Re: [OSM-talk] Marine taggine/OpenSeamap

[Aun Johnsen]

I see I got a snowball running here, great guys. Continue on that. I can
help out with some language makeup and corrections on the English language
pages (Nautical Professional) but have little time to offer at the moment. I
will also look into translating the important bits of it into Portuguese
together with my other Portuguese translations allowing more contributions,
also on marine mapping, from the portuguese speaking part of the world.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Aun Johnsen]

Ok, the chilean and the brazilian imports differ in the base license, giving
the brazilian imports a head start ahead of chilean in the race for the new
license.

AFAICT all the brazilian imports are PD, and conditions have been very
simple, as giving a way of pointing to sorce data (i.e. source= tag)

By brazilian law govermental statistics and survey data have to be put in PD
(though military survey data is exempted from this law). That means that
virtually all geospatial data of Brazil is compatible with almost any
license. Our contacts with the data publishers have mainly been to have this
confirmed by the publishers, not to negotiate any release of the datas.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Marine taggine/OpenSeamap

[Malcolm Herring]

Bernhard R. Fischer wrote:


Don't you think that we shouldn't put the lighthouse also on that page?
Everything is there: light vessel, float, major, minor lights. I think we could 
put the lighthouse also there.



You are right. I have now done it.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> All of these are valid options. They also all have the attribute of
> being active- that is focusing on what's to come, instead of focusing
> on trying to change the past.

Thankyou Serge for your opinions.

I don't think any ship has sailed, or any toothpaste has escaped from the 
tube. 
I'm still waiting to see how my contributions are to be removed from the new 
database.
I'm still waiting on how much data or contributors it is OK to lose in a 
changeover.

I am at stage one of forking - new domain names.

I'm still not clear why those who wish to continue in status quo have to fork 
and not those who wish to change, but the process is under way.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[John Smith]

On 10 August 2010 11:38, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:
> At this point, the ODbL ship has sailed. There's no putting the
> toothpaste back in the tube, and there's no crying over spilled milk.
> There's not even any more time for metaphors, that fat lady has sung.

If things are so fixed why not just start asking contributors to agree
already, why delay things further?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Liz  wrote:

> I don't think it slows everything down, just some things.
> My explicit aim is not to slow down nor complicate the process of licence
> change, but to pull it to a halt.

It's good that you've aired that explicitly because it explains your
various mails, but I think your strategy is flawed.

Whether you agree with the results of the process or not, it's
happened. The vote (however unfairly you think it happened) took place
and there's a plan in place today, with a process that's moving
forward.

If the community was outraged by this, they'd have spoken up on the
list and in the OSMF election, but that hasn't happened.

A small vocal minority has spoken up, but when votes are taken, either
officially by the OSMF or informally as in the Doodle vote that
happened eight or nine months ago, the result was the same:  There's a
lot of support for the new license, and then some measure of
indifference, and then a small percentage of people who dislike it.

It's not clear of that breakdown of the (if I recall) 20% or so who
dislike it what their reasons are, or how strongly they dislike it, eg
if they dislike it but would still continue, or dislike it but would
still stick with the project.

At this point, the ODbL ship has sailed. There's no putting the
toothpaste back in the tube, and there's no crying over spilled milk.
There's not even any more time for metaphors, that fat lady has sung.

So if you don't like what's happening with the project and the
license, you have three choices:

1) Decide that OSM is more important than the license and continue
using and contributing to OSM.

2) Decide that OSM isn't worth your time and end your relationship
with the project.

3) Decide that you love OSM but hate the license, so go off and make a
competing project. If you love CC-BY-SA you could fork the current
datastset. You mentioned that you wanted to to do that in  2009
already, and if there isn't a fork, you could make one.

All of these are valid options. They also all have the attribute of
being active- that is focusing on what's to come, instead of focusing
on trying to change the past.

- Serge

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Anthony]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> Can you give examples of what you consider originality in the OSM database?

Is a painting of a flower copyrightable?  What about a tracing of a
photograph of a flower?  What if you just trace the outline of the
flower?

Is a painting of a lake, as viewed from an aircraft, copyrightable?
What about a tracing of a photograph of a lake, as viewed from an
aircraft?  What if you just trace the outline of the lake?

What if you draw the outline of the lake from memory, after flying
above it in an airplane?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Liz]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Ian Dees wrote:
> > Most of the cases you are probably familiar with involve simple lists of
> > telephone numbers and subscribers.  The moment you add even the slightest
> > originality to a collection of facts then it become eligible for
> > copyright.
> 
> Can you give examples of what you consider originality in the OSM database?

On tagging within the last 24 hours was a discussion on "Living Street".

"Living Street" in some jurisdictions is clearly defined. Marking those 
streets so signed as highway=living_street is noting down a fact.

Deciding that a "Shared Zone" is highway=living_street is not a fact, it is my 
or some other persons decision, and if the matter is not so clear at all, and 
the decision is made as recommended on the street's features (low speed limit, 
no marked centre line) then it is clearly an original decision.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Anthony]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Most of the cases you are probably familiar with involve simple lists of
>> telephone numbers and subscribers.  The moment you add even the slightest
>> originality to a collection of facts then it become eligible for copyright.
>
> Can you give examples of what you consider originality in the OSM database?

Pretty much every way created by a human is original.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[Liz]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote:
> Thus, it slows everything down.
> 
> Oh and this and other threads going on right now are good examples. It's
> explicitly slowing down and complicating the process, which is probably
> the aim of several of the people here.

I don't think it slows everything down, just some things.
My explicit aim is not to slow down nor complicate the process of licence 
change, but to pull it to a halt.

I have had the same concerns with the licence change over a long period of 
time. 
I signed up to a CC-by-SA project. I did read the terms and check the licence 
over at Creative Commons.
I have contributed to a CC-by-SA project.

Some of my work is incompatible with the proposed licence and contributor 
terms. The only responses I get are along the lines of "relicence the source" 
or "remove the imported data".

So far the technical work involved in "remove the imported data" or "remove 
all my contributions" is incomplete. I have decided against relicencing my 
work. Relicencing is breaking faith with the project as I signed up (November 
07). I believe that I am entitled to my choice.

Am I prepared to leave and join a fork which remains CC-by-SA?
Yes I am. I have registered some domain names, intended for regional use, and 
will choose and register some more if I determine there is support which 
extends past our region.

Liz



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Anthony]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony  wrote:
 Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
 "think otherwise"?  Exact quotes of what they said?
>>>
>>> unfortunately not. apparently legal advice can't be publicly shared
>>> without making the lawyers in question liable for it. given that our
>>> legal advisors are acting for us pro-bono and have asked that we don't
>>> quote them publicly, i don't think it would be nice to do that.
>>
>> Then can you at least stop referring to what they said, especially
>> referring to it as though it's in any way authoritative.  Without the
>> ability to see the exact quote, let alone ask questions, "many lawyers
>> said you're wrong" is useless.
>
> i'm simply saying that there are people out there who know what
> they're talking about.

I'm simply saying that I have strong doubts that many of them would
have said that the contents of the OSM are purely factual.
Furthermore, if asked whether or not collections of facts can be
copyrightable, I have strong doubts that many of them would have said
"no".

> some lawyers have gone on the record about ODbL.

That's not equivalent to saying that the content of OSM are purely factual.

 Also an example of licenses which distinguish "the whole database"
 from "the individual contents of the database" would be helpful.  How
 does that make any more sense than releasing a book under "CC-BY-SA,
 for the book, and CC0 for the individual words of the book".
>>>
>>> the ODbL is the only example i know of.
>>
>> That's certainly a reason to be wary of it.
>
> not really. it's on the cutting edge, but that's because we're trying
> to do something that no-one else has done before: an attribution,
> share-alike license for factual data.

You don't think one should be wary of the cutting edge?  If no one
else has done it before, there's probably a reason for that.

[discussion of "individual contents" and DbCL]

Okay.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[80n]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Matt, you really do need to read up on case law about the minimum
> threshold
> > for copyrightability.
>
> i have. but perhaps you could point out the judgements you're
> referring to, because i've not seen them.
>

This is quite a good place to start:
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Copyright_protection_of_databases
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] We should recruit these ladies...

[Liz]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Mike N. wrote:
> to become OSM mappers!
> 
> http://www.greenvilleopenmap.info/Mappers00.jpg
> 
>  (Saw that in a magazine ad)
> 

not a joke at all
http://www.toiletmap.gov.au/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap.js redistribution

[Tom Hughes]

On 10/08/10 00:21, Tim McNamara wrote:

On 10 August 2010 10:10, arno mailto:a...@renevier.net>> wrote:

Hi,
I'd like to include OpenStreetMap.js file in my website, whose
sources are
published under agpl:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/openlayers/OpenStreetMap.js

I really dislike the idea of using javascript hosted on another
server, so I
won't link to hosted version. Then, I'd like to known if I can
include the
file in my website or no. I did not find anything about script reuse
in the
script or in "the rails port" sources.

You are able to include the file in your website according to the terms
of the licence. The AGPL is a strong copyleft licence. You can read
about its terms at Wikipedia [1].


I think you've misunderstood - it is Arno's site that is AGPL not the 
script file on our site.


I'm not sure what the license is supposed to be for our site - GPL I 
think but I stand ready to be corrected.


