define what it means to "work".

That's the part I'm sure we disagree on.  IMO opinion, CC-BY-SA, like the
GPL (which states it explicitly) "is intended to guarantee your freedom",
not "to take away your freedom".  So the fact that CC-BY-SA doesn't take
away your freedoms, like the ODbL does, is IMO a feature, not a bug.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

SteveC schreef:
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:53 PM, Anthony wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM, SteveC  wrote: 
>> You asked why it doesn't work, and there is a wealth of information
>> on the list and the wiki...
>> 
>> There are a lot of claims on the list and the wiki that CC-BY-SA
>> "doesn't work", but that doesn't make them true.
> 
> Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees
> like the two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on
> your 6th sense?

Until anyone has been, or is sued. Anyone with a law degree defending a
statement is at most an advocate. The judge (in a fair legal system) has
the only final word on them, if you don't want to wait for that thats ok
with me.


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAkseslMACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1aYACgkHz02a+AELsBe5jK06f0/tVh
nTcAnRHlEYBMG1cpWgDRN2pbim0qJq98
=GYQP
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

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

[SteveC]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Anthony wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the 
> two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense?
> 
> Who's Trevor?

My pet troll, see below:

> I do feel that some people with actual law degrees are sometimes wrong.  But 
> until you give me exact quotes, in context, from "the two that helped the 
> LWG", I'm not going to make any claim as to whether or not they were wrong in 
> this particular instance.

troll trolly troll troll

We're now in the land of relativism where to make a point I have to go and 
collect quotes from lawyers, which you probably won't believe anyway, when 
everyone knows that CCBYSA is broken for OSM and the case has been made 100 
times. Including by those previously mentioned lawyers.

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> In my opinion, CC-BY-SA, like the GPL (which states it explicitly) "is
> intended to guarantee your freedom", not "to take away your freedom".
>

I should add the phrase "to share and change the works".
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:11 PM, SteveC  wrote:

> troll trolly troll troll
>

How can I argue with such erudite points?


> We're now in the land of relativism where to make a point I have to go and
> collect quotes from lawyers, which you probably won't believe anyway, when
> everyone knows that CCBYSA is broken for OSM and the case has been made 100
> times. Including by those previously mentioned lawyers.
>

As I said, I wouldn't take a lawyer's word that "CC-BY-SA is broken"
anyway.  First you have to define what it means for it to work.

You're confusing the legal with the moral.
___
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 8, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Anthony wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, SteveC  wrote:
> Trevor, let me guess that you feel people with actual law degrees like the 
> two that helped the LWG are wrong and you are right based on your 6th sense?
> 
> Who's Trevor?
> 
> I do feel that some people with actual law degrees are sometimes wrong.  But 
> until you give me exact quotes, in context, from "the two that helped the 
> LWG", I'm not going to make any claim as to whether or not they were wrong in 
> this particular instance.
> 
> "CC-BY-SA doesn't work" is not the kind of statement I think "some people 
> with actual law degrees" are any more qualified to answer than anyone else 
> anyway.  Not until you define what it means to "work".

Yes nobody would ever say anything even remotely like that if they had a law 
degree, would they? That would be nuts.

http://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg24494.html

Oh, oops.

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 8, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Liz wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 PM, SteveC  wrote:
>>> The point is that *morally* you want the data to be PD and *morally* I
>>> want it to be SA.
>>> 
>>> Morally, I want my data to be SA.  CC-BY-SA, to be specific.
>> 
>> Well that doesn't work, and ODbL is the next best thing. So we all agree,
>> yay!
>> 
>> Yours &c.
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
> 
> I'm sick of hearing "CC-by-SA doesn't work"
> You can't even prove this assertion.

No because I don't have a law degree, but those who do, can

http://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg24494.html

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:15 PM, SteveC  wrote:

> On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:08 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > "CC-BY-SA doesn't work" is not the kind of statement I think "some people
> with actual law degrees" are any more qualified to answer than anyone else
> anyway.  Not until you define what it means to "work".
>
> Yes nobody would ever say anything even remotely like that if they had a
> law degree, would they? That would be nuts.
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg24494.html
>
> Oh, oops.
>

I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a statement.  I
said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than anyone else.

In any case, "ODbL is CC BY-SA without the problems" might be a legal
statement.  Can't tell without the context.

By the way, what version of ODbL was this statement referring to?
___
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 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote:
> I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a statement.  I 
> said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than anyone else.

So let me get this straight, lawyers are not more qualified to make legal 
arguments than anyone else?

Presumably you ask a plumber to fix your car and a mechanic to prescribe you 
medicine...

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM, SteveC  wrote:

>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a statement.
>  I said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than anyone
> else.
>
> So let me get this straight, lawyers are not more qualified to make legal
> arguments than anyone else?
>

"CC-by-SA doesn't work" isn't a legal argument.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Liz]

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
> > Well that doesn't work,
> >
> > Why doesn't it work?
>
> See legal-talk ad nauseum.

I've read the whole lot, over an 18 month period of time, and there is no 
proof that CC-by-SA "doesn't work"

simplification of the argument does not assist anyone.

It may not protect data from copying
The data is not subject to copyright throughout the entire world.
The database can be protected from copying with this new licence.
That the data within the database can be protected from copying with the new 
licence is not proven
Whether the majority of contributors, who under the current scheme are the 
copyright owners of the data, want to protect the data is not proven
and whether the majority of contributors want to pass the copyright of that 
data to OSMF is not proven.

I can accept that that OSMF believes that it should replace CC-by-SA because 
it believes the data has to be protected.
Then we have to consider the conflicts of interest which exist on the OSMF 
Board, and the debate concerning the recent election.

Anyone can be a contributor to OSM without hearing of the OSMF for a prolonged 
period of time. You can't fairly deduce that only 265 people care enough about 
OSM to join. 
It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about 
their data to be worth a vote, and even that vote dumbed down to a single 
question.


