Re: [OSM-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: d isinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

[Jukka Rahkonen]

Sam Vekemans  gmail.com> writes:

> 
> hi,
> after checking the 'in addition make pd' box, is there a way to
> 'uncheck' that box if we change are mind at a later date? say, if i
> discover more information that would make me change my mind.
> 
> (i can with google photos, as an example)
> 
> thanks,
> sam

Does the phrase "you consider your edits to be in the Public Domain" has any
real meaning? Can somebody download data which are only edited by PD minded
people from the main OSM database and use those for any purpose?

If the answer is yes then changing your mind should only be possible for new
edits and by creating a new user account. Somebody may already believed you and
started to use data as PD. However, I suppose that checking the PD box is only a
declaration and will not really allow anybody to use parts of the OSM database
as PD. Thus it would not harm anybody if you could change your PD considerations
whenever you want.





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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

[TimSC]

On 12/08/10 08:41, Jukka Rahkonen wrote:


Does the phrase "you consider your edits to be in the Public Domain" has any
real meaning? Can somebody download data which are only edited by PD minded
people from the main OSM database and use those for any purpose?
   

I raised that issue on the legal-talk mailing list. No answer yet.

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003968.html

TimSC


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

[OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

[Martin Fossdal Guttesen]

i followed  the link under my settings

Contributor Terms: You have not yet agreed to the new Contributor Terms.
Please follow this link at your convenience to review and accept the new 
Contributor Terms.


in the top paragraph there is this section

“Please read the following terms and conditions carefully and click either 
the 'Accept' or 'Decline' button at the bottom to continue.”


i can’t find either a “Accept” or “Decline” button, just a “Agree” button

what to do ?

/Martin F. G. 



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

[OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[Mike Collinson]

As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License Upgrade has 
arrived. Phase 2 - Existing Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing  [1]  has begun, 
and you may indicate your acceptance of the new Contributor Terms for your 
existing OSM API account.  To accept the terms visit 
http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms, (you may be asked to login first), or your 
user settings page. 

Please note that OpenStreetMap is not changing the license on any published 
data at this point.  Existing contributors are being asked to permit 
re-licensing of their data in the future when it makes sense to do so.

There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer yet.  Existing 
Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who wish to accept the terms 
and get on with mapping.  

We'll be publishing which users have accepted so that we can all see the 
progress in terms of users and re-licensed data.

We hope that you will accept the new Contributor Terms [2] and ODbL for each of 
your user accounts if you have more than one.



** Why are we doing it like this? **


What ifs, what ifs. The key is clearly to reduce these. Those that simply want 
to get on mapping and accept that we won't doing anything daft, can sign up.
Those that are worried about data loss and that the OSMF will make a stupid 
decision,  can wait and see.  We'll show how much of the database is 
potentially covered by the ODbL. We've got some help on modelling that, and 
we'll aim for at least a weekly update if not daily. We'll also make all the 
data available needed to calculate that, so if you want to try a different 
metric or just see what is happening in your local area, everything will be 
transparent.

If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new 
Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike 
license written especially for databases.  If you are a Public Domain license 
supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do urge you to 
give this one a good try.  The Contributor Terms are expressly written to allow 
us to come back in future years and see what is best  without all this fuss 
about procedure.  And if you'd just really like all this hoo-haa to go away and 
get back to mapping, well, please say yes.



** Some supporting notes:  **


() The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have 
contributed over 98% of the pre-May data.

() I personally really, really want to get a coherent license in place so that 
my mapping efforts are more widely used. I also really, really don't want us as 
a community to shoot ourselves in the head and divide.  I pledge to continue 
working with *both* objectives in mind.

() The License Working Group will not recommend switching over the license if 
data loss is unreasonable [3]. We will issue a formal statement to that effect 
and are attempting to define better what "unreasonable" means. A totally 
quantitative criteria is extremely difficult to define ahead of actually seeing 
what specific problems may arise. But I understand the concern that we are 
tempted to do something wild.

() The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a similar 
statement.

() We are working to create a process whereby we can model on a regular basis 
how much of the OSM database is covered by ODbL and how much not.  We will make 
all the data needed to do that public so that anyone can analyse using their 
own metrics. Work on this is active and being discussed on the dev mailing 
list. You will need:

- An ordinary planet dump.
- Access to history data. A public 18GB "history dump" is available 
http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/full-planet-100801.osm.bz2.  
The intent is to make this available on a regular basis with difffs. A full 
re-generation takes several days.
- A list of userids of who has and has not accepted the license. Work in 
progress. 

() A final vote on whether to switch or not remains an option. But let us see 
first if "data loss" really is an issue and what the specific problems might be.

Regards to all,
Mike
License Working Group 

[1] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_2_-_Existing_Contributor_Voluntary_Re-licensing_.28started_10th_August_2010.29

[2] The new Contributor Terms:

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary  - Summary

http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms - Full text and 
links to translations

[3] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_76gwvhpcx3 License Working Group 
minutes, see Item 7 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

[Peter Körner]

Am 12.08.2010 10:18, schrieb Martin Fossdal Guttesen:

i followed  the link under my settings

i can’t find either a “Accept” or “Decline” button, just a “Agree” button

what to do ?

Leave it unchecked, close the browser page or go one page back.

Peter

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

Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL & Moderation

[TimSC]

On 11/08/10 21:56, Liz wrote:


There are a list of questions which have not been answered whether on osmf-
talk or legal-talk or talk.
   
I also find that is a problem with the mailing list, and when I contact 
the working groups. No definitive answer is provided, usually the 
discussion gets distracted to a side issue. Some answers are simply 
delayed because they depend on future events, and are not anyones fault. 
But for questions which have been addressed, I hope people will begin to 
reference the appropriate archived discussion to reduce repetition. This 
seemed to be a key point on that google talk on youtube that SteveC 
referenced [2].


Fortunately, the principle of "assume good faith" has appeared in the 
draft code of conduct. If someone raises a repeatedly raises a question, 
please assume they are sincere until they have been directed to the 
appropriate place in the archives.



I am now considering OSMF as an annoying third party which has interspersed
itself between myself and OSM. I have no original contract of any form between
myself and OSMF.
   
In the Subversion project (to use the google talk's example [2]), 
discussions may begin privately and are then moved to the public forum. 
Decisions are taken by consensus of all contributors in the public 
forum. This is different from OSMF's approach, particularly with respect 
to relicensing [3]. OSMF's committee approach is appropriate for very 
complex issues, but as much as possible should be done in a broader 
forum (if necessary, lead by respected community members). I think OSMF 
and the LWG are working with good intentions, I just don't agree with 
their methods on occasion.


But the role of OSMF is to support OSM [1]. By moderating the forums 
within well defined guidelines, I think they are fulfilling that role. I 
am not sure why the title "Benevolent Dictator For Life" is needed to 
moderate the forums. I would appreciate knowing what are the limits of 
this power? I expect it doesn't include the ability to override 
established OSM procedure. Perhaps the title "OSM discussion moderator" 
might be more appropriate, and enables SteveC to pass it along if necessary.


TimSC

[1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE
[3] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Questions_to_LWG_on_ODbL#Response_from_Mike_Collinson_on_ODbL_Adoption



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

[Tom Hughes]

On 12/08/10 09:18, Martin Fossdal Guttesen wrote:


in the top paragraph there is this section

“Please read the following terms and conditions carefully and click
either the 'Accept' or 'Decline' button at the bottom to continue.”

i can’t find either a “Accept” or “Decline” button, just a “Agree” button


Sorry, that's an artefact from the page being used for new users as well.