Tom

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap.js redistribution

[Tim McNamara]

On 10 August 2010 10:10, arno  wrote:

> Hi,
> I'd like to include OpenStreetMap.js file in my website, whose sources are
> published under agpl:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/openlayers/OpenStreetMap.js
>
> I really dislike the idea of using javascript hosted on another server, so
> I
> won't link to hosted version. Then, I'd like to known if I can include the
> file in my website or no. I did not find anything about script reuse in the
> script or in "the rails port" sources.
>

Arno -

You are able to include the file in your website according to the terms of
the licence. The AGPL is a strong copyleft licence. You can read about its
terms at Wikipedia [1].

Tim

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[80n]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:

> unfortunately, we will lose data this time around - it's unavoidable
>

Data loss can easily be avoided.  Just abandon your attempts to change the
license.

If you want an ODbL licensed project why not just start one?


>
> point 4 cannot be discarded without asking all the contributors who've
> agreed to the contributor terms. so it's far from useless in
> guaranteeing attribution.
>
> Point 4 does not guarantee attribution.It may provide an attribution
mechanism to users of OSM's data but it does not enforce that on their
produced works.

Why don't you try this.  Import some Ordnance Survey Street View data into
OSM, then render it as a Produced Work with the ODbL required attribution:

 "Contains information from OpenStreetMap, which is made available here
under the Open Database License (ODbL)."

Now take that rendered map and wave it under the noses of the nice people at
Orndance Survey and see how long it takes them to sue you for not complying
with their attribution clause.

80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Matt Amos]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Matt, you really do need to read up on case law about the minimum threshold
> for copyrightability.

i have. but perhaps you could point out the judgements you're
referring to, because i've not seen them.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Matt Amos]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:05 PM, John Smith  wrote:
> On 10 August 2010 08:02, Matt Amos  wrote:
>> that's currently awaiting legal advice. but if you can save us, and
>> the lawyers, the trouble of giving advice, thanks!
>
> How many different lawyers have been asked, and do they all share the
> same opinions that we've been hearing?

of course, any lawyer is free to look at it. the lawyers that have
been asked to look at it are, as far as i know, the guys acting
pro-bono for us at WSGR and ITO world's lawyer. independently, the
lawyers at CC and axel metzger, andrea rossati and
arnoud engelfriet have given opinions.

see http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-August/000181.html
and http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-December/045170.html
and 
http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabanklicentie-versie-10
and 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License#ODbL_reviews_from_lawyers

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Matt Amos]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>>> Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
>>> "think otherwise"?  Exact quotes of what they said?
>>
>> unfortunately not. apparently legal advice can't be publicly shared
>> without making the lawyers in question liable for it. given that our
>> legal advisors are acting for us pro-bono and have asked that we don't
>> quote them publicly, i don't think it would be nice to do that.
>
> Then can you at least stop referring to what they said, especially
> referring to it as though it's in any way authoritative.  Without the
> ability to see the exact quote, let alone ask questions, "many lawyers
> said you're wrong" is useless.

i'm simply saying that there are people out there who know what
they're talking about. some lawyers have gone on the record about
ODbL. see http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-August/000181.html
and http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-December/045170.html
and 
http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabanklicentie-versie-10
and 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License#ODbL_reviews_from_lawyers

>>> Also an example of licenses which distinguish "the whole database"
>>> from "the individual contents of the database" would be helpful.  How
>>> does that make any more sense than releasing a book under "CC-BY-SA,
>>> for the book, and CC0 for the individual words of the book".
>>
>> the ODbL is the only example i know of.
>
> That's certainly a reason to be wary of it.

not really. it's on the cutting edge, but that's because we're trying
to do something that no-one else has done before: an attribution,
share-alike license for factual data.

>> and your example is good: it's
>> not possible to copyright individual dictionary words, as far as i
>> know, but the collection of them is protectable. releasing the words
>> as CC0 is simply a tautology in this case, as the DbCL is in many
>> jurisdictions by waiving copyright in individual data.
>
> If that's really all this is, it's awfully confusing and unnecessary.
> As I say in my other post, it's not even clear what "the individual
> contents" means.  If it means a single changeset, that's one thing,
> and something I would *not* like to release under DbCL.  If on the
> other hand it means just an individual node...  Who's going to copy
> just a single node?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline

we've been discussing this for a long time.

> Is there any way in which releasing "the individual contents" under
> DbCL is *not* redundant?  If it *is* redundant, is there any way to
> have it removed?

it makes it legally explicit what's going on. although it might seem
redundant, or confusing, it adds legal clarity.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Ian Dees]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Most of the cases you are probably familiar with involve simple lists of
> telephone numbers and subscribers.  The moment you add even the slightest
> originality to a collection of facts then it become eligible for copyright.
>

Can you give examples of what you consider originality in the OSM database?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[80n]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith 
> wrote:
> > On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos  wrote:
> >> they do. and it's in the contributor terms: "ODbL 1.0 for the database
> >> and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database". the
> >> database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold
> >> no copyright - so copyright law can't be used to enforce attribution
> >
> > But the contents aren't just facts, especially when it comes to
> > subjective tags like smoothness...
>
> it's great that you think that, but many lawyers think otherwise. in
> any case, they'll be just facts if someone strips the smoothness tags
> out.
>
> Lawyers can think what they like, it's the judges that make the decisions.

While pure facts have been judged not to be copyrightable, it requires only
a tiny amount of creativity to permit them to become copyrightable.

Most of the cases you are probably familiar with involve simple lists of
telephone numbers and subscribers.  The moment you add even the slightest
originality to a collection of facts then it become eligible for copyright.

Matt, you really do need to read up on case law about the minimum threshold
for copyrightability.

80n





> wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?
>
> i'm not saying this for your benefit, by the way. it seems pretty
> obvious you've made up your mind and aren't going to change it in the
> face of reasoned argument or factual counterpoint.
>
> cheers,
>
> matt
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[80n]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

>
> Fortunately most people seem to grasp the concept but I've here made an
> effort to present it, again, in simple terms to increase the number of those
> who do.
>
> Most people are actually pretty clueless about the details of ODbL, to the
extent that I've even seen it used to license a bunch of photographs, which
is about the most inappropriate use I can think of.

80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] (Not) "Removing" data

[Simon Ward]

On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 05:29:36PM +0200, Michael Collinson wrote:
> A common mantra is that copyright does not mean much unless exerted.
> Views? Precedents?

Well, you can steal my food, and if you’re careful I might not notice
the odd loaf of bread go missing.  I might notice, and attribute it to
something else (flat mate was hungry), or I might know it was you and
look the other way (maybe until it happens again).  Does that mean it is
right (legal or moral) to steal my food?

Copyright is automatic, and exclusive to the owner. The owner may give
certain permissions to use and reproduce the work, but outside of those
they still have the exclusive rights.  If I haven’t been given
permission to re‐license a work then I might be able to get away with it
if the owner doesn’t notice but I have no legal right to do it.

Note: I’ve compared copyright infringement to theft, and I apologise.
When you copy, you don’t take anything tangible away from the owner¹;
when you steal, you deprive the owner of something they once had.

¹You may reduce their potential return from the work, and therefore their
incentive to produce works, which is a reason for copyright to exist.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Anthony]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
>> "think otherwise"?  Exact quotes of what they said?
>
> unfortunately not. apparently legal advice can't be publicly shared
> without making the lawyers in question liable for it. given that our
> legal advisors are acting for us pro-bono and have asked that we don't
> quote them publicly, i don't think it would be nice to do that.

Then can you at least stop referring to what they said, especially
referring to it as though it's in any way authoritative.  Without the
ability to see the exact quote, let alone ask questions, "many lawyers
said you're wrong" is useless.

>> Also an example of licenses which distinguish "the whole database"
>> from "the individual contents of the database" would be helpful.  How
>> does that make any more sense than releasing a book under "CC-BY-SA,
>> for the book, and CC0 for the individual words of the book".
>
> the ODbL is the only example i know of.

That's certainly a reason to be wary of it.

> and your example is good: it's
> not possible to copyright individual dictionary words, as far as i
> know, but the collection of them is protectable. releasing the words
> as CC0 is simply a tautology in this case, as the DbCL is in many
> jurisdictions by waiving copyright in individual data.

If that's really all this is, it's awfully confusing and unnecessary.
As I say in my other post, it's not even clear what "the individual
contents" means.  If it means a single changeset, that's one thing,
and something I would *not* like to release under DbCL.  If on the
other hand it means just an individual node...  Who's going to copy
just a single node?

Is there any way in which releasing "the individual contents" under
DbCL is *not* redundant?  If it *is* redundant, is there any way to
have it removed?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Matt Amos]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith  
>> wrote:
>>> On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos  wrote:
 they do. and it's in the contributor terms: "ODbL 1.0 for the database
 and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database". the
 database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold
 no copyright - so copyright law can't be used to enforce attribution
>>>
>>> But the contents aren't just facts, especially when it comes to
>>> subjective tags like smoothness...
>>
>> it's great that you think that, but many lawyers think otherwise. in
>> any case, they'll be just facts if someone strips the smoothness tags
>> out.
>>
>> wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?
>
> Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
> "think otherwise"?  Exact quotes of what they said?

unfortunately not. apparently legal advice can't be publicly shared
without making the lawyers in question liable for it. given that our
legal advisors are acting for us pro-bono and have asked that we don't
quote them publicly, i don't think it would be nice to do that.