Elisabetta the Fair

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

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM, SteveC  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> > I never said someone with a law degree would never make such a
>> statement.  I said they are no more qualified to make such a statement than
>> anyone else.
>>
>> So let me get this straight, lawyers are not more qualified to make legal
>> arguments than anyone else?
>>
>
> "CC-by-SA doesn't work" isn't a legal argument.
>

"CC-by-SA doesn't do what SteveC wants it to do", now that might be a legal
statement.  Of course, it's a legal statement I'd agree with.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz  wrote:

> It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about
> their data to be worth a vote
>

The vote isn't about their data, though.  Each person individually will be
able to choose what to do with their data.
___
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 8, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Liz wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote:
>>> Well that doesn't work,
>>> 
>>> Why doesn't it work?
>> 
>> See legal-talk ad nauseum.
> 
> I've read the whole lot, over an 18 month period of time, and there is no 
> proof that CC-by-SA "doesn't work"

I've not seen anything proving that Elvis is dead.

Do you want a mathematical proof or something? I think we're as close as you 
can possibly get.

Yours &c.

Steve


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

[OSM-talk] Ticket on trac fixed properly ???

[Fabri]

Someone fixed my request to render "leisure=dog_park" on osmarender, but
neither the node nor the areas are visible on the map.
My suggested icon attached with the ticket, was for the nodes (POI) and
for an area i suggested a pattern with a green park like, and dog icons
inside.
Do you think the changeset was done properly? 
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/changeset/18948

ps: tried to render, on my pc with xmlstarlet and the new rules, a map
area with a dog_park area; but nothing appeared.
i searched for a guide on the wiki, but there is a lack of informations
about "symbols as patterns in areas"
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmarender/Symbols#Symbols_as_patterns_in_areas

-- 
www.openstreetmap.org - "Io mappo il mio quartiere, tu mappi il tuo, tutti 
quanti insieme mappiamo l'intero pianeta"


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

[OSM-talk] Why the BSD vs GPL debate is irrelevant to OSM

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

this would normally be a posting for legal-talk or so, but since the 
topic has been brought up here on talk, I'll respond here.

I wasn't about to revive the debate. I prefer PD but I'll support the
move to ODbL. I'm not trying to convince everyone that PD is better.

However, I feel that the PD cause has been gravely misrepresented
by people claiming (a) that PD vs ODbL is like BSD vs GPL, and (b) that
BSD is dead. I'm not going into the details of (b) which is obviously
wrong; I want to explain why (a) is wrong, which is less obvious.

Many people think: "Share-alike has proven it worth in other areas, so 
it must be good." - It is certainly true that share-alike works in some 
areas. Computer programs and works of art come to mind. Let us first 
look at computer programs: Since the GPL (GNU Public License) was 
invented, the Free Software Movement has had a huge success developing 
an enormous amount of high quality software. Much of this software is 
GPL or under some other kind of share-alike license.

If you look at the software stack on a modern computer, you see the 
kernel, above it libraries and then the application programs. The most 
popular free kernel is the Linux kernel which is under the GPL, but 
libraries and applications used on top of a Linux kernel don't fall 
under the GPL restrictions. (They may be GPL licensed but they are not 
GPL licensed *because* they run on a GPL kernel.) Some licenses are 
LGPL, allowing non-GPL software to use them. So there is ample precedent 
that it is good for basic components not to dictate the licensing of 
stuff that is built on top of them.

Share-alike is always a two-sided sword; you make life more difficult 
for some of your users (e.g. those who want to build a modified Linux 
kernel), in order to make life easier for others (the Linux users who 
know they will get access to any kernel modifications). This share-alike 
element has to be balanced in order to work; if you make *too* many 
demands of those building a modified kernel, they'll just not do it, 
giving a sub-optimal result for the whole community.

The overwhelming use of a Linux kernel is in a "collective" situation - 
you use the kernel as-is, together with other bits and pieces, to make 
up a working computer system. The majority of people don't want to take 
the kernel apart an modify and extend it, and thus are completely 
unaffected by the share-alike component of the license - even though 
they of course do lots of things on their computer that they couldn't do 
without the Linux kernel.

Another very similar example is the Creative Commons movement. There are 
many photos and pieces of music and even films out there that come under 
a Creative Commons Share Alike license and the model is commonly 
considered a success. It is great that I can use a photo I find on 
flickr in a presentation. Its great that I can use a piece of music in a 
podcast without problems. And my whole presentation or podcast doesn't 
have to come under the same license as the original work just because of 
that. Again, as with the Linux kernel and the stuff that people build on 
it, I can choose any license they want for the presentation or podcast. 
Sure, if I use some CC-BY-SA image and change it a little bit, I can't 
change the license. But the overwhelmingly predominant use of Creative 
Commons licensed work is not in this way, but by including the work in 
some larger work where the "collective work" instead of the "derivative 
work" rule gives me the right to do anything I want.

Now back to OpenStreetMap. A very typical use of OSM data at the moment 
is to create maps from it and then build some kind of application on top 
of that. The map is still CC-BY-SA, the application on top of it isn't. 
Here as in the case of a photo used in a presentation, the license for 
some part doesn't infect the whole. But there are many many more uses of 
this data. Taking the OSM data and mixing it with other data from 
outside is where the interesting and new applications lie, and what you 
will likely be doing for routing or geocoding or location-based services 
or anything else of interest. This is something different. This doesn't 
happen that much in the world of art or the world of programming. The 
intimate mixing of sources, or thorough processing of one source, makes 
a lot of sense with the data. Ask yourself the question: How much more 
likely is someone to mix data from several geodata sources than to 
re-mix a few CC-BY-SA licensed music tracks?

This means that any share-alike provision we slap on OSM data has a much 
more direct influence on the potential uses of the data than a 
share-alike provision on software on on creative works has.

ODbL tries to reduce this problem by exempting "produced works" from the 
share-alike effect, and this is a good thing, but still there will be 
many use cases adversely affected by the remaining share-alike for data.