The decline button is not there for existing users because there is no 
point in it being there - at the moment agreeing to the terms is 
entirely voluntary for existing users so there is nothing to decline as 
you just don't go to the page and agree if you don't want to sign up.


I'll see what I can do about getting the text changed...

Tom

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL & Moderation

[Pierre-Alain Dorange]

Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

> > So the newbies have chosen to join this mailing list, so they at least have
> > seen the list of mailinglists. Why didn't they join legal? or dev= because
> > they're not interested in those topics, they have enough to do with mapping
> > their village.
> 
> Perhaps they don't realize the legal discussions have a good change of
> resulting in some of the data from their village disappearing. I know
> I didn't.

How data in my village disappeared ?
We've used totally legal sources compatible with OSM.
I'm one of the most quantity data "creator" (in my town) and i realesed
all my adds/modification as PD...

-- 
Pierre-Alain Dorange


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[Matt Williams]

On 12 August 2010 09:18, Mike Collinson  wrote:
> As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License Upgrade has
> arrived. Phase 2 - Existing Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing  [1]  has
> begun, and you may indicate your acceptance of the new Contributor Terms for
> your existing OSM API account.  To accept the terms visit
> http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms, (you may be asked to login first), or
> your user settings page.
>
> Please note that OpenStreetMap is not changing the license on any published
> data at this point.  Existing contributors are being asked to permit
> re-licensing of their data in the future when it makes sense to do so.
>
> There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer yet.  Existing
> Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who wish to accept the terms
> and get on with mapping.
>
> We'll be publishing which users have accepted so that we can all see the
> progress in terms of users and re-licensed data.
>
> We hope that you will accept the new Contributor Terms [2] and ODbL for each
> of your user accounts if you have more than one.
>
>
>
> ** Why are we doing it like this? **
>
>
> What ifs, what ifs. The key is clearly to reduce these. Those that simply
> want to get on mapping and accept that we won't doing anything daft, can
> sign up.    Those that are worried about data loss and that the OSMF will
> make a stupid decision,  can wait and see.  We'll show how much of the
> database is potentially covered by the ODbL. We've got some help on
> modelling that, and we'll aim for at least a weekly update if not daily.
> We'll also make all the data available needed to calculate that, so if you
> want to try a different metric or just see what is happening in your local
> area, everything will be transparent.
>
> If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new
> Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike
> license written especially for databases.  If you are a Public Domain
> license supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do
> urge you to give this one a good try.  The Contributor Terms are expressly
> written to allow us to come back in future years and see what is best
> without all this fuss about procedure.  And if you'd just really like all
> this hoo-haa to go away and get back to mapping, well, please say yes.
>
>
>
> ** Some supporting notes:  **
>
>
> () The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have
> contributed over 98% of the pre-May data.
>
> () I personally really, really want to get a coherent license in place so
> that my mapping efforts are more widely used. I also really, really don't
> want us as a community to shoot ourselves in the head and divide.  I pledge
> to continue working with *both* objectives in mind.
>
> () The License Working Group will not recommend switching over the license
> if data loss is unreasonable [3]. We will issue a formal statement to that
> effect and are attempting to define better what "unreasonable" means. A
> totally quantitative criteria is extremely difficult to define ahead of
> actually seeing what specific problems may arise. But I understand the
> concern that we are tempted to do something wild.
>
> () The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a similar
> statement.
>
> () We are working to create a process whereby we can model on a regular
> basis how much of the OSM database is covered by ODbL and how much not.  We
> will make all the data needed to do that public so that anyone can analyse
> using their own metrics. Work on this is active and being discussed on the
> dev mailing list. You will need:
>
> - An ordinary planet dump.
> - Access to history data. A public 18GB "history dump" is available
> http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/full-planet-100801.osm.bz2.
> The intent is to make this available on a regular basis with difffs. A full
> re-generation takes several days.
> - A list of userids of who has and has not accepted the license. Work in
> progress.
>
> () A final vote on whether to switch or not remains an option. But let us
> see first if "data loss" really is an issue and what the specific problems
> might be.
>
> Regards to all,
> Mike
> License Working Group
>
> [1]
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_2_-_Existing_Contributor_Voluntary_Re-licensing_.28started_10th_August_2010.29
>
> [2] The new Contributor Terms:

It's great that this is being put to a vote so that those of us who
really are happy with the re-licensing can make that clear.

The following link (to the contributor terms summary) doesn't seem to
work. I'd like to be able to read a nice human-readable version to
clear up some questions I have.

> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary -
> Summary
>
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms - Full text and
> links to translations
>
> [3] 

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[Matt Williams]

On 12 August 2010 11:01, Matt Williams  wrote:
> On 12 August 2010 09:18, Mike Collinson  wrote:
>> As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License Upgrade has
>> arrived. Phase 2 - Existing Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing  [1]  has
>> begun, and you may indicate your acceptance of the new Contributor Terms for
>> your existing OSM API account.  To accept the terms visit
>> http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms, (you may be asked to login first), or
>> your user settings page.
>>
>> Please note that OpenStreetMap is not changing the license on any published
>> data at this point.  Existing contributors are being asked to permit
>> re-licensing of their data in the future when it makes sense to do so.
>>
>> There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer yet.  Existing
>> Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who wish to accept the terms
>> and get on with mapping.
>>
>> We'll be publishing which users have accepted so that we can all see the
>> progress in terms of users and re-licensed data.
>>
>> We hope that you will accept the new Contributor Terms [2] and ODbL for each
>> of your user accounts if you have more than one.
>>
>>
>>
>> ** Why are we doing it like this? **
>>
>>
>> What ifs, what ifs. The key is clearly to reduce these. Those that simply
>> want to get on mapping and accept that we won't doing anything daft, can
>> sign up.    Those that are worried about data loss and that the OSMF will
>> make a stupid decision,  can wait and see.  We'll show how much of the
>> database is potentially covered by the ODbL. We've got some help on
>> modelling that, and we'll aim for at least a weekly update if not daily.
>> We'll also make all the data available needed to calculate that, so if you
>> want to try a different metric or just see what is happening in your local
>> area, everything will be transparent.
>>
>> If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new
>> Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike
>> license written especially for databases.  If you are a Public Domain
>> license supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I do
>> urge you to give this one a good try.  The Contributor Terms are expressly
>> written to allow us to come back in future years and see what is best
>> without all this fuss about procedure.  And if you'd just really like all
>> this hoo-haa to go away and get back to mapping, well, please say yes.
>>
>>
>>
>> ** Some supporting notes:  **
>>
>>
>> () The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have
>> contributed over 98% of the pre-May data.
>>
>> () I personally really, really want to get a coherent license in place so
>> that my mapping efforts are more widely used. I also really, really don't
>> want us as a community to shoot ourselves in the head and divide.  I pledge
>> to continue working with *both* objectives in mind.
>>
>> () The License Working Group will not recommend switching over the license
>> if data loss is unreasonable [3]. We will issue a formal statement to that
>> effect and are attempting to define better what "unreasonable" means. A
>> totally quantitative criteria is extremely difficult to define ahead of
>> actually seeing what specific problems may arise. But I understand the
>> concern that we are tempted to do something wild.
>>
>> () The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a similar
>> statement.
>>
>> () We are working to create a process whereby we can model on a regular
>> basis how much of the OSM database is covered by ODbL and how much not.  We
>> will make all the data needed to do that public so that anyone can analyse
>> using their own metrics. Work on this is active and being discussed on the
>> dev mailing list. You will need:
>>
>> - An ordinary planet dump.
>> - Access to history data. A public 18GB "history dump" is available
>> http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/full-planet-100801.osm.bz2.
>> The intent is to make this available on a regular basis with difffs. A full
>> re-generation takes several days.
>> - A list of userids of who has and has not accepted the license. Work in
>> progress.
>>
>> () A final vote on whether to switch or not remains an option. But let us
>> see first if "data loss" really is an issue and what the specific problems
>> might be.
>>
>> Regards to all,
>> Mike
>> License Working Group
>>
>> [1]
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan#PHASE_2_-_Existing_Contributor_Voluntary_Re-licensing_.28started_10th_August_2010.29
>>
>> [2] The new Contributor Terms:
>
> It's great that this is being put to a vote so that those of us who
> really are happy with the re-licensing can make that clear.
>
> The following link (to the contributor terms summary) doesn't seem to
> work. I'd like to be able to read a nice human-readable version to
> clear up some questions I have.
>
>> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/L