> Also an example of licenses which distinguish "the whole database"
> from "the individual contents of the database" would be helpful.  How
> does that make any more sense than releasing a book under "CC-BY-SA,
> for the book, and CC0 for the individual words of the book".

the ODbL is the only example i know of. and your example is good: it's
not possible to copyright individual dictionary words, as far as i
know, but the collection of them is protectable. releasing the words
as CC0 is simply a tautology in this case, as the DbCL is in many
jurisdictions by waiving copyright in individual data.

cheers,

matt

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

[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap.js redistribution

[arno]

Hi,
I'd like to include OpenStreetMap.js file in my website, whose sources are
published under agpl:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/openlayers/OpenStreetMap.js

I really dislike the idea of using javascript hosted on another server, so I 
won't link to hosted version. Then, I'd like to known if I can include the 
file in my website or no. I did not find anything about script reuse in the 
script or in "the rails port" sources.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[John Smith]

On 10 August 2010 08:02, Matt Amos  wrote:
> that's currently awaiting legal advice. but if you can save us, and
> the lawyers, the trouble of giving advice, thanks!

How many different lawyers have been asked, and do they all share the
same opinions that we've been hearing?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Matt Amos]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:56 PM, John Smith  wrote:
> On 10 August 2010 07:43, Matt Amos  wrote:
>> wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?
>
> That isn't the point, the point was about it *explicitly* removing any
> claim of copyright, which then makes it incompatible with BY and SA
> data sources.

that's currently awaiting legal advice. but if you can save us, and
the lawyers, the trouble of giving advice, thanks!

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Matt Amos]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli
 wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:
>> OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA", OSMF would
>> like to move to ODbL. however, it has to be pointed out that CC BY-SA
>> might be described as "a PD license disguised as BY-SA", since many
>> lawyers (including those at Creative Commons) think that CC BY-SA is
>> unsuitable for factual data (such as geodata) and may not be
>> enforceable in many jurisdictions (such as the USA).
>
> I know about the problems with (CC)BY-SA, and I also know that ODbL is
> supposed to solve those. And unless I am getting lost in translation I
> do not have any problem with ODbL, but with the point made by John
> Smith about the third condition on the CT ("OSMF agrees to use or
> sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the
> terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0 for the database and
> DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or
> another free and open license").
>
> In the process of approving the change to ODbL the Foundation is
> asking us to let it change the license to something that may be PD in
> the future. That said the imports that we have made here in Chile are
> probably compatible with ODbL but not with letting the foundation
> change the license to something "more open" than BY-SA.
>
> Again, risking some misunderstanding with my far from perfect English,
> I understand from what you are saying that two problems are trying to
> be solved, the unfitness of the (CC)BY-SA license for our kind of
> data, and the risk of loosing data in future changes of license.
>
> The thing is that I am all about solving the first but not about
> lossing lots of data today speculating about that first solution
> failing in the future, risking lots of data then.

unfortunately, we will lose data this time around - it's unavoidable
because it's extremely unlikely that all contributors will be
reachable and, as many here have pointed out, be willing to agree to
the new CTs. if the data you're worried about is governmental
attribution datasets (such as OS opendata, LINZ, NRC, etc...) then,
pending legal advice, they could be fine.

> The only reason that I see to put that condition there is thinking
> about changing the license to PD in the future without asking all the
> contributors again.

or to change the license to something else which is also BY and SA, if
it turns out that's necessary. or to move to a BY-only license, if
that's necessary. is the possibility of needing to change the license
again in the future not worthwhile, given the problems it's causing
right now?

>> whether section 4 is enough to allow CC BY compatibility is something
>> that OSMF is currently seeking legal advice on.
>
> I guess this will help, but if the license can be changed in the
> future to PD without asking the Gov agency, I am almost sure that they
> will not comply with this.

i think that's a question for a real lawyer. ;-)

>> if (as i hope) the lawyers say that section 4 of the CT ensures
>> compatibility with CC BY, why would section 3 pose a problem? if
>> section 4 requires that OSMF provide a method of attribution then that
>> couldn't be taken away by changes under section 3 unless a new version
>> of the CT were released - which would require asking every single
>> contributor and re-raising the problem of data loss: the very problem
>> that section 3 is supposed to alleviate.
>
> I think this time I actually got lost in translation but as far as I
> understand it, the point 4 is useless if it can be discarded without
> asking the contributors. Am I getting something wrong?

point 4 cannot be discarded without asking all the contributors who've
agreed to the contributor terms. so it's far from useless in
guaranteeing attribution.

>> migration to PD is not part of the plan. the motivation for that
>> section is simply that needs and requirements change over time. when
>> the project was started CC BY-SA seemed like a perfectly valid
>> license. we're now 6 years on, and 2 years into trying to change the
>> license, because we were wrong about CC BY-SA. while we think ODbL is
>> far, far better - do we want to have the spectre of data loss again in
>> another 6 years if we prove to be wrong again?
>
> I think it is a perfectly reasonable risk in front of a sure damage.

and what might the damage be in the future if we need to change in the future?

>> no-one wants to see any data loss. that's one of the many reasons
>> we're moving from a BY-SA license to another BY-SA license. while
>> there is an option to declare your preference with regard to PD, this
>> is for information only.
>
> It is a BY-SA to BY-SA moving as long as you do not give the OSMF the
> right to move to PD (or anything different from BY-SA for this matter)
> without asking again.
> At this point I do not see any good reason to prefer PD and accept to
> consecuences of movi

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Anthony]

>>> On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos  wrote:
 they do. and it's in the contributor terms: "ODbL 1.0 for the database
 and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database". the

One other thing.  What is meant by "the individual contents of the
database".  Is a changeset an individual piece of the database?  A
node?  A way?  If a way, are the lat/lon pairs of the nodes within the
way considered part of the way?

WTF does "DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database" mean?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[John Smith]

On 10 August 2010 07:43, Matt Amos  wrote:
> wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?

That isn't the point, the point was about it *explicitly* removing any
claim of copyright, which then makes it incompatible with BY and SA
data sources.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Anthony]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith  wrote:
>> On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos  wrote:
>>> they do. and it's in the contributor terms: "ODbL 1.0 for the database
>>> and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database". the
>>> database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold
>>> no copyright - so copyright law can't be used to enforce attribution
>>
>> But the contents aren't just facts, especially when it comes to
>> subjective tags like smoothness...
>
> it's great that you think that, but many lawyers think otherwise. in
> any case, they'll be just facts if someone strips the smoothness tags
> out.
>
> wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?

Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
"think otherwise"?  Exact quotes of what they said?

Also an example of licenses which distinguish "the whole database"
from "the individual contents of the database" would be helpful.  How
does that make any more sense than releasing a book under "CC-BY-SA,
for the book, and CC0 for the individual words of the book".

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Anthony]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anthony wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:
>>>
>>> OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA"
>>
>> Then why don't they ever talk about the fact that the contents are
>> going to be released under DbCL?
>
> Because it is irrelevant given that the Database as a whole is protected,
> rather than the individual pieces it contains which, as you correctly state,
> are largely unprotectable anway?

Perhaps you can clarify what it means for the Database as a whole to
be protected, but the individual pieces not to be.  Specifically, what
does that mean in a jurisdiction which does not recognize database
rights.  What does the DbCL permit people to do which would not be
permitted in its absense?  What's the point of it?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Liz]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> John and Liz in Australia say that CC-BY(-SA) works for geodata in 
> Australia, meaning that facts can be copyrighted. Several Australian 
> judges seem to think otherwise but let's assume it were so.
Misquote
John has pointed out twice that one legal decision is under appeal



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Matt Amos]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith  wrote:
> On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos  wrote:
>> they do. and it's in the contributor terms: "ODbL 1.0 for the database
>> and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database". the
>> database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold
>> no copyright - so copyright law can't be used to enforce attribution
>
> But the contents aren't just facts, especially when it comes to
> subjective tags like smoothness...

it's great that you think that, but many lawyers think otherwise. in
any case, they'll be just facts if someone strips the smoothness tags
out.

wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?

i'm not saying this for your benefit, by the way. it seems pretty
obvious you've made up your mind and aren't going to change it in the
face of reasoned argument or factual counterpoint.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Julio Costa Zambelli]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:
> OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA", OSMF would
> like to move to ODbL. however, it has to be pointed out that CC BY-SA
> might be described as "a PD license disguised as BY-SA", since many
> lawyers (including those at Creative Commons) think that CC BY-SA is
> unsuitable for factual data (such as geodata) and may not be
> enforceable in many jurisdictions (such as the USA).

I know about the problems with (CC)BY-SA, and I also know that ODbL is
supposed to solve those. And unless I am getting lost in translation I
do not have any problem with ODbL, but with the point made by John
Smith about the third condition on the CT ("OSMF agrees to use or
sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the
terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0 for the database and
DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or
another free and open license").

In the process of approving the change to ODbL the Foundation is
asking us to let it change the license to something that may be PD in
the future. That said the imports that we have made here in Chile are
probably compatible with ODbL but not with letting the foundation
change the license to something "more open" than BY-SA.

Again, risking some misunderstanding with my far from perfect English,
I understand from what you are saying that two problems are trying to
be solved, the unfitness of the (CC)BY-SA license for our kind of
data, and the risk of loosing data in future changes of license.