To recap; the share-alike component 

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz  wrote:
>
>> It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about
>> their data to be worth a vote
>>
>
> The vote isn't about their data, though.  Each person individually will be
> able to choose what to do with their data.
>

Which, in itself, shows the hypocrisy in Steve's statement that CC-BY-SA
"doesn't work".  If CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, then there's no need
to delete the data of people who don't agree to the switch.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] SotM10 meeting: choosing the venue

[Ciprian Talaba]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Henk Hoff  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Later today the organizing committee will meet to (hopefully) decide on
> the venue of next year's State of the Map. There are bids from Italy,
> Spain, the Netherlands and Austria. You can see them all at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map_2010/Bid
>
> If you also want to join this meeting, let me know at henk#stateofthemap
> org, and I'll send you the details how to dail in to this meeting.
>
> The meeting will be at 8pm GMT (that is 9pm for mainland Europe).
>
> Cheers,
> Henk Hoff
>
>
Since we didn't see an annoucement on the list I assume a decision have not
been taken yet. There will be another meeting? And if yes, when?

Thanks,
Ciprian
___
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 8, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Anthony wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz  wrote:
> It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough about
> their data to be worth a vote
> 
> The vote isn't about their data, though.  Each person individually will be 
> able to choose what to do with their data.
> 
> Which, in itself, shows the hypocrisy in Steve's statement that CC-BY-SA 
> "doesn't work".  If CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, then there's no need 
> to delete the data of people who don't agree to the switch.

You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?

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

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

SteveC schreef:
> You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?

Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAkseuqcACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn32RgCfSHYvAqslXMz79sfj1DbpV2Pw
8iYAnjbgGh6LnolU78pTOQ/+Cma4a5LW
=OC0d
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

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

[SteveC]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> SteveC schreef:
>> You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
> 
> Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
> protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?


to do what, relicense?

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

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

SteveC schreef:
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
> 
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> SteveC schreef:
>>> You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
>> Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
>> protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?
> 
> to do what, relicense?

Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus
doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data
today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like
this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a
copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place.


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksevF4ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1MwQCfX2V0LyMh3oDAH8KNLXRhPR/G
ysAAn0y/IAZo4o7Jqm7DIuUKMBX+N1po
=kc1P
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

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

[SteveC]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> SteveC schreef:
>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
>> 
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA512
>>> 
>>> SteveC schreef:
 You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
>>> Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
>>> protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?
>> 
>> to do what, relicense?
> 
> Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus
> doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data
> today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like
> this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a
> copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place.

So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and change 
the license?

I think it's better to build a consensus and vote and so on personally, even 
with all the ups and downs.

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM, SteveC  wrote:

>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Liz  wrote:
> > It is however quite stupid to think that only 265 people care enough
> about
> > their data to be worth a vote
> >
> > The vote isn't about their data, though.  Each person individually will
> be able to choose what to do with their data.
> >
> > Which, in itself, shows the hypocrisy in Steve's statement that CC-BY-SA
> "doesn't work".  If CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, then there's no need
> to delete the data of people who don't agree to the switch.
>
> You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
>

>From something that doesn't work to something that does work?  Why not?

No, I'm not advocating it, because I haven't been convinced that "CC-BY-SA
doesn't work".
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

SteveC schreef:
> You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
 Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
 protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?
>>> to do what, relicense?
>> Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus
>> doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data
>> today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like
>> this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a
>> copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place.
> 
> So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and 
> change the license?

This is the /only/ way to prove that CC-BY-SA is enough to have your
original data protected. If the outcome of such case would be that it
was legally sound to do so, you can victoriously claim that what the
OSMF was in the best interest of the project.

...but if the case was actually lost. CC-BY-SA would be suitable for
OSM, nothing changes and everyone is happy.


Now this is the point where the positive people come around again. "But
the BBC can't use our pretty pictures." Then the SA people should say:
"we don't care they don't share".


Your wish for consensus makes by definition your statement pro the
change based on 'CC-BY-SA is not enough' a thing that people like me
never buy unless there was a valid example where it actually /wasn't
enough/.


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksevxgACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn234gCghLGJcgso9/mvnnK4GU+u94Mi
BT0AnjIsTR6+Gs00NHAhUqLEKgMoHkJQ
=HVqv
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

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

[SteveC]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> SteveC schreef:
>> You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
> Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
> protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?
 to do what, relicense?
>>> Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus
>>> doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data
>>> today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like
>>> this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a
>>> copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place.
>> 
>> So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and 
>> change the license?
> 
> This is the /only/ way to prove that CC-BY-SA is enough to have your
> original data protected. If the outcome of such case would be that it
> was legally sound to do so, you can victoriously claim that what the
> OSMF was in the best interest of the project.

Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ?

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM, SteveC  wrote:

> So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and
> change the license?
>

What do you mean "change the license"?  Isn't your position that CC-BY-SA is
invalid in the first place?

The OSMF doesn't need permission to make a contract between itself and users
of its websites.  At least, not if you think that whole "You may not offer
or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this
License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder."
doesn't work.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Peteris Krisjanis]

 SteveC schreef:
> You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
 Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
 protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?
>>>
>>> to do what, relicense?
>>
>> Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus
>> doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data
>> today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like
>> this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a
>> copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place.
>
> So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and 
> change the license?
>
> I think it's better to build a consensus and vote and so on personally, even 
> with all the ups and downs.

Steve,

I think he wanted to point ironical situation that you claim that
CC-BY-SA doesn't work. So, it doesn't work, there are workarounds,
let's use this workaround to relicense everything to ODbL :)

Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
sound arguments why CC-BY-SA "doesn't work" and what "work" actually
means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? Doesn't work for community? Doesn't
what? And please, don't refer to old mailing list posts, explain it in
your words, because it is different disscussion and different
situation.

Otherwise it really sounds like pushing change by someone who are
spent too much time in legal-talk. And we know what legal-talk does to
the people. Laws aren't physics, get over it. They will never be clean
and shut.

Cheers and good luck,
Peter.

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

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis  wrote:

> Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
> sound arguments why CC-BY-SA "doesn't work" and what "work" actually
> means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade?