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[Peteris Krisjanis]

What can I do I agree to relicense my stuff under ODbL, but I can't
agree with CT Section 3? I hoped LWG will think about removing it, but
it seems that relicensing is already started without investigating
complain about section 3.

Cheers,
Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[Matt Williams]

On 12 August 2010 11:18, Peteris Krisjanis  wrote:
> What can I do I agree to relicense my stuff under ODbL, but I can't
> agree with CT Section 3? I hoped LWG will think about removing it, but
> it seems that relicensing is already started without investigating
> complain about section 3.

I assume you're worried about the the potential license
incompatibility caused _if_ the OSMF (along with a 2/3 majority of
contributors) decided to change the license to a non-SA license when
your data (perhaps from imports) has an SA requirement? If so then I
guess that it simply means that since there is an incompatibility then
the non-SA license cannot be used (i.e. it _can't/won't_ be voted in)
or the incompatible data will be removed.

No-one is going to violate any licenses (if that's what the supplies
of the imported data are worried about) since legally we _can't_. That
clause is simply there so that we have flexibility in the future to
re-license without so much of a hoo-ha as this time :)

-- 
Matt Williams
http://milliams.com

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

[Sam Vekemans]

Thanks,
So we have clarified my question. (2 responses on the main talk list
and some IRC chat), but because of the bulk messages, it might have
gotten lost)

It is clear that there are 2 separate questions being asked.

The 1st part is a 'yes i agree' only answer  ... which is fine.   In
order to keep working on OSM, it's what has to be done.  ('accept' or
'decline', where 'decline' would ask the question again)

The 2nd is a choice of preference with a check box.   So it's is
wonderful that im given a choice on weather or no to check that box
(thank you).   So my question is weather or not, at a later date,  I
can change my choice (based on new information which would want me to
change my mind).?

Hopefully, the answer is yes.  I can change my choice at a later date.
  Although the preference is still not binding, the choice can be
changed, as it is a 'preference', and therefore, should not not be
part of the contributor terms page.   As the Contributor terms is the
single document that everyone needs to agree to.

And here's the specific recommendation.

Remove (or copy) the question, and place it in the user preferences.

In the user preferences, currently it states.

Preferred Languages:en-US,en   (was my choice)
Public editing:  Enabled. Not anonymous and can edit data. (what is 
this?)
Contributor Terms:  You have not yet agreed to the new Contributor 
Terms.(link)

Having the 2nd and 3rd line switched with the change to

Preferred Languages:en-US,en   (was my choice)
Contributor Terms:  Thank you.  You have agreed to the Contributor 
Terms.(link)
License preference for user contributions : (note: checking the
PD box is only a declaration and will not really allow anybody to use
parts of the OSM database as PD)
A - ODBL - (Open Database License - as currently in place)
B - CC-BY  - whatever that is.
C - PD - Public domain (could apply only to original/non modified
edits or other PD edits in a complete PD database)
D - Unsure of License Preference
E - Other license: user defined:   (where the user can type in
the preference)

This way, it will both help the foundation with receiving a constant
survey of what the contributors would 'prefer' if given the choice at
a later date, as well as help the contributor in knowing that the
foundation is aware of what their preference is, as well as help other
users know what preferences others made.

Obviously, the actual choices could be simplified to just moving the
statement into this preference section as it's already stated.
"In addition to ODbl i declare my contributions Public Domain" (check)

So in sum, I cant agree to the terms, because i need to make that
unrelated decision (which appears to be currently non-changeable)...
where i am unsure if i should change the PD decision at a later date.

 Thanks,
Sam

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[Dave F.]

 On 12/08/2010 09:18, Mike Collinson wrote:
As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License 
Upgrade has arrived. Phase 2...


Am I going blind? I can see no 'decline' button, only 'accept'.

Obviously users can just close the page, but that doesn't give a clear 
representation on how people vote.


Dave F.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

[Richard Fairhurst]

[Apologies for continuing cross-post, please follow-up to OSM legal-talk.]

Sam Vekemans wrote:


So my question is weather or not, at a later date,  I
can change my choice (based on new information which would want me to
change my mind).?


As a general point, if you declare that something is "public domain"  
(say, by a CC0 declaration), you can't reverse it  
_for_that_particular_work_. You have already granted rights for people  
to distribute it without infringing.


You can, of course, declare that your future works will be licensed  
differently.


In the specific case of the OSM database, if you wanted to start doing  
this, you would probably need to establish a per-object licensing  
flag. This would require significant code changes and I assume you're  
not volunteering to do that.


I would suggest therefore that the best way to do that is for you to  
maintain two accounts, one PD and one not. Certainly this is what I  
intend to do, so that I can use the latter for any future substantial  
mapping from attribution-required sources (e.g. OS OpenData). That  
said, substantial mapping if you haven't been there is bad anyway. ;)


cheers
Richard (official OSM PITAFL)


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[Matt Williams]

On 12 August 2010 11:39, Dave F.  wrote:
>  On 12/08/2010 09:18, Mike Collinson wrote:
>>
>> As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License Upgrade
>> has arrived. Phase 2...
>
> Am I going blind? I can see no 'decline' button, only 'accept'.
>
> Obviously users can just close the page, but that doesn't give a clear
> representation on how people vote.

As Mike said, "There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer
yet.  Existing Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who
wish to accept the terms and get on with mapping." Also there is a
discussion of this going on in the "ODbL Vote" thread.

-- 
Matt Williams
http://milliams.com

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begin

[Markus]

On 12 August 2010 11:18, Peteris Krisjanis  wrote:

> What can I do I agree to relicense my stuff under ODbL, but I can't

> agree with CT Section 3? I hoped LWG will think about removing it, but

> it seems that relicensing is already started without investigating

> complain about section 3.

 

I assume you're worried about the the potential license

incompatibility caused _if_ the OSMF (along with a 2/3 majority of

contributors) decided to change the license to a non-SA license when

your data (perhaps from imports) has an SA requirement? If so then I

guess that it simply means that since there is an incompatibility then

the non-SA license cannot be used (i.e. it _can't/won't_ be voted in)

or the incompatible data will be removed.

 

No-one is going to violate any licenses (if that's what the supplies

of the imported data are worried about) since legally we _can't_. That

clause is simply there so that we have flexibility in the future to

re-license without so much of a hoo-ha as this time :)

 

 

Why couldn't this be added to CT Section 3 saying.