The thing is that I am all about solving the first but not about
lossing lots of data today speculating about that first solution
failing in the future, risking lots of data then.

The only reason that I see to put that condition there is thinking
about changing the license to PD in the future without asking all the
contributors again.

> whether section 4 is enough to allow CC BY compatibility is something
> that OSMF is currently seeking legal advice on.

I guess this will help, but if the license can be changed in the
future to PD without asking the Gov agency, I am almost sure that they
will not comply with this.

> if (as i hope) the lawyers say that section 4 of the CT ensures
> compatibility with CC BY, why would section 3 pose a problem? if
> section 4 requires that OSMF provide a method of attribution then that
> couldn't be taken away by changes under section 3 unless a new version
> of the CT were released - which would require asking every single
> contributor and re-raising the problem of data loss: the very problem
> that section 3 is supposed to alleviate.

I think this time I actually got lost in translation but as far as I
understand it, the point 4 is useless if it can be discarded without
asking the contributors. Am I getting something wrong?

> migration to PD is not part of the plan. the motivation for that
> section is simply that needs and requirements change over time. when
> the project was started CC BY-SA seemed like a perfectly valid
> license. we're now 6 years on, and 2 years into trying to change the
> license, because we were wrong about CC BY-SA. while we think ODbL is
> far, far better - do we want to have the spectre of data loss again in
> another 6 years if we prove to be wrong again?

I think it is a perfectly reasonable risk in front of a sure damage.

> no-one wants to see any data loss. that's one of the many reasons
> we're moving from a BY-SA license to another BY-SA license. while
> there is an option to declare your preference with regard to PD, this
> is for information only.

It is a BY-SA to BY-SA moving as long as you do not give the OSMF the
right to move to PD (or anything different from BY-SA for this matter)
without asking again.
At this point I do not see any good reason to prefer PD and accept to
consecuences of moving to it.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[John Smith]

On 10 August 2010 07:30, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> I think it has been repeated countless times already, and it is funny to see
> how both you and Anthony seem to ignore that.

We're not ignoring anything, the problem is the content license
explicitly removes copyright, which makes any BY or SA data
incompatible.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[John Smith]

On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos  wrote:
> they do. and it's in the contributor terms: "ODbL 1.0 for the database
> and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database". the
> database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold
> no copyright - so copyright law can't be used to enforce attribution

But the contents aren't just facts, especially when it comes to
subjective tags like smoothness...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

John Smith wrote:

Because it is irrelevant given that the Database as a whole is protected,
rather than the individual pieces it contains which, as you correctly state,
are largely unprotectable anway?



Largely isn't completely, which means you are suggesting that if there
is any copyright it be removed, which is relevant because then that
data becomes PD like Anthony suggested.


I think it has been repeated countless times already, and it is funny to 
see how both you and Anthony seem to ignore that.


Copyright protection of facts is patchy at best. It depends very much on 
how much art you have put into your facts, and in what country you live. 
John and Liz in Australia say that CC-BY(-SA) works for geodata in 
Australia, meaning that facts can be copyrighted. Several Australian 
judges seem to think otherwise but let's assume it were so. Anthony in 
the US says that CC-BY(-SA) is more or less equivalent to PD when 
applied to geodata in the US, i.e. CC-BY(-SA) doesn't work as supposed 
(and that's why he likes it - he perceives ODbL as restricting some 
options he thinks he has under CC-BY-SA).


Any license that tries to use this patchy copyright protection of data 
is bound to be unfair at the very least, and more likely a pain the 
behind of anybody who wants to use it. The legality of OSM use cases 
would depend on whether you execute a project from your Australian or 
American office. We might be divided on some issues but *that* can 
surely not be our aim.


That's why ODbL protects the *collection* as a whole, rather than 
individual bits of data. The individual bits might already be PD in your 
jurisdiction or they might become effectively PD but ODbL is constructed 
in a way that this does not matter; and indeed (since un-protectability 
of factual database contents is a given in some jurisdictions) this is 
the only sane way of dealing with the situation.


That's what is meant by "irrelevant" - ODbL works independently of 
whether or not you could theoretically protect individual facts in your 
jurisdiction.


Fortunately most people seem to grasp the concept but I've here made an 
effort to present it, again, in simple terms to increase the number of 
those who do.


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] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Matt Amos]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:
>> OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA"
>
> Then why don't they ever talk about the fact that the contents are
> going to be released under DbCL?

they do. and it's in the contributor terms: "ODbL 1.0 for the database
and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database". the
database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold
no copyright - so copyright law can't be used to enforce attribution
and share-alike conditions. collections of facts, as databases, can
hold rights and can be used to enforce those conditions.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[John Smith]

On 10 August 2010 07:11, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Because it is irrelevant given that the Database as a whole is protected,
> rather than the individual pieces it contains which, as you correctly state,
> are largely unprotectable anway?

Largely isn't completely, which means you are suggesting that if there
is any copyright it be removed, which is relevant because then that
data becomes PD like Anthony suggested.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Anthony wrote:

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:

OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA"


Then why don't they ever talk about the fact that the contents are
going to be released under DbCL?


Because it is irrelevant given that the Database as a whole is 
protected, rather than the individual pieces it contains which, as you 
correctly state, are largely unprotectable anway?


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] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Anthony]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos  wrote:
> OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA"

Then why don't they ever talk about the fact that the contents are
going to be released under DbCL?

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] (Not) "Removing" data

[Anthony]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Michael Collinson  wrote:
> A common
> mantra is that copyright does not mean much unless exerted. Views?

I'm not sure where you're getting that from.  In any countries which
have agreed to the Berne Convention, copyright is acquired
automatically, with no need to "exert" anything.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[john whelan]

I honestly think the way forward is to continue as we are currently
and set up a separate project which is pure PD.  Extract anything that
can be extracted from the current map, this can be done by selecting
data which has been contributed by those who are happy with public
domain licensing and that gives you a start for the PD project and
lets the rest of us get on with life creating something useful.  In
the longer term the PD version might even create something usable and
gives us a short term solution as well.

Cheerio John

On 9 August 2010 16:16, John Smith  wrote:
> On 10 August 2010 05:46, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>> Maybe if you'd scale back your demagogy a bit. The subject you chose for
>> this thread is offensive enough.
>
> Sorry if the truth hurts, but some of us are offended by the notion
> that something we find useful can be so easily and unceremoniously
> discarded on a whim of what ifs...
>
>> Nothing here happens stealthily. My main concern is not that data imports
>> are a hindrance towards going PD (an estimated 95% of imported data is PD
>> and thus irrelevant in this question). My main concern is that people, among
>
> How exactly did you come up with this 75% figure, the biggest import
> I'm aware of was TIGER data and it was about 1/3rd, I can only assume
> you assume that people contributing will happily relicense under a non
> By-SA license, this doesn't seem to have any basis in reality...
>
>> them you as one of the loudest, use existing data imports as a *reason* to
>> try and stop our move to the better ODbL. And I say again, if we have to
>
> And you constantly confuser or blur the issue of license with
> contributor terms, as far as I'm aware CDBL makes claims about
> individual "facts" being non-copyrightable, and the new CTs are
> incompatible with almost every other non-PD data source, including any
> other ODBL data if/when it exists. We kept getting asked if our
> government would relicense under ODBL, but even then that wouldn't be
> allowable under the CTs...
>
>> decide between "keep imports" and "move to ODbL", then let's start to rip
>> out those imports *today* because they are a dead weight that keeps us from
>> moving ahead.
>
> As others have pointed out, how can they be dead weight if they expand
> the community, so ditching that 'dead weight' will likely drive
> contributors with it...
>
>> There is a clause in the contributors terms that allows the license to be
>> changed by a 2/3 majority of active contributors, to another free and open
>> license.
>
> Which I disagree with, and it seems many others do too...
>
>> 2/3 of active contributors is a pretty damn large group of people who would
>
> Which seems to be getting smaller at present...
>
>> all have to agree. That's an immensely high hurdle. The license has to be
>> free and open. There is no other restriction, and John is right in saying
>> that this would technically even allow a move to PD.
>
> If it's such a high hurdle why even bother to weight us down with such
> restrictions?
>
> You are limiting our freedoms as contributors, and you were the one
> that keeps spouting about how the contributors, not the data, is the
> most important thing to the project, you seem to have your logic mixed
> up there some where...
>
>> This is not a planned move to PD, or some stealthy maneouvre by anybody in
>> the license working group. This is just what any sane person would do: Leave
>> the door open; give yourself an spectrum of choices that is as broad as
>> possible in the future so you can react to a changing situation.
>
> Sure, if this was at the beginning, but that ship has long sailed,
> there is people already planning further imports and you come along
> and say we should rip out the existing ones, way to upset the
> community...
>
>> We are seeing now that license change is a very difficult process with lots
>> of problems, one that damages the community as well as the data.
>
> I couldn't agree more...
>
>> At the same time, we have absolutely no idea what the world is going to look
>> like 10 years from now. If neither the mood in the community nor the outside
>> world change - then why should our license.
>
> If you want a PD project start a new one, but there is far too much
> data and work gone into the existing project on the assumption that we
> could use cc-by and cc-by-sa data...
>
>> However, it is quite possible that the geodata world changes drastically.
>> For example, it might be possible that courts rule that geodata doesn't
>> carry any copyright and in consequence, more and more governments follow the
>> US lead and just make their data available as PD (including, let's assume
>> that for a moment, governments in Australia and Chile). If that happens,
>> then OSM still has better data because we have lots of people working on it,
>> but we'd be seeing more and more "competition" - potential OSM users
>> preferring to use other data sources which are only half as good but have no
>> re

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[John Smith]

On 10 August 2010 05:46, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Maybe if you'd scale back your demagogy a bit. The subject you chose for
> this thread is offensive enough.