I think you hit the nail on the head.
___
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 8, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:

> SteveC schreef:
>> You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
> Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
> protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?
 
 to do what, relicense?
>>> 
>>> Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus
>>> doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data
>>> today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like
>>> this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a
>>> copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place.
>> 
>> So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and 
>> change the license?
>> 
>> I think it's better to build a consensus and vote and so on personally, even 
>> with all the ups and downs.
> 
> Steve,
> 
> I think he wanted to point ironical situation that you claim that
> CC-BY-SA doesn't work. So, it doesn't work, there are workarounds,
> let's use this workaround to relicense everything to ODbL :)
> 
> Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
> sound arguments why CC-BY-SA "doesn't work" and what "work" actually
> means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? Doesn't work for community? Doesn't
> what? And please, don't refer to old mailing list posts, explain it in
> your words, because it is different disscussion and different
> situation.

Have you seen this?

http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf

and this?

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

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

[Frederik Ramm]

Stefan,

Stefan de Konink wrote:
> Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus
> doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data
> today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like
> this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a
> copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place.

This is factually correct, but would you not expect a degree of 
"friendliness" over and above the call of law from those who run the 
project you contribute to?

I don't think that "sorry guys, we tricked you into contributing under 
an invalid license, now all your stuff is basically PD anyway and we're 
going to relicense it in any way we want" is an attitude that would 
attract anyone to the project!

And I don't think you are honestly suggesting that either.

Bye
Frederik

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

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

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

[SteveC]

On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis  wrote:
> Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
> sound arguments why CC-BY-SA "doesn't work" and what "work" actually
> means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade?
> 
> I think you hit the nail on the head.

Yes, it's all an evil cloudmade plot!

As I've said many times before, if you thought about it for 2 seconds it would 
be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the other 
companies so we could do what we like with the data. But that would not equal a 
sustainable OpenStreetMap.

Yours &c.

Steve


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ticket on trac fixed properly ???

[Patrick Kilian]

Hi,

> Someone fixed my request to render "leisure=dog_park" on osmarender,
> but neither the node nor the areas are visible on the map.
The someone was me. It most likly doesn't appear yet because most
clients haven't updated yet.

> My suggested icon attached with the ticket, was for the nodes (POI)
> and for an area i suggested a pattern with a green park like, and dog
> icons inside.
You should get something like your icon (in one quarter the file size)
for the POI and at the center of the area plus a green area.

> Do you think the changeset was done properly? 
> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/changeset/18948
Looks fine to me. What exactly do you consider broken?


> ps: tried to render, on my pc with xmlstarlet and the new rules, a
> map area with a dog_park area; but nothing appeared. i searched for a
> guide on the wiki, but there is a lack of informations about "symbols
> as patterns in areas" 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmarender/Symbols#Symbols_as_patterns_in_areas
>  
Short version: pattern are damned hard to get right. Most likly it's not
worth the effort.


Oh and by the way: You could have reopened the tiket instead of annoying
everybody on the talk list. You behaviour makes me question my decision
to implement your feature request.


Patrick "Petschge" Kilian

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

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

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

SteveC schreef:
> Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ?

Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;) Especially related
some recent cases over here with the claim "This was our intention" the
intention for OSM is extremely clear.

But maybe I can discuss this with a company that might want to try it.
Nope not Google.


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksewrMACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn11yACgjWzWzqg+d98BBowolLCwQ9f7
hWsAoIpon7KxUpH/cuTdkjQQyKVrntkp
=BgE2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Why the BSD vs GPL debate is irrelevant to OSM

[Serge Wroclawski]

> Another very similar example is the Creative Commons movement. There are
> many photos and pieces of music and even films out there that come under
> a Creative Commons Share Alike license and the model is commonly
> considered a success. It is great that I can use a photo I find on
> flickr in a presentation. Its great that I can use a piece of music in a
> podcast without problems. And my whole presentation or podcast doesn't
> have to come under the same license as the original work just because of
> that. Again, as with the Linux kernel and the stuff that people build on
> it, I can choose any license they want for the presentation or podcast.
> Sure, if I use some CC-BY-SA image and change it a little bit, I can't
> change the license. But the overwhelmingly predominant use of Creative
> Commons licensed work is not in this way, but by including the work in
> some larger work where the "collective work" instead of the "derivative
> work" rule gives me the right to do anything I want.

Frederik,

This is, IMHO, the most fundamental question in this discussion- what
the distinction is between a derived work and a collective work?

In your example of a presentation, I can see what you mean quite
clearly: A picture in a book could hardly be considered the entire
book.

And for software, we have interfaces which define how various software
components talk to one another, so the distinction is also clear.

I'm less clear about this distinction with a map.

Let's say I'm an academic and I want to use OSM as part of my
research. As part of my university project, I use sensor data to
collect various information.

Then I combine this data with data from OSM and make calculations
based on my findings- say temperature based on proximity to certain
types of amenities offered in the nearby stores.

I don't have a clear sense of whether the resulting data is a
collective work or derived work. Knowing the answer to this, even if
the answer is "no", is a good thing- it will people a clear sense of
what's going on and reduce the concerns based on the unknown.

> Now back to OpenStreetMap. A very typical use of OSM data at the moment
> is to create maps from it and then build some kind of application on top
> of that.

Personally, I think this will change, and OSM could become a vital
component in larger projects, such as that described above, or
possibly used as a data source such as is so often discussed by
semantic web utopians. But then again, I'm often wrong. :)

> ODbL tries to reduce this problem by exempting "produced works" from the
> share-alike effect, and this is a good thing, but still there will be
> many use cases adversely affected by the remaining share-alike for data.

I can't speak for others, but the concern I have is just knowing what
is, and isn't allowed.

This isn't dissimilar to what SteveC and others have said about FUD.
In the absence of information, fear naturally arises. Fear isn't
productive.

I want to emphasize that I also agree with you that OBbL is better
than what we have now, and given the choice between what we have now
and ODbL, I'd choose it. At the same time, I wish there was more
information on the practical implications of this change.

How will it protect us in ways CC-BY-SA doesn't now? (this has
actually been discussed a lot).

What effect (if any) would ODbL have on academics? Would it make it
easier for them to use our work? Harder? The same?

What effect (if any) would ODbL have on governments using the data,
etc? We currently do imports, but how could we use the OBbL to give
data back to the governments?