 

 

If the OSMF does decide to change the licence, any existing data that may
then not be compatible will need to be removed.

 

Markus_g

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begin

[Matt Williams]

On 12 August 2010 11:58, Markus  wrote:
> On 12 August 2010 11:18, Peteris Krisjanis  wrote:
>
>> What can I do I agree to relicense my stuff under ODbL, but I can't
>
>> agree with CT Section 3? I hoped LWG will think about removing it, but
>
>> it seems that relicensing is already started without investigating
>
>> complain about section 3.
>
>
>
> I assume you're worried about the the potential license
>
> incompatibility caused _if_ the OSMF (along with a 2/3 majority of
>
> contributors) decided to change the license to a non-SA license when
>
> your data (perhaps from imports) has an SA requirement? If so then I
>
> guess that it simply means that since there is an incompatibility then
>
> the non-SA license cannot be used (i.e. it _can't/won't_ be voted in)
>
> or the incompatible data will be removed.
>
>
>
> No-one is going to violate any licenses (if that's what the supplies
>
> of the imported data are worried about) since legally we _can't_. That
>
> clause is simply there so that we have flexibility in the future to
>
> re-license without so much of a hoo-ha as this time :)
>
>
>
>
>
> Why couldn’t this be added to CT Section 3 saying.
>
> If the OSMF does decide to change the licence, any existing data that may
> then not be compatible will need to be removed.

Perhaps you're right. However, I would recommend that if you have any
suggestions of improvements to the CTs then you bring them up on
legal-t...@osm.org or contact the LWG (whichever is best for them).

-- 
Matt Williams
http://milliams.com

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

[Sam Vekemans]

Thread closed:

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> [Apologies for continuing cross-post, please follow-up to OSM legal-talk.]
>
> Sam Vekemans wrote:
>
>> So my question is weather or not, at a later date,  I
>> can change my choice (based on new information which would want me to
>> change my mind).?
>
> As a general point, if you declare that something is "public domain" (say,
> by a CC0 declaration), you can't reverse it _for_that_particular_work_. You
> have already granted rights for people to distribute it without infringing.
>
> You can, of course, declare that your future works will be licensed
> differently.
>
> In the specific case of the OSM database, if you wanted to start doing this,
> you would probably need to establish a per-object licensing flag. This would
> require significant code changes and I assume you're not volunteering to do
> that.
>
> I would suggest therefore that the best way to do that is for you to
> maintain two accounts, one PD and one not. Certainly this is what I intend
> to do, so that I can use the latter for any future substantial mapping from
> attribution-required sources (e.g. OS OpenData). That said, substantial
> mapping if you haven't been there is bad anyway. ;)
>
> cheers
> Richard (official OSM PITAFL)
>
>

Thanks, I have 2 accounts and can easily make the preference clear in
my user profile description.

So this solves the issue,

Thanks,
Sam

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[David Groom]

To all contributors.

I'm sorry to have to urge you to not agree to the CT terms, but please 
consider the points below.  Please note that this is not a question of 
whether ODBL is the right way to proceed, but is merely comments on the 
current contributor terms which you are being asked to agree to.


1)   The last sentence of clause (1) of the contributor terms requires YOU 
to have EXPLICIT permission from the rights holder.  Please consider if you 
have this EXPLICIT permission, if you do not have it then  you CAN NOT agree 
to the contributor terms


2) There is a large amount of contributors who have traced imagery from 
sources such as Yahoo, NearMap, or who have used data sources which requires 
CC-BY-SA  .  If you have used any of these sources , and you have not had 
express permission from the rights holder to re-licence under the current 
terms of the Contributor Terms, then you CAN NOT agree to the contributor 
terms


Regards

David Groom

- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Collinson" 

To: "OpenStreetMap Talk" 
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 9:18 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins


As promised, and long awaited, the next phase of the OSM License Upgrade 
has arrived. Phase 2 - Existing Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing  [1] 
has begun, and you may indicate your acceptance of the new Contributor 
Terms for your existing OSM API account.  To accept the terms visit 
http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms, (you may be asked to login first), 
or your user settings page.


Please note that OpenStreetMap is not changing the license on any 
published data at this point.  Existing contributors are being asked to 
permit re-licensing of their data in the future when it makes sense to do 
so.


There is no decline button, and no obligation to answer yet.  Existing 
Contributor Voluntary Re-licensing is for those who wish to accept the 
terms and get on with mapping.


We'll be publishing which users have accepted so that we can all see the 
progress in terms of users and re-licensed data.


We hope that you will accept the new Contributor Terms [2] and ODbL for 
each of your user accounts if you have more than one.




** Why are we doing it like this? **


What ifs, what ifs. The key is clearly to reduce these. Those that simply 
want to get on mapping and accept that we won't doing anything daft, can 
sign up.Those that are worried about data loss and that the OSMF will 
make a stupid decision,  can wait and see.  We'll show how much of the 
database is potentially covered by the ODbL. We've got some help on 
modelling that, and we'll aim for at least a weekly update if not daily. 
We'll also make all the data available needed to calculate that, so if 
you want to try a different metric or just see what is happening in your 
local area, everything will be transparent.


If you support the share-alike concept, I urge you to accept the new 
Contributor Terms which provides for a coherent Attribution, Share-Alike 
license written especially for databases.  If you are a Public Domain 
license supporter, we are divided as a community on which is best and I 
do urge you to give this one a good try.  The Contributor Terms are 
expressly written to allow us to come back in future years and see what 
is best without all this fuss about procedure.  And if you'd just really 
like all this hoo-haa to go away and get back to mapping, well, please 
say yes.




** Some supporting notes:  **


() The key thing is that there are about 12,500 contributors who have 
contributed over 98% of the pre-May data.


() I personally really, really want to get a coherent license in place so 
that my mapping efforts are more widely used. I also really, really don't 
want us as a community to shoot ourselves in the head and divide.  I 
pledge to continue working with *both* objectives in mind.


() The License Working Group will not recommend switching over the 
license if data loss is unreasonable [3]. We will issue a formal 
statement to that effect and are attempting to define better what 
"unreasonable" means. A totally quantitative criteria is extremely 
difficult to define ahead of actually seeing what specific problems may 
arise. But I understand the concern that we are tempted to do something 
wild.


() The License Working Group will ask the OSMF board to issue a similar 
statement.


() We are working to create a process whereby we can model on a regular 
basis how much of the OSM database is covered by ODbL and how much not. 
We will make all the data needed to do that public so that anyone can 
analyse using their own metrics. Work on this is active and being 
discussed on the dev mailing list. You will need:


- An ordinary planet dump.
- Access to history data. A public 18GB "history dump" is available 
http://planet.openstreetmap.org/full-experimental/full-planet-100801.osm.bz2. 
The intent is to make this available on a regular basis with difffs. A 
full re-generation takes severa

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[Brian Quinion]

>> I really want to be able to click 'Agree' and 'make it PD' but section
>> 1 worries me as it states that I "agree to only add Contents for which
>> [I am] the copyright holder". This seems to preclude me being able to
>> add any data I've imported from an outside source (like tracing from
>> OS Street View) since, while the license is compatible (given OS
>> attribution), I am not the copyright holder. Am I just
>> misunderstanding the legal talk in the CTs or is this sort of
>> importing currently unacceptable under the CTs?
>
> Never mind. It appears that I somehow managed to miss the bit that
> said "If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents, You
> represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the
> rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below."