Sorry if the truth hurts, but some of us are offended by the notion
that something we find useful can be so easily and unceremoniously
discarded on a whim of what ifs...

> Nothing here happens stealthily. My main concern is not that data imports
> are a hindrance towards going PD (an estimated 95% of imported data is PD
> and thus irrelevant in this question). My main concern is that people, among

How exactly did you come up with this 75% figure, the biggest import
I'm aware of was TIGER data and it was about 1/3rd, I can only assume
you assume that people contributing will happily relicense under a non
By-SA license, this doesn't seem to have any basis in reality...

> them you as one of the loudest, use existing data imports as a *reason* to
> try and stop our move to the better ODbL. And I say again, if we have to

And you constantly confuser or blur the issue of license with
contributor terms, as far as I'm aware CDBL makes claims about
individual "facts" being non-copyrightable, and the new CTs are
incompatible with almost every other non-PD data source, including any
other ODBL data if/when it exists. We kept getting asked if our
government would relicense under ODBL, but even then that wouldn't be
allowable under the CTs...

> decide between "keep imports" and "move to ODbL", then let's start to rip
> out those imports *today* because they are a dead weight that keeps us from
> moving ahead.

As others have pointed out, how can they be dead weight if they expand
the community, so ditching that 'dead weight' will likely drive
contributors with it...

> There is a clause in the contributors terms that allows the license to be
> changed by a 2/3 majority of active contributors, to another free and open
> license.

Which I disagree with, and it seems many others do too...

> 2/3 of active contributors is a pretty damn large group of people who would

Which seems to be getting smaller at present...

> all have to agree. That's an immensely high hurdle. The license has to be
> free and open. There is no other restriction, and John is right in saying
> that this would technically even allow a move to PD.

If it's such a high hurdle why even bother to weight us down with such
restrictions?

You are limiting our freedoms as contributors, and you were the one
that keeps spouting about how the contributors, not the data, is the
most important thing to the project, you seem to have your logic mixed
up there some where...

> This is not a planned move to PD, or some stealthy maneouvre by anybody in
> the license working group. This is just what any sane person would do: Leave
> the door open; give yourself an spectrum of choices that is as broad as
> possible in the future so you can react to a changing situation.

Sure, if this was at the beginning, but that ship has long sailed,
there is people already planning further imports and you come along
and say we should rip out the existing ones, way to upset the
community...

> We are seeing now that license change is a very difficult process with lots
> of problems, one that damages the community as well as the data.

I couldn't agree more...

> At the same time, we have absolutely no idea what the world is going to look
> like 10 years from now. If neither the mood in the community nor the outside
> world change - then why should our license.

If you want a PD project start a new one, but there is far too much
data and work gone into the existing project on the assumption that we
could use cc-by and cc-by-sa data...

> However, it is quite possible that the geodata world changes drastically.
> For example, it might be possible that courts rule that geodata doesn't
> carry any copyright and in consequence, more and more governments follow the
> US lead and just make their data available as PD (including, let's assume
> that for a moment, governments in Australia and Chile). If that happens,
> then OSM still has better data because we have lots of people working on it,
> but we'd be seeing more and more "competition" - potential OSM users
> preferring to use other data sources which are only half as good but have no
> restrictions. In such a world, I could envisage a large majority of OSMers
> saying: "Let's drop that stupid share-alike license which nobody really
> understands anyway, and become as free as the rest of the world already is."

We could spend a year working on what ifs, but the fact of life is
many people would be effected by this, why should we care more about
people 10 years from now, than those contributing at present?

> (Remember: We're here to create a free world map because there is no free
> world map at the moment. What we do is *more free* than what all the others
> are doing. - Can you imagine a time when people say "oh well there's OSM
> which as a few more footways but it comes wit

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Frederik Ramm]

John,

John Smith wrote:

And this is why Frederik wants to get rid of data imports, because it
reduces the chances of getting a PD dataset by stealth or "feature
creep"


Maybe if you'd scale back your demagogy a bit. The subject you chose for 
this thread is offensive enough.


Nothing here happens stealthily. My main concern is not that data 
imports are a hindrance towards going PD (an estimated 95% of imported 
data is PD and thus irrelevant in this question). My main concern is 
that people, among them you as one of the loudest, use existing data 
imports as a *reason* to try and stop our move to the better ODbL. And I 
say again, if we have to decide between "keep imports" and "move to 
ODbL", then let's start to rip out those imports *today* because they 
are a dead weight that keeps us from moving ahead.


There is a clause in the contributors terms that allows the license to 
be changed by a 2/3 majority of active contributors, to another free and 
open license.


2/3 of active contributors is a pretty damn large group of people who 
would all have to agree. That's an immensely high hurdle. The license 
has to be free and open. There is no other restriction, and John is 
right in saying that this would technically even allow a move to PD.


This is not a planned move to PD, or some stealthy maneouvre by anybody 
in the license working group. This is just what any sane person would 
do: Leave the door open; give yourself an spectrum of choices that is as 
broad as possible in the future so you can react to a changing situation.


We are seeing now that license change is a very difficult process with 
lots of problems, one that damages the community as well as the data.


At the same time, we have absolutely no idea what the world is going to 
look like 10 years from now. If neither the mood in the community nor 
the outside world change - then why should our license.


However, it is quite possible that the geodata world changes 
drastically. For example, it might be possible that courts rule that 
geodata doesn't carry any copyright and in consequence, more and more 
governments follow the US lead and just make their data available as PD 
(including, let's assume that for a moment, governments in Australia and 
Chile). If that happens, then OSM still has better data because we have 
lots of people working on it, but we'd be seeing more and more 
"competition" - potential OSM users preferring to use other data sources 
which are only half as good but have no restrictions. In such a world, I 
could envisage a large majority of OSMers saying: "Let's drop that 
stupid share-alike license which nobody really understands anyway, and 
become as free as the rest of the world already is."


(Remember: We're here to create a free world map because there is no 
free world map at the moment. What we do is *more free* than what all 
the others are doing. - Can you imagine a time when people say "oh well 
there's OSM which as a few more footways but it comes with all that 
license hassle, I'll rather use the free government data.")


This is of course only one potential reason for changing the license in 
the future. Other reasons would include ODbL turning out to be 
unworkable for some reason or other, or the legal situation with regards 
to geodata changing in some other direction. And of course *any* change 
in license is thinkable, as long as it remains free and open.


Anything we try to cement now will be with us until the end of the 
project. The current CT are written in a way that makes us entrust the 
future of OSM to those who are active mappers at any future time - it 
will be their project, and through democratic elections to the OSMF 
board and the license change process envisaged in the CT, they will get 
the chance to shape the license in the way that is best for the project 
then.


I consider myself a bright guy, but I would never presume that I can 
today make an intelligent decision that would still be "right" for the 
project and its members in 10 years. And the *least* I would do is base 
such a decision on a little data that I have imported from a source 
which might be unhappy with what the project wants to do in 10 years' time.


In theory one could seek to limit the license change rules in the CT, 
for example by adding that the chosen license must not only be free and 
open, but also "have an attribution component". Superficially, this 
might solve your pet problem, namely ensuring eternal compatibility with 
data you have taken from the Australian government. (A government that 
is not unlikely to, by the time the project might contemplate another 
license change, have gone through several license changes themselves.) 
But the next think you'll ask is whether that "attribution component" is 
enough. Surely evil Frederik is already plotting to have the attribution 
listed only in some obscure planning department on Alpha Centauri! We 
need to make this clear... and sooner rather th

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Matt Amos]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli
 wrote:
> We will have to ask the agencies to agree with the Contributor Terms
> but if we are changing to a PD license disguised as BY-SA (via the CT)
> they probably will not cooperate.

OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA", OSMF would
like to move to ODbL. however, it has to be pointed out that CC BY-SA
might be described as "a PD license disguised as BY-SA", since many
lawyers (including those at Creative Commons) think that CC BY-SA is
unsuitable for factual data (such as geodata) and may not be
enforceable in many jurisdictions (such as the USA).

> Even if the point four of the CT
> works as enough attribution (who knows).

whether section 4 is enough to allow CC BY compatibility is something
that OSMF is currently seeking legal advice on.

> As I said most of the agencies just asked us to attribute the source
> and we told them the way that we will do it. The ODbL (and for this
> matter any BY-SA License) does not seem to pose a problem to that, but
> that point three of the CT certainly may provoke a _huge_ mess.

if (as i hope) the lawyers say that section 4 of the CT ensures
compatibility with CC BY, why would section 3 pose a problem? if
section 4 requires that OSMF provide a method of attribution then that
couldn't be taken away by changes under section 3 unless a new version
of the CT were released - which would require asking every single
contributor and re-raising the problem of data loss: the very problem
that section 3 is supposed to alleviate.