I want to emphasize that these questions aren't all negative- they're
more "how" questions then "why". I think that there's a lot to be said
for the discussion that's come out of the legal group- but I think
there are remaining questions which, when answered, could put a lot of
people's fears to rest.

- Serge

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

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:15 PM, SteveC  wrote:

> On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis 
> wrote:
> > Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
> > sound arguments why CC-BY-SA "doesn't work" and what "work" actually
> > means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade?
> >
> > I think you hit the nail on the head.
>
> Yes, it's all an evil cloudmade plot!
>

I never said anything about it being evil or a plot.  I don't blame you for
wanting a license which is best for you.


> As I've said many times before, if you thought about it for 2 seconds it
> would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the
> other companies so we could do what we like with the data.
>

Yeah, but it'd be a *lot* better for some of "the other companies" (like,
maybe 10^100) than it would be for CloudMade.

Anyway, why would it be better for OSM to move to PD?  I thought CC-BY-SA
didn't work.
___
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 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> SteveC schreef:
>> Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ?
> 
> Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;)

So if IP lawyers cannot convince you, who or what can?

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

[Peteris Krisjanis]

2009/12/8 SteveC :
>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>
>> SteveC schreef:
>>> You're really advocating switching license without asking anyone?
>> Isn't he merely stating that if you truly believe CC-BY-SA doesn't
>> protect the data, you don't have to ask anyone to do so?
>
> to do what, relicense?

 Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus
 doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data
 today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like
 this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a
 copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place.
>>>
>>> So you really are saying the LWG / OSMF should just ignore everyone and 
>>> change the license?
>>>
>>> I think it's better to build a consensus and vote and so on personally, 
>>> even with all the ups and downs.
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> I think he wanted to point ironical situation that you claim that
>> CC-BY-SA doesn't work. So, it doesn't work, there are workarounds,
>> let's use this workaround to relicense everything to ODbL :)
>>
>> Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
>> sound arguments why CC-BY-SA "doesn't work" and what "work" actually
>> means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade? Doesn't work for community? Doesn't
>> what? And please, don't refer to old mailing list posts, explain it in
>> your words, because it is different disscussion and different
>> situation.
>
> Have you seen this?
>
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf
>
> and this?
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes
>
> Yours &c.
>
> Steve
>

So, in nutshell, CC-BY-SA, or even worse, copyright law itself doesn't
protect OSM database, because it's database of facts and it doesn't
work in lot of juristictions. More or less in those juristictions OSM
data are effectively not copyrightable and therefore their usage and
distribution can't be controlled by copyright law.

p.s. btw, in my country database of facts IS copyrightable and I think
it's the same with rest of EU (correct me if I am wrong).

So in fact that means no license with basis in copyright term and law
can't be used? And therefore you are offering ODbL? ODbL restricts
usage trough.?

Please explain futher :)

p.s. Steve, I am not against Cloudmade or license change, and I
understand problem. I just think it is not explained carefully again,
again and again. I know, it sucks, but that's the life. And I am
worried about mass imports who are done under CC-BY-SA.

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

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

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Hi Frederik,

Frederik Ramm schreef:
> Stefan de Konink wrote:
>> Exactly; if your statement is sound. CC-BY-SA doesn't protect us, thus
>> doesn't protect us against ourselves, thus OSMF could declare the data
>> today as ODbL, and wait to get sued by the editors that doesn't like
>> this change, if the CC-BY-SA holds the relicense has just been made a
>> copyright infringement and therefore wasn't required in the first place.
> 
> This is factually correct, but would you not expect a degree of
> "friendliness" over and above the call of law from those who run the
> project you contribute to?

If we can get sponsors for servers maybe a sponsoring for a legal case
wouldn't be a bad idea at all. If the OSMF could make a clear statement
'if CC-BY-SA holds we are not going to change it', the friendliness is
there and it will be in all our best interest.


> I don't think that "sorry guys, we tricked you into contributing under
> an invalid license, now all your stuff is basically PD anyway and we're
> going to relicense it in any way we want" is an attitude that would
> attract anyone to the project!

Hey SteveC tricked us all in here! Not to blame the rest of the board. ;)

And Steve, I am still thankful I ended up in this project when I was
Googling other people collecting GPS trails :)


> And I don't think you are honestly suggesting that either.

The point that Steve makes is based on the fact he can't trust the
CC-BY-SA anymore for the function he has used it before (mainly no other
licenses being available). The only way to prove this would be a case.
And don't forget, if a full database dump is made available under
CC-BY-SA knowingly it is all PD, wouldn't that be a MUCH worse situation
in this respect?


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksexI8ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0ZDgCfUL+uJ7xIIsxz8MKIfThP6rxt
8TMAoIB6EHSzIe8ZHMRJGhqNbCxYypJw
=SuxJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

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

[Apollinaris Schoell]

Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis 
wrote:
  
  Anyway,
you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
sound arguments why CC-BY-SA "doesn't work" and what "work" actually
means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade?
  
I think you hit the nail on the head.
  
  
  
  

this is ridiculous, 
CM has done so much for osm. If you have a problem with CM name it
instead hiding  behind a endless license discussion.


  
___
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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:20 PM, SteveC  wrote:

>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > SteveC schreef:
> >> Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ?
> >
> > Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;)
>
> So if IP lawyers cannot convince you, who or what can?
>

A reasonable argument would go a long way.  Much further than out-of-context
ambiguous soundbites.

Of course, to really be 100% convinced it'd probably take a Supreme Court
ruling, and that'd only 100% convince me with respect to the United States.

And then, there's the equally ambiguous question of whether or not the ODbL
*would* hold.  If OSM is considered public domain in the United States, it's
fairly unlikely ODbL is going to change that.  Of course, I'll be watching
the Derrick Coetzee/National Portrait Gallery situation closely to adjust my
sense of that one.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:

>  Anthony wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>
>> Anyway, you can call him a troll, but I agree I so far haven't heard
>> sound arguments why CC-BY-SA "doesn't work" and what "work" actually
>> means. Doesn't work for Cloudmade?
>
>
> I think you hit the nail on the head.
>
>this is ridiculous,
> CM has done so much for osm. If you have a problem with CM name it instead
> hiding  behind a endless license discussion.
>

I don't have a problem with CM.  I just don't believe for one second that
Steve is going to be a proponent of a license change that hurts CM.  And I
wouldn't expect him to be.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Stefan de Konink]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

SteveC schreef:
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
> 
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> SteveC schreef:
>>> Why don't you do it then, try and fork to CC0 or PD with planet.osm ?
>> Because I'm not convinced that CC-BY-SA won't hold ;)
> 
> So if IP lawyers cannot convince you, who or what can?