Could you point to the document from OS that gives "explicit
permission"?  I would love to find such a document.

As far as I'm concerned at the moment:

I am not the copyright holder.
I do not have explicit permission (implicit permission is not the same)

So I can't sign up - and I don't think legally you were able to either :(

There is some possibility that traces are deriving data from OS
StreetView do not contain any copyrightable elements, again I'm
waiting for a written document confirming this from either OSMF (which
would accept any future liability if it turned out to be wrong) or
from the OS.

> No-one is going to violate any licenses (if that's what the supplies
> of the imported data are worried about) since legally we _can't_. That
> clause is simply there so that we have flexibility in the future to
> re-license without so much of a hoo-ha as this time :)

There is no restriction in the CT (that I can see) in terms of them
not being able to switch to a PD license.  And my reading is that as a
result of signing up to the terms you have effectually indemnified
OSMF against any consequences and agreed that you are liable if they
do.

I would be VERY happy to be wrong about any of this.
--
 Brian

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

[MP]

>  In the specific case of the OSM database, if you wanted to start doing
> this, you would probably need to establish a per-object licensing flag. This
> would require significant code changes and I assume you're not volunteering
> to do that.

We can assume that user won't change his/her mind too often, so for
each user we need just maintain a list like:

edits from 1. 1. 2004 to 10. 12. 2008 are PD
edits from 10.12.2008 to 7. 11. 2009 are only Odbl
edits from 7. 11. 2009 to now are PD

... we get few lines in DB for this variable licensing, and not
license tag for each of user's object in database (which could be
thousands, perhaps even millions of edited primitives for very active
users)

... it is then problem of whoever wants to extract PD subset from the
data to parse this information and extract really only the PD data ...

Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

[John Smith]

On 12 August 2010 21:06, Sam Vekemans  wrote:
> Thanks, I have 2 accounts and can easily make the preference clear in
> my user profile description.

Will there be a process to transfer "ownership" of a changeset between
accounts if data is submitted under the wrong account?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] ODBL vote (was Re: Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people)

[John Smith]

On 12 August 2010 21:52, MP  wrote:
>>  In the specific case of the OSM database, if you wanted to start doing
>> this, you would probably need to establish a per-object licensing flag. This
>> would require significant code changes and I assume you're not volunteering
>> to do that.
>
> We can assume that user won't change his/her mind too often, so for
> each user we need just maintain a list like:
>
> edits from 1. 1. 2004 to 10. 12. 2008 are PD
> edits from 10.12.2008 to 7. 11. 2009 are only Odbl
> edits from 7. 11. 2009 to now are PD

Wouldn't it be better to just add a single tag about license to the
changeset only if it differs from the users default setting?

That way people wouldn't need to change back and forth for a single
changeset every now and then.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] Deletion of Australian data

[Liz]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Nick Hocking wrote:
> It seems as though if someone ran a bot to add just one tag to most of the
> streets in (say) Canberra


On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Grant Slater wrote:
> There is also a plan of action if people are found to be making these
> sorts of abusive edits.

I can immediately think of an edit which could fall into the above category, 
and it would not be classified as "abusive" because it did add additional 
information to the tags.

so why is such an edit assumed to be "abusive"
when there are clear calls for "assuming that people act in good faith"?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

[Julio Costa Zambelli]

Peter,

Do you know what will happen if I do not agree with the CT permanently?

Cheers,

Julio Costa

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Peter Körner  wrote:
> Am 12.08.2010 10:18, schrieb Martin Fossdal Guttesen:
>>
>> i followed  the link under my settings
>>
>> i can’t find either a “Accept” or “Decline” button, just a “Agree” button
>>
>> what to do ?
>
> Leave it unchecked, close the browser page or go one page back.
>
> Peter
>
> ___
> 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-legal-talk] OSM-legal-talk] Contributo terms (was : decision removing data:

[Tom Hughes]

On 12/08/10 13:58, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:


PS: I'd be interested to know if the current CTs have had any legal
review from OSMF's lawyers...


Who do you think wrote them?!? Normal humans don't write like that!

Tom

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

[Frederik Ramm]

Julio,

Julio Costa Zambelli wrote:

Do you know what will happen if I do not agree with the CT permanently?


In the long run there will be generally no room in OSM for data which 
has not been added under CT.


It is possible for OSMF to make exceptions for individual cases, e.g. if 
you have used your account to import a lot of data which comes under a 
license that is ODbL compatible but not CT compatible then it is 
possible that OSMF makes a special deal with you.


OSMF will be interested in keeping the number of such "special deals" 
low for two reasons:


1. Every one creates a lot of work to negotiate and set up.

2. Data which is in OSM based on such "deals" is a liability if OSMF 
ever wanted to do another license change. If that happens, data under 
such "deals" would have to be individually re-negotiated, again causing 
a lot of work, and there would be a potential data loss in the future.


I'm not saying it can't be done; I am pretty sure it will be done for 2 
or 3 or 10 cases worldwide.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[Tom Hughes]

On 12/08/10 12:51, Brian Quinion wrote:


Could you point to the document from OS that gives "explicit
permission"?  I would love to find such a document.


It's here:


http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf

Unfortunately it does not, as far as I can see, allow anybody who has 
used, or plans to use, OS OpenData to sign the CTs as things stand 
because it requires:


> You must:
>
> *  acknowledge the copyright and the source of the Data by including any
>attribution statement specified by the Data Provider. If no specific
>statement is provided please use the following:
>
>Contains [insert name of Data Provider] data © Crown copyright and
>database right
>
> *  include the same acknowledgment requirement in any sub-licences of 
the Data
>that you grant, and a requirement that any further sub-licences do 
the same;


Which is clearly in conflict with the CTs which require you to grant 
OSMF a license to sublicense any data you upload under a license of 
their choosing subject only to a constraint that the license they choose 
is "open and free" which clearly does not restrict their choice to 
licenses that would pass on the attribution requirement.


Tom

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[Brian Quinion]

On 12 August 2010 14:37, Tom Hughes  wrote:
> On 12/08/10 12:51, Brian Quinion wrote:
>
>> Could you point to the document from OS that gives "explicit
>> permission"?  I would love to find such a document.
>
> It's here:
>
> http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf
>
> Unfortunately it does not, as far as I can see, allow anybody who has used,
> or plans to use, OS OpenData to sign the CTs as things stand because it
> requires:
>
>> You must:
>>
>> *  acknowledge the copyright and the source of the Data by including any
>>    attribution statement specified by the Data Provider. If no specific
>>    statement is provided please use the following:
>>
>>    Contains [insert name of Data Provider] data Š Crown copyright and
>>    database right
>>
>> *  include the same acknowledgment requirement in any sub-licences of the
>> Data
>>    that you grant, and a requirement that any further sub-licences do the
>> same;
>
> Which is clearly in conflict with the CTs which require you to grant OSMF a
> license to sublicense any data you upload under a license of their choosing
> subject only to a constraint that the license they choose is "open and free"
> which clearly does not restrict their choice to licenses that would pass on
> the attribution requirement.

Yes this was exactly the issue I was referring to, the compatibility
between the OS OpenData License and the Contributor Terms.

Thanks for clarify this rather better than I did!