> What is the idea of putting that condition there? If some people wants
> to migrate to Public Domain (and I have read many of them in this
> list), why not ask directly for a PD migration acceptance instead of
> asking people to accept this kind of CT as part of a BY-SA license
> change?

migration to PD is not part of the plan. the motivation for that
section is simply that needs and requirements change over time. when
the project was started CC BY-SA seemed like a perfectly valid
license. we're now 6 years on, and 2 years into trying to change the
license, because we were wrong about CC BY-SA. while we think ODbL is
far, far better - do we want to have the spectre of data loss again in
another 6 years if we prove to be wrong again?

> If this is voted as a package I will obviously have to vote against
> the change (I do not want to see 7/8 of the Chilean highways
> disappearing from the map in one day, not to say many POIs that we
> were about to import right now [hospitals, schools, etc.]).

no-one wants to see any data loss. that's one of the many reasons
we're moving from a BY-SA license to another BY-SA license. while
there is an option to declare your preference with regard to PD, this
is for information only.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Marine taggine/OpenSeamap

[Bernhard R. Fischer]

On Monday 09 August 2010 16:31:15 Malcolm Herring wrote:
> Bernhard R. Fischer wrote:
> > Ok, we should be able to solve this problem ;)
> > I started a translation:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lighthouse_Datamodel
> > 
> > The German version now exists twice. I'm not sure how to cleanup this in
> > the wiki yet without breaking some link dependencies.
> > 
> > Beacons and buoys will follow.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Bernhard
> 
> Nice work! I assume that you are user Rahra? - my OSM user name is Malcolmh
> 
> I have done a few edits to 'colloqialise' the text.
> 
> I am about to start a new data model page for other types of charted
> lights. I will spawn it from your translated lighthouse page.
> 
> Thanks for giving me a start!
> 

Yes, I am Rahra.
Thanks for your improvements to my translation.

I translated your "Lights Datamodel" back into German.
At the top of the page you refer to the lighthouse datamodel.

Don't you think that we shouldn't put the lighthouse also on that page?
Everything is there: light vessel, float, major, minor lights. I think we could 
put the lighthouse also there.

Bernhard



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

[OSM-talk] We should recruit these ladies...

[Mike N.]

to become OSM mappers!

http://www.greenvilleopenmap.info/Mappers00.jpg

(Saw that in a magazine ad) 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[John Smith]

On 10 August 2010 04:10, Julio Costa Zambelli
 wrote:
> If this is voted as a package I will obviously have to vote against
> the change (I do not want to see 7/8 of the Chilean highways
> disappearing from the map in one day, not to say many POIs that we
> were about to import right now [hospitals, schools, etc.]).

And this is why Frederik wants to get rid of data imports, because it
reduces the chances of getting a PD dataset by stealth or "feature
creep"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Julio Costa Zambelli]

George,

If "The contributor terms contain clauses that permit OSMF to do
whatever they like with the content including change the license" off
course any "non PD" import will not be compatible at all.

We will have to ask the agencies to agree with the Contributor Terms
but if we are changing to a PD license disguised as BY-SA (via the CT)
they probably will not cooperate. Even if the point four of the CT
works as enough attribution (who knows).

As I said most of the agencies just asked us to attribute the source
and we told them the way that we will do it. The ODbL (and for this
matter any BY-SA License) does not seem to pose a problem to that, but
that point three of the CT certainly may provoke a _huge_ mess.

What is the idea of putting that condition there? If some people wants
to migrate to Public Domain (and I have read many of them in this
list), why not ask directly for a PD migration acceptance instead of
asking people to accept this kind of CT as part of a BY-SA license
change?

If this is voted as a package I will obviously have to vote against
the change (I do not want to see 7/8 of the Chilean highways
disappearing from the map in one day, not to say many POIs that we
were about to import right now [hospitals, schools, etc.]).

Regards,

Julio Costa


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:16 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli
>  wrote:
>>
>> Aun,
>>
>> +1 from Chile.
>>
>> The government imports (some highways, schools, hospitals, boundaries,
>> etc.) are an essential part of what we are doing here, and at least
>> for us, the license change represents no problem.
>>
>> Every time we have negotiated with a government agency we have talked
>> about a BY-SA license and not about (CC) in particular (many times
>> explaining them that we are in a license transition process).
>>
>> Also most of the times those agencies only require from us the
>> attribution (in the complete suburban highway DB import process for
>> example). The most important part of the negotiation for us is to
>> explain them how are we going to attribute them with some tags (most
>> of the times: source=* and/or attribution=*) in every way and node
>> data that they provide to us, instead of a footer note in a slippy map
>> like the one Google Maps/Earth use.
>
> Do those agencies realise that under ODbL Produced Works do not require
> attribution?  It doesn't sound like your imports are compatible at all.
>
> They are also required to agree to the contributor terms.  You will not be
> allowed to agree to them on their behalf.  The contributor terms contain
> clauses that permit OSMF to do whatever they like with the content including
> change the license.
>
> It's possible that your imports will not be compatible with at least some
> parts of the three proposed agreements ODbL, DbCL and CT.
>
> 80n
>
>
>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Aun Johnsen  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Erik Johansson  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 2010/8/8 Dirk-Lüder Kreie :
>> >> > Am 08.08.2010 16:59, schrieb John Smith:
>> >> >> On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson  wrote:
>> >> >>> Australia 2 people per km^2
>> >> >>> Sweden 21 people per km^2
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Canada is ~3 people per km^2...
>> >> >
>> >> > You seem to forget that the most interesting Data (to most people) is
>> >> > also where the people are.
>> >>
>> >> I formally invite you to come to Sweden, which I find a pretty
>> >> interesting place.
>> >>
>> >> There are really nice views here, if enough European OSM:er spend
>> >> their vacation here we could probably map Sweden in 5 years? A great
>> >> place to start i Härjedalen beautiful mountains and lots of mapping to
>> >> do, even in areas where there are no people within 3 hours of travel.
>> >> So the interesting thing about these places (for most people) is that
>> >> there are few very ppl.
>> >>
>> >> You can put those "blank spots" in Austria/Germany in perspective, and
>> >> get to map some really low density places; e.g. try to figure out the
>> >> name of a thousand lakes, mountains or the footpath you are on, it's
>> >> not like there are signs. :-)
>> >>
>> >> Härjedalen with a few blank spots:
>> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=62.546&mlon=12.542&zoom=9
>> >>
>> >> Even Stockholm has quite a few of those blankspots.
>> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=59.32&lon=18.07&zoom=9
>> >>
>> >> So Dirk and Cartinus when are you coming over to map Sweden?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> /Erik who has spent lots of time in blank spots.
>> >
>> > I hear Fredrikk (among others) dislikes imports, and I hear his argument
>> > that it might work discouraging on people to have large areas imported.
>> > But
>> > here in the Brazilian community we see imports as a necessary way to
>> > improve
>> > map coverage, which in turn can increase reqruitment.
>> >
>> > Brazil is a country the size of europe, but still we are only a handful
>> > contributors, some

[OSM-talk] Bursaries available to Society of Cartographers conference

[Steve Chilton]

If you are a student or non-UK OSMer you might be interested in chance to gain 
a bursary to attend the Society of Cartographers conference next month (in the 
UK). Join the society (v small joining fee - get conf fees part paid). See 
message below:
---

Society of Cartographers
SUMMER SCHOOL BURSARIES

CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS NOW EXTENDED to 31st AUGUST 2010.
The Society of Cartographers offers TWO bursaries to allow HALF attendance at 
their Annual Summer School (Manchester 8-10 Sept) 
(http://www.soc.org.uk/manchester10/).
The bursary offer is open to student and overseas members only. Each bursary 
will cover HALF the Summer School attendance package and registration costs. 
Travel costs to and from the SoC Summer School will NOT be covered by the 
bursary.

The aim of the bursary is to give financial assistance to members who would 
otherwise be unable to attend due to lack of other financial support. 
Submissions will be reviewed by the Bursary Sub-committee and successful 
applicants will be notified by 2 September 2010.
Please complete the application form (available from 
http://www.soc.org.uk/assets/bursary.pdf) in full and post or e-mail a scanned 
copy to:

Mike Shand, Hon. Secretary, 
(mike.sh...@ges.gla.ac.uk)
Schoolof Geographical & Earth Sciences,
University of Glasgow,
Glasgow G12 8QQ, U.K.

Contact me if you require further info

Cheers
STEVE

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] decision removing data

[Heiko Jacobs]

Frederik Ramm schrieb:
If you really consider your contributions to be in the public domain 
then good news for you: we do not require your agreeing to any contract.


Did I miss something? On
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_0cc77vdd9
I only read this three possibilities:
[Agree button]
[Agree button and I consider my consider my contributions Public Domain]
[Decline button]

For yours there has to be also
[Decline button, but I consider my contributions Public Domain]
for not removing his edits ...
Without this it is assumed that he wants to stay with CC including his data.
"Your data will no longer be included in the live OSM database ..."

Mueck



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Robert Kaiser]

John Smith schrieb:

The problem here isn't imports, if anything the few imports we have
had helped make the map less blank where fewer people map, which isn't
the same thing as fewer people living.


We have a number of reports here that people took a look, saw that 
there's nothing interesting for them to map as there's so much stuff 
there (even if half of the import isn't accurate) and so they didn't 
even try to contribute. Others tried and gave up as correcting botched 
imports is no fun, drawing on an empty space is much nicer and gives you 
more satisfaction.


Robert Kaiser


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[80n]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli <
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl> wrote:

> Aun,
>
> +1 from Chile.
>
> The government imports (some highways, schools, hospitals, boundaries,
> etc.) are an essential part of what we are doing here, and at least
> for us, the license change represents no problem.
>
> Every time we have negotiated with a government agency we have talked
> about a BY-SA license and not about (CC) in particular (many times
> explaining them that we are in a license transition process).
>
> Also most of the times those agencies only require from us the
> attribution (in the complete suburban highway DB import process for
> example). The most important part of the negotiation for us is to
> explain them how are we going to attribute them with some tags (most
> of the times: source=* and/or attribution=*) in every way and node
> data that they provide to us, instead of a footer note in a slippy map
> like the one Google Maps/Earth use.
>

Do those agencies realise that under ODbL Produced Works do not require
attribution?  It doesn't sound like your imports are compatible at all.

They are also required to agree to the contributor terms.  You will not be
allowed to agree to them on their behalf.  The contributor terms contain
clauses that permit OSMF to do whatever they like with the content including
change the license.

It's possible that your imports will not be compatible with at least some
parts of the three proposed agreements ODbL, DbCL and CT.

80n




>
> Cheers
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Aun Johnsen  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Erik Johansson  wrote:
> >>
> >> 2010/8/8 Dirk-Lüder Kreie :
> >> > Am 08.08.2010 16:59, schrieb John Smith:
> >> >> On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson  wrote:
> >> >>> Australia 2 people per km^2
> >> >>> Sweden 21 people per km^2
> >> >>
> >> >> Canada is ~3 people per km^2...
> >> >
> >> > You seem to forget that the most interesting Data (to most people) is
> >> > also where the people are.
> >>
> >> I formally invite you to come to Sweden, which I find a pretty
> >> interesting place.
> >>
> >> There are really nice views here, if enough European OSM:er spend
> >> their vacation here we could probably map Sweden in 5 years? A great
> >> place to start i Härjedalen beautiful mountains and lots of mapping to
> >> do, even in areas where there are no people within 3 hours of travel.
> >> So the interesting thing about these places (for most people) is that
> >> there are few very ppl.
> >>
> >> You can put those "blank spots" in Austria/Germany in perspective, and
> >> get to map some really low density places; e.g. try to figure out the
> >> name of a thousand lakes, mountains or the footpath you are on, it's
> >> not like there are signs. :-)
> >>
> >> Härjedalen with a few blank spots:
> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=62.546&mlon=12.542&zoom=9
> >>
> >> Even Stockholm has quite a few of those blankspots.
> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=59.32&lon=18.07&zoom=9
> >>
> >> So Dirk and Cartinus when are you coming over to map Sweden?
> >>
> >>
> >> /Erik who has spent lots of time in blank spots.
> >
> > I hear Fredrikk (among others) dislikes imports, and I hear his argument
> > that it might work discouraging on people to have large areas imported.
> But
> > here in the Brazilian community we see imports as a necessary way to
> improve
> > map coverage, which in turn can increase reqruitment.
> >
> > Brazil is a country the size of europe, but still we are only a handful
> > contributors, some of which (myself included) are not native Brazilians.
> >
> > This discussion started with wether or not the proposed change of license
> > could go on because of some imported data somewhere was in an
> uncompatible
> > license. I can with this confirm that at least 99% of imported data in
> > Brazil is compatible with the change of license, and most of that also is
> > compatible with the even more extreme (but currently not considered)
> Public
> > Domain license.
> >
> > If people from the "overcrowded" European communities, (or anywhere else
> for
> > that matter), want to map blank spots like Erik invites to, than Brazil
> must
> > be the paradise for you. Only a few regions of Brazil have local
> > contributions, Yahoo coverage is limited to a few metropolitan areas, and
> > the majority of imported data is crude, with low node density. Just a few
> > places have a high detail level, so even in the mapped areas there are
> much
> > to do. Just browse to Copacobana in Rio de Janeiro, the streets are
> there,
> > but hardly any shops, restaurants, bars, hotels, parking spaces, etc.
> > Running out of things to map in Hamburg doesn't mean the map is
> completed.
> >
> > Actually, after I imported the municipal data of Vitoria, the state
> capital
> > of Espirito Santo, Brazil, I have noticed an increase in registrations of
> > users in that area. This are people that might fill in the data that I
>

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Julio Costa Zambelli]

John,

That may be a problem, but my impression is that the point four solves it.

Cheers

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:56 AM, John Smith  wrote:
> On 9 August 2010 23:40, Julio Costa Zambelli
>  wrote:
>> The government imports (some highways, schools, hospitals, boundaries,
>> etc.) are an essential part of what we are doing here, and at least
>> for us, the license change represents no problem.
>
> What about the new contributor terms that don't guarantee that future
> licenses will offer BY-SA?
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Marine taggine/OpenSeamap

[Malcolm Herring]

Bernhard R. Fischer wrote:


Ok, we should be able to solve this problem ;)
I started a translation:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lighthouse_Datamodel

The German version now exists twice. I'm not sure how to cleanup this in the 
wiki yet without breaking some link dependencies.


Beacons and buoys will follow.

Best regards,
Bernhard




Nice work! I assume that you are user Rahra? - my OSM user name is Malcolmh

I have done a few edits to 'colloqialise' the text.

I am about to start a new data model page for other types of charted 
lights. I will spawn it from your translated lighthouse page.


Thanks for giving me a start!


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[john whelan]

But strangely enough it is a lot more complicated to map remote areas
such a desert than to map a city.  Logistics for a start, I can catch
a bus and map my city locally for an hour or two, the city bus just
doesn't run to remote areas and there are a lot of remote areas in
Canada.  I have written to my MP requesting that the northern lakes
and other features get sign posts placed on them but haven't had any
reply yet.

Cheerio John

On 9 August 2010 09:39, Dave F.  wrote:
>  On 08/08/2010 22:10, Liz wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Cartinus wrote:
>>>
>>> It doesn't take as many manhours to map a desert as it takes to map
>>> downtown  Melbourne.
>>
>> Cartinus
>> Please don't come up with this sort of nonsense
>
> Ha, ha, ha.
>
> You do say the funniest things sometimes, Liz.
> But only sometimes.
>
> Dave F.
>
> ___
> 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] Revert requests in general

[Andy Allan]

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Kai Krueger  wrote:

> You can associate an OpenID to an existing account. You can also switch your
> associated OpenID at any time (provided you are logged in) just like you can
> change your password. (The OpenID is never revealed to anyone other than the
> account holder). But as Tom sais, for the moment you can only associate a
> single OpenID with your account. If there is demand for linking multiple
> OpenIDs to a single account, it should be reasonably easy to change that in
> the future though too. Also, if you choose, you can always continue to use a
> standard password instead or in addition to the OpenID.

I'd like to see multiple OpenIDs linked to the one osm account, since
I'm one (of many) people who has many OpenIDs. But I realise that it
will complicate a few things so I wouldn't mind that being postponed.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[John Smith]

On 9 August 2010 23:40, Julio Costa Zambelli
 wrote:
> The government imports (some highways, schools, hospitals, boundaries,
> etc.) are an essential part of what we are doing here, and at least
> for us, the license change represents no problem.

What about the new contributor terms that don't guarantee that future
licenses will offer BY-SA?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Julio Costa Zambelli]

Aun,

+1 from Chile.

The government imports (some highways, schools, hospitals, boundaries,
etc.) are an essential part of what we are doing here, and at least
for us, the license change represents no problem.

Every time we have negotiated with a government agency we have talked
about a BY-SA license and not about (CC) in particular (many times
explaining them that we are in a license transition process).

Also most of the times those agencies only require from us the
attribution (in the complete suburban highway DB import process for
example). The most important part of the negotiation for us is to
explain them how are we going to attribute them with some tags (most
of the times: source=* and/or attribution=*) in every way and node
data that they provide to us, instead of a footer note in a slippy map
like the one Google Maps/Earth use.