A ruling where CC-BY-SA data is being thrown back in to the normal
copyright law because the license is void. (Termination clause CC)

OSMF vs OSM Contributors sounds totally cool here.


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

iEYEAREKAAYFAksexa0ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1i5QCdERsafj036Np/UHow7LOM5nJ0
bqUAmgIASemw97qF8jvAge1xMt3fdZyu
=x0KW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

[OSM-talk] Keep up with the SOTM 2010 progress

[Hurricane]

Howdy OSMers,

Last week we had a fun meeting discussing SOTM locations. Not an easy decision! 
So many great places to meet :)
Here's what we have so far:

First choice is Girona, runner-up is Vienna
Three day conference, same as this year: business day and community-weekend
Give the Spanish chapter a week time to confirm the venue and more detailed 
information about the costs.
If that’s unsatisfactory, the runner-up will host SotM10


Please feel free to join us at our next meeting, our just keep up with reading 
the minutes here 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map_2010/Organization/Meetings#December_2nd.2C_2009

We meet every Wednesday at 8PM GST. (that's 12 noon on the Pacific Coast if 
you're in the US)

Happy Mapping!



Hurricane




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

[OSM-talk] ODbL / Licensing Working Group - Discussion Podcast

[Grant Slater]

Matt Amos [1] and Mike Collinson [2], members of the LWG [3] together
with Peter Batty [4], Richard Fairhurst [5] and Steve Coast [6] got
together earlier today to discuss OpenStreetMap Licensing, ODbL and
some of the licensing debate.

http://www.opengeodata.org/2009/12/08/license-working-group-podcast/

Direct Download link:
http://www.opengeodata.org/casts/2009/LWG.mp3

Please trim replies to legal-t...@.

1: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Matt
2: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ewmjc
3: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Licensing_Working_Group
4: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Pmbatty
5: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Richard
6: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Steve or preferably:
http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Keep up with the SOTM 2010 progress

[Kate]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Hurricane  wrote:
>
> First choice is Girona, runner-up is Vienna
> Three day conference, same as this year: business day and community-weekend
> Give the Spanish chapter a week time to confirm the venue and more detailed
> information about the costs.
> If that’s unsatisfactory, the runner-up will host SotM10

What are the proposed dates for the SOTM conference?I have seen
July 9-11 proposed, though have seen other dates.

Those are the same dates as the Wikimedia conference (Wikimania) 2010
in Poland, so people who have interest in both projects would have to
chose between SOTM and Wikimania.  I would have to choose Wikimania,
because of my involvement there. :(

http://wikimania2010.wikimedia.org/

I'm hoping the dates are not in conflict, though if they are close
together (combine a trip to Europe), that could work.

-Kate

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

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

[OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

I would like to counter another often-repeated misconception about 
PD (or CC0, or BSD) licenses, namely that these licenses are better for 
business because they allow businesses to do what they want.

The matter arose in the follwoing exchange here on talk:

> As I've said many times before, if you thought about it for 2
> seconds it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for
> * and all the other companies so we could do what we like
> with the data.
> 
> Yeah, but it'd be a *lot* better for some of "the other companies" 
> (like, maybe 10^100) than it would be for *.

It doesn't matter who said this because it is an idea that many people 
in OSM seem to share: Do PD and big business will love you because they 
can rip you off; do share-alike and be protected from such rip-off.

I fact, restrictions often provide a competitive advantage for business. 
(Sure - some business models will not work with the restrictions but 
others will.)

The reason for this is that IP licensing is a very difficult terrain, 
even more so if viewed internationally. Any share-alike license footed 
in international IP law, like CC-BY-SA or ODbL, is necessarily complex 
as well. What constitutes a derived work, what is substantial, how do 
database law and copyright mix, what constitutes the acceptance of a 
contract, and so on.

We need lawyers to navigate the complex legal system just like we need 
tax attorneys to navigate the complex tax system.

Less restrictions favour individuals. Nobody will think twice before 
using a public domain dataset for a project he's doing. More 
restrictions favour an elite few who have fully understood the 
restrictions and can work with them. And the elite few, that's generally 
(large) companies. Because companies make money, they can afford 
lawyers. They can afford to find out what exactly the restrictions are 
and where the niche is that they can use. They have the means to design 
their project in a way that fits the license. They can (for a fee) help 
other navigate the license restrictions, or they can buy an insurance 
that helps them mitigate the risk of accidental license violation.

This doesn't necessarily mean that share-alike is *good* for business, 
but I believe that the difficulties that share-alike brings are prone to 
hit a law-abiding hobbyist individual harder than a business giant with 
a legal department (that's assuming both want to play fair).

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Keep up with the SOTM 2010 progress

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El Martes, 8 de Diciembre de 2009, Kate escribió:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Hurricane  
wrote:
> > First choice is Girona, runner-up is Vienna
> > Three day conference, same as this year: business day and
> > community-weekend Give the Spanish chapter a week time to confirm the
> > venue and more detailed information about the costs.
> > If that’s unsatisfactory, the runner-up will host SotM10
>
> What are the proposed dates for the SOTM conference?I have seen
> July 9-11 proposed, though have seen other dates.

Yes, the dates are july 9-11th. The proposal to host SotM in Barcelona next to 
the FOSS4G (september) was rejected.

However, there are a couple of geo-events in Spain the week of 5-9th. That, 
and the wikimania might be a good reason to shift the dates a week. I'll keep 
that in mind during the meeting and see what the rest of the SotM WG think 
about it.