Cheers,
--
 Brian

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[Richard Fairhurst]

Tom Hughes wrote:
> Which is clearly in conflict with the CTs which require you to 
> grant OSMF a license to sublicense any data you upload under 
> a license of their choosing subject only to a constraint that 
> the license they choose is "open and free" which clearly does 
> not restrict their choice to licenses that would pass on the 
> attribution requirement.

Indeed.

New BDFL guidelines prevent me from restating what I've said before, i.e.
that this would be fixed by replacing the "unlimited licence upgrade" clause
(3) with a "CC-BY-SA or ODbL only" clause. So I won't. :)

I understand from LWG minutes that LWG has unfortunately chosen not to take
this suggestion up.

However, it is still open to LWG to qualify "free and open" with "with an
attribution requirement" (perhaps subject to such attribution requirement
being approved by OSMF on a case-by-case basis). It's been suggested that
LWG is considering this, although it hasn't made it into the minutes.

Mike, could you:

- clarify whether or not LWG is considering this;
- and consider this e-mail as a request to add such a qualification, as
quickly as possible.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Voluntary-re-licensing-begins-tp5415293p5416193.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

[Julio Costa Zambelli]

Thank you Frederik.

That is our exact case. All of the suburban highways data was imported
with two personal accounts (long time ago, with no knowledge of the
best practices for those kind of processes).

Do you know who will be managing this inside the Foundation?

Best Regards,

Julio Costa

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Julio,
>
> Julio Costa Zambelli wrote:
>>
>> Do you know what will happen if I do not agree with the CT permanently?
>
> In the long run there will be generally no room in OSM for data which has
> not been added under CT.
>
> It is possible for OSMF to make exceptions for individual cases, e.g. if you
> have used your account to import a lot of data which comes under a license
> that is ODbL compatible but not CT compatible then it is possible that OSMF
> makes a special deal with you.
>
> OSMF will be interested in keeping the number of such "special deals" low
> for two reasons:
>
> 1. Every one creates a lot of work to negotiate and set up.
>
> 2. Data which is in OSM based on such "deals" is a liability if OSMF ever
> wanted to do another license change. If that happens, data under such
> "deals" would have to be individually re-negotiated, again causing a lot of
> work, and there would be a potential data loss in the future.
>
> I'm not saying it can't be done; I am pretty sure it will be done for 2 or 3
> or 10 cases worldwide.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL & Moderation

[Nathan Edgars II]

Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
> 
> How data in my village disappeared ?
> We've used totally legal sources compatible with OSM.
> I'm one of the most quantity data "creator" (in my town) and i realesed
> all my adds/modification as PD...
> 
If any of the other people who mapped your village don't agree to the terms,
their data will disappear. That includes any data of theirs that you
modified.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/BDFL-Moderation-tp5413369p5416449.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

[OSM-talk] Replication stopped

[Toby Murray]

I was just trying to figure out why a lake I traced last night hadn't
been rendered yet. After double checking tagging, relationing, etc I
finally looked at munin[1] and noticed that yevaud stopped getting
diffs almost 10 hours ago. Also, looking at the OWL status page[2], it
isn't getting diffs either. I don't see any notices on the platform
status wiki page. Anyone know what's up (or down...)?

[1] 
http://munin.openstreetmap.org/openstreetmap/yevaud.openstreetmap/replication_delay2.html
[2] http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/owl_viewer/

Toby

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Replication stopped

[Shalabh]

Not sure whats wrong but a couple of streams I mapped 4-5 hours ago
are not rendering as yet.

Shalabh

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Toby Murray  wrote:
> I was just trying to figure out why a lake I traced last night hadn't
> been rendered yet. After double checking tagging, relationing, etc I
> finally looked at munin[1] and noticed that yevaud stopped getting
> diffs almost 10 hours ago. Also, looking at the OWL status page[2], it
> isn't getting diffs either. I don't see any notices on the platform
> status wiki page. Anyone know what's up (or down...)?
>
> [1] 
> http://munin.openstreetmap.org/openstreetmap/yevaud.openstreetmap/replication_delay2.html
> [2] http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/owl_viewer/
>
> Toby
>
> ___
> 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] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[Cartinus]

On Thursday 12 August 2010 13:45:49 David Groom wrote:
> 1)   The last sentence of clause (1) of the contributor terms requires YOU
> to have EXPLICIT permission from the rights holder.  Please consider if you
> have this EXPLICIT permission, if you do not have it then  you CAN NOT
> agree to the contributor terms
>
> 2) There is a large amount of contributors who have traced imagery from
> sources such as Yahoo

Yahoo aerial imagery is supplied under some terms (sorry too lazy to look them 
up right now). Sometime in the past someone(s) from within the OSM project 
asked them if tracing from those images to make a map was possible within 
those terms. They answered: Yes, this is possible.

Now can somebody explain to me why this would not be explicit permission?

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

P.S. English is not my native language and legal English, legal German, etc is 
like Chinese to me.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Replication stopped

[Grant Slater]

On 12 August 2010 17:29, Toby Murray  wrote:
> I was just trying to figure out why a lake I traced last night hadn't
> been rendered yet. After double checking tagging, relationing, etc I
> finally looked at munin[1] and noticed that yevaud stopped getting
> diffs almost 10 hours ago. Also, looking at the OWL status page[2], it
> isn't getting diffs either. I don't see any notices on the platform
> status wiki page. Anyone know what's up (or down...)?
>

Yevaud (tile.openstreetmap.org) problem has now been fixed and should
start catching up. OWL should start shortly too.

There were networking problem around 8:45am (BST) with planet.osm.org,
this seems to have cause "osmosis --read-replication-interval" to
lock.

Regards
 Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Replication stopped

[Toby Murray]

Yes, nothing mapped within the last 10 hours has been rendered.
Although the munin graph just started taking a nosedive so someone
must have kicked something just now. I'm guessing it will take an hour
or two more for everything to catch up though.

Toby


On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Shalabh  wrote:
> Not sure whats wrong but a couple of streams I mapped 4-5 hours ago
> are not rendering as yet.
>
> Shalabh
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Toby Murray  wrote:
>> I was just trying to figure out why a lake I traced last night hadn't
>> been rendered yet. After double checking tagging, relationing, etc I
>> finally looked at munin[1] and noticed that yevaud stopped getting
>> diffs almost 10 hours ago. Also, looking at the OWL status page[2], it
>> isn't getting diffs either. I don't see any notices on the platform
>> status wiki page. Anyone know what's up (or down...)?
>>
>> [1] 
>> http://munin.openstreetmap.org/openstreetmap/yevaud.openstreetmap/replication_delay2.html
>> [2] http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/owl_viewer/
>>
>> Toby
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Replication stopped

[Toby Murray]

Yay! My lake is in the process of being rendered right now. Thanks for
greasing the gears!

Toby

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Grant Slater
 wrote:
> On 12 August 2010 17:29, Toby Murray  wrote:
>> I was just trying to figure out why a lake I traced last night hadn't
>> been rendered yet. After double checking tagging, relationing, etc I
>> finally looked at munin[1] and noticed that yevaud stopped getting
>> diffs almost 10 hours ago. Also, looking at the OWL status page[2], it
>> isn't getting diffs either. I don't see any notices on the platform
>> status wiki page. Anyone know what's up (or down...)?
>>
>
> Yevaud (tile.openstreetmap.org) problem has now been fixed and should
> start catching up. OWL should start shortly too.
>
> There were networking problem around 8:45am (BST) with planet.osm.org,
> this seems to have cause "osmosis --read-replication-interval" to
> lock.
>
> Regards
>  Grant
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Replication stopped

[Shalabh]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Toby Murray  wrote:
> Yay! My lake is in the process of being rendered right now. Thanks for
> greasing the gears!
>
> Toby

Lucky you, I cant see the fruit of my labours yet. Patience is the
greatest virtue!

Shalabh

>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Grant Slater
>  wrote:
>> On 12 August 2010 17:29, Toby Murray  wrote:
>>> I was just trying to figure out why a lake I traced last night hadn't
>>> been rendered yet. After double checking tagging, relationing, etc I
>>> finally looked at munin[1] and noticed that yevaud stopped getting
>>> diffs almost 10 hours ago. Also, looking at the OWL status page[2], it
>>> isn't getting diffs either. I don't see any notices on the platform
>>> status wiki page. Anyone know what's up (or down...)?
>>>
>>
>> Yevaud (tile.openstreetmap.org) problem has now been fixed and should
>> start catching up. OWL should start shortly too.
>>
>> There were networking problem around 8:45am (BST) with planet.osm.org,
>> this seems to have cause "osmosis --read-replication-interval" to
>> lock.
>>
>> Regards
>>  Grant
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[Pierre-Alain Dorange]

Cartinus  wrote:

> Yahoo aerial imagery is supplied under some terms (sorry too lazy to look them
> up right now). Sometime in the past someone(s) from within the OSM project
> asked them if tracing from those images to make a map was possible within
> those terms. They answered: Yes, this is possible.
> 
> Now can somebody explain to me why this would not be explicit permission?

I think you could find your answer on the wiki :


Here, in France, one of the admin office that handle "cadastre" give
OSM-Fr the right to use they map layer the same way and it's legal and
got an explicit permission too :

(sorry, only in french)

-- 
Pierre-Alain Dorange


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

[80n]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Julio,
>
>
> Julio Costa Zambelli wrote:
>
>> Do you know what will happen if I do not agree with the CT permanently?
>>
>
> In the long run there will be generally no room in OSM for data which has
> not been added under CT.
>
> This is not true.

The decision has not yet been made.  If the uptake of CT is sufficient, only
then will there be a switch to ODbL.  The outcome in the long run is unknown
at the moment.

That said, the strategy adopted by OSFM is one that is calculated to load
the bases in favour of enabling them to switch to ODbL eventually.  They do
not intend to ask the whole community to vote on whether there should be a
switch.  This is a sign of their attitude towards the community they
control.

80n





> It is possible for OSMF to make exceptions for individual cases, e.g. if
> you have used your account to import a lot of data which comes under a
> license that is ODbL compatible but not CT compatible then it is possible
> that OSMF makes a special deal with you.
>
> OSMF will be interested in keeping the number of such "special deals" low
> for two reasons:
>
> 1. Every one creates a lot of work to negotiate and set up.
>
> 2. Data which is in OSM based on such "deals" is a liability if OSMF ever
> wanted to do another license change. If that happens, data under such
> "deals" would have to be individually re-negotiated, again causing a lot of
> work, and there would be a potential data loss in the future.
>
> I'm not saying it can't be done; I am pretty sure it will be done for 2 or
> 3 or 10 cases worldwide.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
>
> ___
> 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] Contributor Terms

[Pierre-Alain Dorange]

80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [...]
> That said, the strategy adopted by OSFM is one that is calculated to load
> the bases in favour of enabling them to switch to ODbL eventually.  They do
> not intend to ask the whole community to vote on whether there should be a
> switch.  This is a sign of their attitude towards the community they
> control.

Seriously, you believe in that ?
What is the plan ? Why such an evil plan ? What is the conspiracy ?
They want to control the world ?

-- 
Pierre-Alain Dorange


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Milo van der Linden]

Please, if there's anything that you don't like, just ignore it, take your
> GPS & go for walk/ride/journey.
>
> It really is that simple.
>
> Dave F.
>
>
> +1
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

[Liz]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
> > [...]
> > That said, the strategy adopted by OSFM is one that is calculated to load
> > the bases in favour of enabling them to switch to ODbL eventually.  They
> > do not intend to ask the whole community to vote on whether there should
> > be a switch.  This is a sign of their attitude towards the community
> > they control.
> 
> Seriously, you believe in that ?
> What is the plan ? Why such an evil plan ? What is the conspiracy ?
> They want to control the world ?

Think carefully
80n has been on 'the inside' and listened to discussion, been party to 
discussion.
If such a person has made a statement their knowledge of the matter(s) must be 
greater than yours or mine.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

[Pierre-Alain Dorange]

Liz  wrote:

> > > That said, the strategy adopted by OSFM is one that is calculated to load
> > > the bases in favour of enabling them to switch to ODbL eventually.  They
> > > do not intend to ask the whole community to vote on whether there should
> > > be a switch.  This is a sign of their attitude towards the community
> > > they control.
> > 
> > Seriously, you believe in that ?
> > What is the plan ? Why such an evil plan ? What is the conspiracy ?
> > They want to control the world ?
> 
> Think carefully
> 80n has been on 'the inside' and listened to discussion, been party to
> discussion.
> If such a person has made a statement their knowledge of the matter(s) must be
> greater than yours or mine.

Perhaps, and i'm all new on this discussion list (i'm french and used
french list).
I've heard of consparacy theory (related to the new licence) and what
80n states, looks like conspiracy to me.
Is there any clue ? Any relevant information that can precise this
assumption ? 
Because even if 80n (is it a real name ?) came from the 'inside' it do
not prove anything more than what i said.

Of course i may be wrong and perhaps OSFM are completly evil and want
to... to what ? That is my question.

-- 
Pierre-Alain Dorange


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Contributor Terms

[Ulf Lamping]

Am 12.08.2010 22:17, schrieb Pierre-Alain Dorange:

80n<80n...@gmail.com>  wrote:


[...]
That said, the strategy adopted by OSFM is one that is calculated to load
the bases in favour of enabling them to switch to ODbL eventually.  They do
not intend to ask the whole community to vote on whether there should be a
switch.  This is a sign of their attitude towards the community they
control.


Seriously, you believe in that ?
What is the plan ? Why such an evil plan ? What is the conspiracy ?
They want to control the world ?


An attitude to control someone does not need to have an evil plan. It's 
often done with the very best intentions.


Parents are doing it regularly while educating their children. Problem 
here: That doesn't necessarily mean they are doing it well ...


Regards, ULFL

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Cartinus" 

To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins



On Thursday 12 August 2010 13:45:49 David Groom wrote:

1) The last sentence of clause (1) of the contributor terms requires YOU
to have EXPLICIT permission from the rights holder. Please consider if 
you

have this EXPLICIT permission, if you do not have it then you CAN NOT
agree to the contributor terms

2) There is a large amount of contributors who have traced imagery from
sources such as Yahoo


Yahoo aerial imagery is supplied under some terms (sorry too lazy to look 
them

up right now). Sometime in the past someone(s) from within the OSM project
asked them if tracing from those images to make a map was possible within
those terms. They answered: Yes, this is possible.

Now can somebody explain to me why this would not be explicit permission?



Firstly,  as you say "sometime in the past".  So Yahoo gave permission when 
the project has a CC-BY-SA licence.  The contributor terms allow the 
switching of the licence to a non-CC-BY-SA licence.  So how can I possibly 
say that on the basis of an agreement made some time ago Yahoo now agree to 
contributors agreeing to the CT terms.


Secondly, the real point I was making was that the CT terms state "... You 
represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the rights 
holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below ...".  And I 
simply do not have explicit permission.  I don't have explicit permission 
because:


a) The permission was not made to me, but to a more general body of people; 
so the permission I have is IMPLICIT.
b) Ignoring the Yahoo data, but taking any data that may have had a PD or 
CC-BY-SA clause that has be used in import, since these are general 
permissions given and they do not explicitly mention granting rights to use 
in OSM, I cant possible agree that I have EXPLICIT permission to use them. 
I have permission by virtue of they are PD or CC-BY-SA, but not EXPLICIT 
permission to do so.


David






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

Re: [OSM-talk] Replication stopped

[Stephan Knauss]

Grant Slater wrote:

There were networking problem around 8:45am (BST) with planet.osm.org,
this seems to have cause "osmosis --read-replication-interval" to
lock.


My replication script got also stuck. I wish someone could implement a 
timeout so after receiving no data for a certain time it returns with an 
error.


To my understanding the download is done in BaseReplicationDownloader 
using a InputStream.

Is it correct that an input stream can not be interrupted?

So it might be better rewritten to a way it can be interrupted. I never 
worked with java.nio.channels, but the description sounds like this is 
what's needed there.



Stephan

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[Simon Biber]

On 13/08/2010, at 8:17, "David Groom"  wrote:
> 
>> 
> Firstly,  as you say "sometime in the past".  So Yahoo gave permission when 
> the project has a CC-BY-SA licence.  The contributor terms allow the 
> switching of the licence to a non-CC-BY-SA licence.  So how can I possibly 
> say that on the basis of an agreement made some time ago Yahoo now agree to 
> contributors agreeing to the CT terms.

Yahoo disclaimed copyright in information that is derived from their aerial 
photography. So, this "permission" is not limited to any particular license.

> Secondly, the real point I was making was that the CT terms state "... You 
> represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the rights 
> holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below ...".  And I simply 
> do not have explicit permission.  I don't have explicit permission because:
> 
> a) The permission was not made to me, but to a more general body of people; 
> so the permission I have is IMPLICIT.

That is not the correct meaning of "explicit". Explicit means "expressed", by 
means of a statement, whether verbally or in writing. As opposed to implicit, 
which means assumed in the absence of a statement.

If the rights holder makes a statement that permission is granted to "any 
person", then it _is_ explicit permission for you, since you are a member of 
the set "any person".

Explicit does not mean specific.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Simon Biber" 

To: "David Groom" 
Cc: 
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins



On 13/08/2010, at 8:17, "David Groom"  wrote:




Firstly,  as you say "sometime in the past".  So Yahoo gave permission 
when the project has a CC-BY-SA licence.  The contributor terms allow the 
switching of the licence to a non-CC-BY-SA licence.  So how can I 
possibly say that on the basis of an agreement made some time ago Yahoo 
now agree to contributors agreeing to the CT terms.


Yahoo disclaimed copyright in information that is derived from their 
aerial photography. So, this "permission" is not limited to any particular 
license.



From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yahoo


"The agreement allows us to derive our vector-based map data from the aerial 
photos owned by Yahoo! and to release these derived works with our open 
content license " - and that licence is currently CC-BY-SA.


and from later in that page  "We don't have a written agreement explaining 
exactly what is permitted. It seems to be more a case of agreeing an 
interpretation of their Terms of Use. "


So if there is some documentation which shows that Yahoo agrees to users 
tracing data which is subject to the CT terms then please could someone put 
a reference to it on the wiki, this would be quite helpful in allevaiting 
some of my concerns





Secondly, the real point I was making was that the CT terms state "... 
You represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the 
rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below ...". 
And I simply do not have explicit permission.  I don't have explicit 
permission because:


a) The permission was not made to me, but to a more general body of 
people; so the permission I have is IMPLICIT.


That is not the correct meaning of "explicit". Explicit means "expressed",


Not just "expressed", but "precisely and clearly expressed"  [1]


by means of a statement, whether verbally or in writing. As opposed to 
implicit, which means assumed in the absence of a statement.


If the rights holder makes a statement that permission is granted to "any 
person", then it _is_ explicit permission for you, since you are a member 
of the set "any person".


Explicit does not mean specific.




139 Moby Thesaurus words for "explicit": .specific .[2]


David

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=explicit
[2] http://www.dictionary.net/explicit 






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

Re: [OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins

[Steve Bennett]

Hi,
  I'll be brief:

1) License change good. Me happy with license change.
2) Check box ("In addition to the above agreement, I consider my
contributions to be in the Public Domain") bad. Easy to tick without
reading. Looks like standard "I have read, I agree".

Steve

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

[OSM-talk] OpenCycleMap updating?

[Steve Bennett]

Hi all,
  Wondering if anyone knows the current status of OpenCycleMap tile
generation. Any idea when I could expect an update in my neck of the
woods (Melbourne, Australia)?

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenCycleMap updating?

[Adam Killian]

On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 11:47 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hi all,
>   Wondering if anyone knows the current status of OpenCycleMap tile
> generation. Any idea when I could expect an update in my neck of the
> woods (Melbourne, Australia)?
> 
> Steve


Andy tweeted yesterday that his new server just started generating
tiles, so I would think they'd start showing up soon.

http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23opencyclemap


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenCycleMap updating?

[Steve Bennett]

Great, I'll keep an eye out.

Steve

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Adam Killian  wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 11:47 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>   Wondering if anyone knows the current status of OpenCycleMap tile
>> generation. Any idea when I could expect an update in my neck of the
>> woods (Melbourne, Australia)?
>>
>> Steve
>
>
> Andy tweeted yesterday that his new server just started generating
> tiles, so I would think they'd start showing up soon.
>
> http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23opencyclemap
>
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Steve Bennett]

Great post, and excellent honeytrap: all the poisonous people flocked
immediately to this thread and started debating it furiously.

Some points:
- verbosity/spamminess *is* disruptive. It takes a lot of time to
read, and invariably someone will respond, causing more posts. Worse,
it causes sensible people to tune out entirely, meaning threads
consist of little more than spammy bastards rehashing old arguments.
"If you don't like it, don't read it" is not a solution.
- Let's not tar all Australians with the same brush. Some of us are
supportive of the license changes, and pulling our heads in and just
mapping quietly.
- A moderator for the key mailing lists would be a very sensible step.
I have volunteered in the past. No one should have the right to post
whatever and as much as they like with no accountability.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Nathan Edgars II]

Steve Bennett-3 wrote:
> 
> - Let's not tar all Australians with the same brush. Some of us are
> supportive of the license changes, and pulling our heads in and just
> mapping quietly.
> 

I love the implication here that you're 'poisonous' if you don't support the
license changes (and vice versa).
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Enough-is-enough-disinfecting-OSM-from-poisonous-people-tp5393767p5418977.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Steve Bennett]

That wasn't my intention. To be clearer:
* Some of us are supportive of the license changes,
* some of us pull our heads in and just map quietly.

Now, I will go back to doing just that.

Steve

(apologies to talk-au for the mispost)

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>
>
> Steve Bennett-3 wrote:
>>
>> - Let's not tar all Australians with the same brush. Some of us are
>> supportive of the license changes, and pulling our heads in and just
>> mapping quietly.
>>
>
> I love the implication here that you're 'poisonous' if you don't support the
> license changes (and vice versa).
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Enough-is-enough-disinfecting-OSM-from-poisonous-people-tp5393767p5418977.html
> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

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