Cheers


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Aun Johnsen  wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Erik Johansson  wrote:
>>
>> 2010/8/8 Dirk-Lüder Kreie :
>> > Am 08.08.2010 16:59, schrieb John Smith:
>> >> On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson  wrote:
>> >>> Australia 2 people per km^2
>> >>> Sweden 21 people per km^2
>> >>
>> >> Canada is ~3 people per km^2...
>> >
>> > You seem to forget that the most interesting Data (to most people) is
>> > also where the people are.
>>
>> I formally invite you to come to Sweden, which I find a pretty
>> interesting place.
>>
>> There are really nice views here, if enough European OSM:er spend
>> their vacation here we could probably map Sweden in 5 years? A great
>> place to start i Härjedalen beautiful mountains and lots of mapping to
>> do, even in areas where there are no people within 3 hours of travel.
>> So the interesting thing about these places (for most people) is that
>> there are few very ppl.
>>
>> You can put those "blank spots" in Austria/Germany in perspective, and
>> get to map some really low density places; e.g. try to figure out the
>> name of a thousand lakes, mountains or the footpath you are on, it's
>> not like there are signs. :-)
>>
>> Härjedalen with a few blank spots:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=62.546&mlon=12.542&zoom=9
>>
>> Even Stockholm has quite a few of those blankspots.
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=59.32&lon=18.07&zoom=9
>>
>> So Dirk and Cartinus when are you coming over to map Sweden?
>>
>>
>> /Erik who has spent lots of time in blank spots.
>
> I hear Fredrikk (among others) dislikes imports, and I hear his argument
> that it might work discouraging on people to have large areas imported. But
> here in the Brazilian community we see imports as a necessary way to improve
> map coverage, which in turn can increase reqruitment.
>
> Brazil is a country the size of europe, but still we are only a handful
> contributors, some of which (myself included) are not native Brazilians.
>
> This discussion started with wether or not the proposed change of license
> could go on because of some imported data somewhere was in an uncompatible
> license. I can with this confirm that at least 99% of imported data in
> Brazil is compatible with the change of license, and most of that also is
> compatible with the even more extreme (but currently not considered) Public
> Domain license.
>
> If people from the "overcrowded" European communities, (or anywhere else for
> that matter), want to map blank spots like Erik invites to, than Brazil must
> be the paradise for you. Only a few regions of Brazil have local
> contributions, Yahoo coverage is limited to a few metropolitan areas, and
> the majority of imported data is crude, with low node density. Just a few
> places have a high detail level, so even in the mapped areas there are much
> to do. Just browse to Copacobana in Rio de Janeiro, the streets are there,
> but hardly any shops, restaurants, bars, hotels, parking spaces, etc.
> Running out of things to map in Hamburg doesn't mean the map is completed.
>
> Actually, after I imported the municipal data of Vitoria, the state capital
> of Espirito Santo, Brazil, I have noticed an increase in registrations of
> users in that area. This are people that might fill in the data that I
> couldn't import, correct inaccuracies in the import (old data?), and map the
> areas outside the limit of the import. In Brazil, imports helps reqruiting,
> and is encouraging to the people living in the region, but feel free to
> contribute with some of your survey data next time you visit Brazil.
>
> Aun
>
> ___
> 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] Registration For w3gconf Is Now Open (And Free)

[Gary Gale]

Supported by the UK's Association for Geographic Information, w3gconf is a 
free, one day conference, themed on the "3 W's of Geo". Large in scope but 
intimate in scale, w3gconf is targeted firmly at the geographic community at 
large, from the geographic professional, be they GIS or Web 2.0 to the latent 
geographer who's heard about this thing called "location" and wants to know 
more. w3gconf will take place in the Holiday Inn, Stratford upon Avon, UK, on 
the 28th. September 2010. Read the blog at http://www.w3gconf.com/, follow us 
on Twitter at http://twitter.com/w3gconf and register for free at 
http://w3gconf.eventbrite.com/.

As an added bonus for OSMers, The Steve will be chairing and recording a 
session of the "maptastic" This Week In Maps live on stage.

Best

G

--
gary at vicchi.org | twitter.com/vicchi | www.linkedin.com/in/garygale | 
www.garygale.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Dave F.]

 On 08/08/2010 22:10, Liz wrote:

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Cartinus wrote:

It doesn't take as many manhours to map a desert as it takes to map
downtown  Melbourne.

Cartinus
Please don't come up with this sort of nonsense


Ha, ha, ha.

You do say the funniest things sometimes, Liz.
But only sometimes.

Dave F.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Marine taggine/OpenSeamap

[Bernhard R. Fischer]

On Monday 09 August 2010 10:04:00 Aun Johnsen wrote:
> PS These tags are documented in german only, what about those OSMers that
> doesn't understand german, are we forced to use google translate to ready
> tag descriptions? If it was documented in english at least more of us could
> understand it and maybe even contribute with translations into some of our
> own languages.
> 
> Aun
> 

Ok, we should be able to solve this problem ;)
I started a translation:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lighthouse_Datamodel

The German version now exists twice. I'm not sure how to cleanup this in the 
wiki yet without breaking some link dependencies.

Beacons and buoys will follow.

Best regards,
Bernhard


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] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Dirk-Lüder Kreie]

Am 08.08.2010 23:10, schrieb Liz:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Cartinus wrote:
>> It doesn't take as many manhours to map a desert as it takes to map
>> downtown  Melbourne.
> Cartinus
> Please don't come up with this sort of nonsense

Well, a Desert usually has much less features than urban terrain, so I
don't see how you can call that nonsense. Of course it depends on your
tools available how many mapping man-hours you need for a square
kilometer area.

> Imports have increased our number of contributors, not decreased them.
> I have mapped, with my partner, a VERY large area of my state. Mostly from 
> survey work. That means we got the main roads, streets in towns and some side 
> roads, POIs.
> Nowhere would I claim it is complete. My survey work has been supplemented by 
> imports which have provided some river and some rail and some road alignments.

I think the discrepancy comes from different experiences with imports,
with respect to when and how the import is done, and how dense the data
imported is.

> My work extends from Cobar to Tocumwal with a little overlap at the southern 
> end
> and between Adelaide and Wollongong
> East West the area between Yass and Mildura is mostly my work, with little 
> overlap.
> 
> My work is not going under ODBL but I am still waiting to hear how my work is 
> going to be excluded. 

It saddens me that political reasons will tear additional holes in the
project. It's bad enough that the chosen license turns out to not be
legally sound.

-- 

Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie
Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Marine taggine/OpenSeamap

[Malcolm Herring]

Aun Johnsen wrote:
PS These tags are documented in german only, what about those OSMers 
that doesn't understand german, are we forced to use google translate to 
ready tag descriptions? If it was documented in english at least more of 
us could understand it and maybe even contribute with translations into 
some of our own languages.


Agreed. But we need to find a volunteer to do this. The entire 
OpenSeaMap web site, with the exception of the main page needs translations.


Any native English-speakers with a good knowledge of (marine) German out 
there with time on their hands?



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Marine taggine/OpenSeamap

[Aun Johnsen]

PS These tags are documented in german only, what about those OSMers that
doesn't understand german, are we forced to use google translate to ready
tag descriptions? If it was documented in english at least more of us could
understand it and maybe even contribute with translations into some of our
own languages.

Aun

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Bernhard R. Fischer 
wrote:

> On Thursday 05 August 2010 20:31:39 Malcolm Herring wrote:
> > Bernhard,
> >
> > The "*" is a wild card for the light number.
> > The Render Hint has one additional parameter, the suggested radius of the
> > sector arc that will appear on the chart. All the previous items are to
> > create the annotation.
>
> The render hint description also says "Radius mit dem der Sektor gezeichnet
> wird." (radius of which the sector is painted).
> What is the units of this hint? I assume it is not nautical miles.
>
> Best regards,
> Bernhard
>
> ___
> 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] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Aun Johnsen]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Erik Johansson  wrote:

> 2010/8/8 Dirk-Lüder Kreie :
> > Am 08.08.2010 16:59, schrieb John Smith:
> >> On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson  wrote:
> >>> Australia 2 people per km^2
> >>> Sweden 21 people per km^2
> >>
> >> Canada is ~3 people per km^2...
> >
> > You seem to forget that the most interesting Data (to most people) is
> > also where the people are.
>
> I formally invite you to come to Sweden, which I find a pretty
> interesting place.
>
> There are really nice views here, if enough European OSM:er spend
> their vacation here we could probably map Sweden in 5 years? A great
> place to start i Härjedalen beautiful mountains and lots of mapping to
> do, even in areas where there are no people within 3 hours of travel.
> So the interesting thing about these places (for most people) is that
> there are few very ppl.
>
> You can put those "blank spots" in Austria/Germany in perspective, and
> get to map some really low density places; e.g. try to figure out the
> name of a thousand lakes, mountains or the footpath you are on, it's
> not like there are signs. :-)
>
> Härjedalen with a few blank spots:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=62.546&mlon=12.542&zoom=9
>
> Even Stockholm has quite a few of those blankspots.
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=59.32&lon=18.07&zoom=9
>
> So Dirk and Cartinus when are you coming over to map Sweden?
>
>
> /Erik who has spent lots of time in blank spots.
>

I hear Fredrikk (among others) dislikes imports, and I hear his argument
that it might work discouraging on people to have large areas imported. But
here in the Brazilian community we see imports as a necessary way to improve
map coverage, which in turn can increase reqruitment.

Brazil is a country the size of europe, but still we are only a handful
contributors, some of which (myself included) are not native Brazilians.

This discussion started with wether or not the proposed change of license
could go on because of some imported data somewhere was in an uncompatible
license. I can with this confirm that at least 99% of imported data in
Brazil is compatible with the change of license, and most of that also is
compatible with the even more extreme (but currently not considered) Public
Domain license.

If people from the "overcrowded" European communities, (or anywhere else for
that matter), want to map blank spots like Erik invites to, than Brazil must
be the paradise for you. Only a few regions of Brazil have local
contributions, Yahoo coverage is limited to a few metropolitan areas, and
the majority of imported data is crude, with low node density. Just a few
places have a high detail level, so even in the mapped areas there are much
to do. Just browse to Copacobana in Rio de Janeiro, the streets are there,
but hardly any shops, restaurants, bars, hotels, parking spaces, etc.
Running out of things to map in Hamburg doesn't mean the map is completed.

Actually, after I imported the municipal data of Vitoria, the state capital
of Espirito Santo, Brazil, I have noticed an increase in registrations of
users in that area. This are people that might fill in the data that I
couldn't import, correct inaccuracies in the import (old data?), and map the
areas outside the limit of the import. In Brazil, imports helps reqruiting,
and is encouraging to the people living in the region, but feel free to
contribute with some of your survey data next time you visit Brazil.

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