Cheers,
-- 
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega 

http://ivan.sanchezortega.es
Proudly running Debian Linux with 2.6.31-1-amd64 kernel, KDE 3.5.10, and PHP 
5.2.11-1 generating this signature.
Uptime: 23:59:13 up 22 days, 20:52,  5 users,  load average: 0.72, 0.55, 0.54


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
>I would like to counter another often-repeated misconception about
> PD (or CC0, or BSD) licenses, namely that these licenses are better for
> business because they allow businesses to do what they want.
>
> The matter arose in the follwoing exchange here on talk:
>
> > As I've said many times before, if you thought about it for 2
> > seconds it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for
> > * and all the other companies so we could do what we like
> > with the data.
> >
> > Yeah, but it'd be a *lot* better for some of "the other companies"
> > (like, maybe 10^100) than it would be for *.
>
> It doesn't matter who said this because it is an idea that many people
> in OSM seem to share: Do PD and big business will love you because they
> can rip you off; do share-alike and be protected from such rip-off.
>

That definitely wasn't what I said.

I fact, restrictions often provide a competitive advantage for business.
>

"Competitive advantage" is in fact exactly what I was talking about.
Restrictions can serve to benefit one company (which we'll call *),
compared to another company (which we'll call 10^100).

Or we can just come right out and name names.  Google has built a business
around mixing public domain data with its own proprietary improvements.
Cloudmade has build a business around "provid[ing] professional services
around open mapdata".  If everyone who improves map data has to share their
improvements (with improvements defined a way that doesn't include the types
of improvements which Cloudmade makes, namely Produced Works), Google loses,
and Cloudmade, at worst, isn't affected at all.

Less restrictions favour individuals.


Less restrictions favor some individuals, sometimes, depending on what those
restrictions are.  This isn't an "individuals vs. corporations" thing.
Let's not get too commie here, okay?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks

[andrzej zaborowski]

2009/12/8 Matt Amos :
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Anthony  wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM,  
>> > 'mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk');>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
>> be forked?
>>
>> Technically, it does.  But remember that the OSMF is granted a special 
>> license in addition to the ODbL.  Any fork would be at a major disadvantage 
>> as it wouldn't have that special license.
>
> Yes, because the osmf has a direct relationship with the contributors,
> and any fork wouldn't. This is similar to the fsf, which asks its
> contributors to assign copyright, giving it rights that any fork
> purely under the GPL doesn't have.

Right, so this is one thing that isn't being made so clear.  It's been
said multiple times that the ODbL transition in summary is the spirit
of CC-By-SA taken and made into a proper license for a database.  But
actually it's the spirit of CC-By-SA + copyright assignment, like that
of Mozilla and others, which makes a difference.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Keep up with the SOTM 2010 progress

[Kate]

2009/12/8 Iván Sánchez Ortega :
>
> Yes, the dates are july 9-11th. The proposal to host SotM in Barcelona next to
> the FOSS4G (september) was rejected.
>
> However, there are a couple of geo-events in Spain the week of 5-9th. That,
> and the wikimania might be a good reason to shift the dates a week. I'll keep
> that in mind during the meeting and see what the rest of the SotM WG think
> about it.
>

Thanks for considering the dates.

Though we have been slow in getting the Wikimedia-OSM integration
going, we should most definitely have something by then to show.  It
would be of interest to both conferences.

Cheers,
Kate


>
> Cheers,
> --
> --
> Iván Sánchez Ortega 
>
> http://ivan.sanchezortega.es
> Proudly running Debian Linux with 2.6.31-1-amd64 kernel, KDE 3.5.10, and PHP
> 5.2.11-1 generating this signature.
> Uptime: 23:59:13 up 22 days, 20:52,  5 users,  load average: 0.72, 0.55, 0.54
>

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks

[Matt Amos]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
> 2009/12/8 Matt Amos :
>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Anthony  wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM,  
>>> >> 'mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk');>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
>>> be forked?
>>>
>>> Technically, it does.  But remember that the OSMF is granted a special 
>>> license in addition to the ODbL.  Any fork would be at a major disadvantage 
>>> as it wouldn't have that special license.
>>
>> Yes, because the osmf has a direct relationship with the contributors,
>> and any fork wouldn't. This is similar to the fsf, which asks its
>> contributors to assign copyright, giving it rights that any fork
>> purely under the GPL doesn't have.
>
> Right, so this is one thing that isn't being made so clear.  It's been
> said multiple times that the ODbL transition in summary is the spirit
> of CC-By-SA taken and made into a proper license for a database.  But
> actually it's the spirit of CC-By-SA + copyright assignment, like that
> of Mozilla and others, which makes a difference.

it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't
asking for copyright assignment or any other rights assignment. that's
a subtle, but often important difference.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ticket on trac fixed properly ???

[Fabri]

Fabri ha scritto:
> Patrick Kilian ha scritto:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>>   
>> 
>>> Someone fixed my request to render "leisure=dog_park" on osmarender,
>>> but neither the node nor the areas are visible on the map.
>>> 
>>>   
>> The someone was me. It most likly doesn't appear yet because most
>> clients haven't updated yet.
>>
>>   
>> 
>>> My suggested icon attached with the ticket, was for the nodes (POI)
>>> and for an area i suggested a pattern with a green park like, and dog
>>> icons inside.
>>> 
>>>   
>> You should get something like your icon (in one quarter the file size)
>> for the POI and at the center of the area plus a green area.
>>
>>   
>> 
>>> Do you think the changeset was done properly? 
>>> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/changeset/18948
>>> 
>>>   
>> Looks fine to me. What exactly do you consider broken?
>>
>>
>>   
>> 
>>> ps: tried to render, on my pc with xmlstarlet and the new rules, a
>>> map area with a dog_park area; but nothing appeared. i searched for a
>>> guide on the wiki, but there is a lack of informations about "symbols
>>> as patterns in areas" 
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmarender/Symbols#Symbols_as_patterns_in_areas
>>>  
>>> 
>>>   
>> Short version: pattern are damned hard to get right. Most likly it's not
>> worth the effort.
>>
>>
>> Oh and by the way: You could have reopened the tiket instead of annoying
>> everybody on the talk list. You behaviour makes me question my decision
>> to implement your feature request.
>>
>>
>> Patrick "Petschge" Kilian
>>
>>   
>> 

There is no reason to get angry. The "talk list" is for talk, for what
else? Nobody is obliged to read a post, why do you think is boring? By
the way i was only asking a question to the list. Better to ask before 
reopening a ticket IMO.



-- 
www.openstreetmap.org - "Io mappo il mio quartiere, tu mappi il tuo, tutti 
quanti insieme mappiamo l'intero pianeta"


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

[OSM-talk] Implications of using aggregated/statistical data from both licenses (ODbL and CC-by-SA) for OSMdoc?

[Lars Francke]

I've just listened to the podcast, I've read a lot of the mails on the
mailing lists in the last few days, I've read quite a few discussions
about it on IRC, the proposal document, parts of the license, the
human readable form of the license and a lot of the Wiki pages.

The more I read the less I know. So I'd like to take the LWG up on the
offer (the one I just heard in the Podcast) and ask what the
implications would be for me as the developer of OSMdoc if OSM were to
switch to ODbL (I'm assuming that at least parts of the OSM data would
have to be made unavailable from the ODbL dataset after the switch).

At the moment I'm displaying statistical data about a snapshot of the
OSM data. If it'd stay that way it would be very easy for me to switch
from one license to the other as the data wouldn't depend on data from
the CC by-SA set. But I'm currently rewriting the tool to account for
historical statistics. One example would be a feature that has been
requested quite often: How many users have used a tag. This means I
have to incorporate the history of all elements into my numbers. I
wouldn't want to lose the data if we switch but the number is clearly
derived from both databases (the ODbL database and the CC by-SA dump).
This is only one example. The new version uses historic data all over
the place and I've been working very hard these last few weeks/months
to get this far and to get the data so I wouldn't want to throw
everything "pre ODbL" away as it would alter the meaning of the
statistics.

What would the license change mean for me? What do I have to do to comply?

I don't even know which of these categories I belong to (taken from
the ODbL text):
“Collective Database” – Means this Database in unmodified form as part
of a collection of independent databases in themselves that together
are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a
Collective Database will not be considered a Derivative Database.
“Produced Work” – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material,
text, or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part
of the Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a
Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective
Database.
“Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and
includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or
any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or
Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new
Database.

1) Collective Database?
What does "modify" mean?
Again from the ODbL: “Database” – A collection of material (the
Contents) arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually
accessible by electronic or other means offered under the terms of
this License.

I don't change any of the content of the database. I just parse the
provided XML and write the content into my own database (but I parse
the timestamp strings to longs, leave out usernames, etc. -
modification?).

2) Produced Work? Certainly. At least I think sobut...I don't
know. I provide a viewable version of the derivative database I
produced and in all probabilty there will be charts/graphs/etc. based
on this database.

3) Derivative Database? I think so.

As a short personal opinion about the license debate I'd like to add
that I've pretty much given up on understanding the license (and its
implications) despite the continued efforts by all those involved.
Please understand that this is not criticism about ODbL, CC by-SA, the
LWG or anyone else involved in this license change. I know that a lot
of people are working hard on this (on the "Yes" and on the "No"
side). But I have the feeling that the "normal" user can't really
understand or follow the details of the discussion anymore. This is
even more true for those of us that don't speak english as a native
language.

I know that mine is probably an uncommon case but I couldn't find
anything on the Use Cases site that deals with the combination of CC
by-SA and ODbL data that'd be applicable to my use case. So any help
or insights would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
Lars

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

[OSM-talk] Year of Edits 2009 video?

[maning sambale]

Are there plans to create a video similar to the Year of Edits 2008
(http://www.vimeo.com/2532577)?

I'm excited to see how much "brighter" our Philippine data looks this year. :)

-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
--

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Year of Edits 2009 video?

[Dan Karran]

I saw a tweet[1] from ITO recently to say that they were planning to
do some more cool visualisations, but perhaps not until Easter time.

[1] http://twitter.com/mvexel/status/6011764093


Dan

2009/12/9 maning sambale :
> Are there plans to create a video similar to the Year of Edits 2008
> (http://www.vimeo.com/2532577)?
>
> I'm excited to see how much "brighter" our Philippine data looks this year. :)
>
> --
> cheers,
> maning
> --
> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
> wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
> blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
> --
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Dan Karran
d...@karran.net
www.dankarran.com

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

>
> This doesn't necessarily mean that share-alike is *good* for business,
> but I believe that the difficulties that share-alike brings are prone to
> hit a law-abiding hobbyist individual harder than a business giant with
> a legal department (that's assuming both want to play fair).
>
>
If I understand your argument:
1) As an individual, PD (public-domain type licenses) is easier to use than
SA (sharealike type licenses)
2) As a business, SA is relatively easy, perhaps almost as easy to use as
PD.
3) Therefore, there is no benefit to PD.

Are those in favour of PD really arguing that convenience for businesses is
the main benefit? I would have thought the main benefits would be for
individuals, and to avoid future licensing issues. Once data is licensed PD,
you really don't need to ever deal with the issue again, afaik.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Year of Edits 2009 video?

[maning sambale]

Alright, we know it's in the works.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Dan Karran  wrote:
> I saw a tweet[1] from ITO recently to say that they were planning to
> do some more cool visualisations, but perhaps not until Easter time.
>
> [1] http://twitter.com/mvexel/status/6011764093
>
>
> Dan
>
> 2009/12/9 maning sambale :
>> Are there plans to create a video similar to the Year of Edits 2008
>> (http://www.vimeo.com/2532577)?
>>
>> I'm excited to see how much "brighter" our Philippine data looks this year. 
>> :)
>>
>> --
>> cheers,
>> maning
>> --
>> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
>> wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
>> blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
>> --
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Karran
> d...@karran.net
> www.dankarran.com
>



-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
--

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Why PD is not better for business

[Anthony]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Steve Bennett  wrote:

> Are those in favour of PD really arguing that convenience for businesses is
> the main benefit? I would have thought the main benefits would be for
> individuals, and to avoid future licensing issues.
>

I don't know.  This whole businesses vs. individuals thing is confusing to
me, as I'm self-employed :).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk