Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Russ Nelson]

Mike N writes:
 >Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for 
 > the cases I'm aware of.

The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people
who violate it. We have a license which allows us to do that now. Is
anybody suing the copyright infringers?

No, they are not. They're not even sending demand letters. Has anybody
even BOTHERED to register their copyright (a low-cost and essential
first step for protecting your copyright)? Not that I know of.

Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers
suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license
change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all. Thus, the only question
that people should be pondering is:

   How much damage to the map
   are people willing to accept
in exchange for
  no benefit at all?

People speak of consensus, but there is no consensus, because there
are a number of people who object to the license change (and this is
no secret to anyone). So, can we please stop talking about consensus,
and start talking about ramming the license change down the throats of
people who love the map and aren't willing to walk away from it?

Because clearly, the people who don't care about how badly the map
will be damaged without their contributions, have already left.

Changing the license is butt-stupid. Always has been, always will be.

It's never too late to give up on a butt-stupid idea, and it's never
early enough.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Mike Dupont]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Frederik Ramm 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > David Murn wrote:
> >>
> >> Out of interest Grant, what other large-scale open source projects have
> >> changed their licence the way that OSM has?  In fact, changed their
> >> licence full-stop..?
> >
> > Wikipedia went from GFDL to CC-BY-SA.
>
> Wikipedia went from GFDL to a GFDL/CC-BY-SA dual license - with the
> help of the FSF.
>
> If OSMF wanted to go from CC-BY-SA to a CC-BY-SA/ODbL dual license,
> that would greatly simplify things.
>
>
Yes, that would make great sense, but I would like to see some more expert
opinions, expecially the people who build this entire open source thing to
begin with.
Did anyone ever contact Eben about this new license? The gpl was the basis
for the creative commons, and you are saying it is not good enough, so I
think you should be able to convince him as a lawyer about this.

If this new thing is really needed, then it should be easy to convince the
experts about it.

Here are two points I would like to see :
1. a porting of the new terms to other languages and jurisdictions.
2. a review and blessing of the new contract by the software freedom law
center, the open source institute and the creative commons

There is not even a porting of the new terms and license and contract to
other jurisdictions, or translations.
At least creative commons has tried to port itself to other places

You are asking people to agree to some contract that is not translated into
their language and may not be applicable in their jurisdiction, they might
even be minors, I find this needs to be looked at carefully.

Lets get the  license and contract submitted to  <
license-rev...@opensource.org>,  and to  ,
for even a discussion outside this little circle, even an opinion from
Lawrence *Lessig* or Eben Moglen softwarefreedom.org,  would greatly
interest me.

It should be possible to get bessings from legal experts and license experts
in the world of open source and free software. It should be possible to get
this contract reviewed and approved by OSI as well.

I personally will wait and see what people who I trust and respect have to
say about this topic who are not involved and not partial, some type of
neutral and calm review of the entire situation.

This entire discussion has gotten very emotional and personal, lets get some
neutral third party expert opinions.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:29:29 +0100
Dermot McNally  wrote:

> This licence change now gives every mapper the means of undermining
> the map through withholding of their own data, once freely given and
> now very likely a foundation of data created by other mappers, also in
> good faith. I understand that many mappers feel they _can't_ relicense
> some or all of their work, and that's a really tough situation. But
> mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even
> though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider
> whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part
> of.

Please consider the corollary to this

Why does the ODbL faction not start with a fork of ODbL compliant data?
Why do they need to force a split of the existing CC-by-SA data?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines

[John Smith]

On 16 April 2011 13:43, John Smith  wrote:
> On 16 April 2011 13:25, Richard Welty  wrote:
>> what i'm after are parameters so that the routing engines present
>> rational results to drivers who aren't me. so why don't we focus on
>> the actual problem in front of us instead of posturing about our
>> driving skills.
>
> Well you seemed to have skipped my next comment about describing what
> sort of dirt road they are.
>
> As for describing conditions, you could describe sections of the road
> as being corrugated or potholed etc... That sort of information is
> useful even on tarred roads...
>

I actually wrote a comment to the talk-au list about having accurate
map data, and not just for navigation.

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-April/007874.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines

[John Smith]

On 16 April 2011 13:25, Richard Welty  wrote:
> what i'm after are parameters so that the routing engines present
> rational results to drivers who aren't me. so why don't we focus on
> the actual problem in front of us instead of posturing about our
> driving skills.

Well you seemed to have skipped my next comment about describing what
sort of dirt road they are.

As for describing conditions, you could describe sections of the road
as being corrugated or potholed etc... That sort of information is
useful even on tarred roads...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines

[Richard Welty]

On 4/15/11 11:16 PM, John Smith wrote:

On 16 April 2011 00:36, Richard Welty  wrote:

i ask this because in NY, the default speed limit in rural areas is 55
on all roads. there are numerous unpaved roads (dirt, gravel) which
do not have posted speed limits, but where driving at 55 is not
reasonable unless you're a rally driver and the road is closed.

Pfft, I was taught to drive on gravel roads, and they can be perfectly
safe to drive on at 100km/hr in places, but you have to be familiar
with the stretch of road you're on and drive for the condition etc.


and you know, i have rally & racing experience, and 70 mph on dirt doesn't
scare me, but i'm not every driver and you haven't seen these roads.

what i'm after are parameters so that the routing engines present
rational results to drivers who aren't me. so why don't we focus on
the actual problem in front of us instead of posturing about our
driving skills.

richard


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

Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines

[John Smith]

On 16 April 2011 01:30, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> I suggest you also add source:maxspeed=US:NY:rural or sth. similar to
> the roads with no explicit maxspeed sign.

Well he said 55mph is the default maximum for unsigned roads, wouldn't
it be more useful for routing software to know that, than keep track
of a bunch of strings that may or may not be documented properly.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines

[John Smith]

On 16 April 2011 00:36, Richard Welty  wrote:
> i ask this because in NY, the default speed limit in rural areas is 55
> on all roads. there are numerous unpaved roads (dirt, gravel) which
> do not have posted speed limits, but where driving at 55 is not
> reasonable unless you're a rally driver and the road is closed.

Pfft, I was taught to drive on gravel roads, and they can be perfectly
safe to drive on at 100km/hr in places, but you have to be familiar
with the stretch of road you're on and drive for the condition etc.

> i want to tag these accurately, and am doing so, but i should think
> that the routing engines ought to avoid, when possible, this combination
> or others like it:
>
> highway=unclassified
> name=Mead Road
> maxspeed=55 mph
> surface=dirt

Dirt isn't very useful information imho, in Australia dirt roads could
be made of gravel, black soil, red soil etc, and knowing the type of
dirt road is useful, gravel roads are often still usable after lots of
rain, but you definitely don't want to do black soil roads after heavy
rain.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2011/4/16 David Murn :
> On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 20:36 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> I have answered on legal-talk.
> that disagree and believe the issue is of great enough importance to not
> be hidden away.


it is not hidden away, and you don't even have to be subscribed to
legal talk to read it:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/


cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

[David Murn]

On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 20:36 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 04/15/2011 05:55 PM, Kai Krueger wrote:
> > I thought that the new CTs were supposed to "fix" this issue
> 
> [...]
> 
> I have answered on legal-talk.

We dont care if you answered on a podcast sent to the moon.  The
question was asked here, and if you believe that discussion should
belong on legal-talk, Ive got over 200 messages from the last 4 days
that disagree and believe the issue is of great enough importance to not
be hidden away.  As much as you might like feeling superior that you
read a legal list, most of us really couldnt give a toss, and simply
want answers to our questions.

If youre not prepared to answer them concisely (other than keeping on
pointing at a mailing list archive) then would you please kindly sit
down and STFU?  I dont think Im the only one getting sick of you fobbing
off tricky questions in the same generic way, if you dont know the
answer, dont say anything and leave it up to those who DO know the
answer.

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Kai Krueger]

Dermot McNally wrote:
> 
> FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but
> it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can
> see as an outsider.
> 

No, the vote part really isn't that difficult. Wikipedia managed to hold a
vote on their licensing change. In fact the Contributor terms states a
procedure to hold a vote for a licensing change. Just that LWG appears to
have decides to apply those rules only for a future license change and not
for the current one. (Which legally seems well within the current CTs)

It would still be perfectly possible to follow the rules that are specified
in the CT for a license change, for the current proposed change as well.


Dermot McNally wrote:
> 
> But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even
> though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider
> whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part
> of.
> 

Until there is a clear vote of the community to determine what they want it
is impossible to say which side of the debate is "true to the community". At
the moment, we simply don't know. And so it is unhelpful to accuse long time
OSM enthusiasts as not being "true to the community" because they disagree
with your opinion. Many of them have the community just as much at hart as
the proponents. They just disagree or are unsure on the effects this change
will have on it.

Kai

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6278003.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] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 16 April 2011 01:29, Dermot McNally  wrote:
> This licence change now gives every mapper the means of undermining
> the map through withholding of their own data, once freely given and
> now very likely a foundation of data created by other mappers, also in
> good faith. I understand that many mappers feel they _can't_ relicense
> some or all of their work, and that's a really tough situation. But
> mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even
> though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider
> whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part
> of.

At this point it's only known that there's an unspecified non-zero
part of the community which wants OSM to switch license.  Not everyone
needs to be true to that part of the community just like not everyone
needs to be true to the part that wants OSM data in Public Domain or
the part that drinks coffee with milk etc.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Dermot McNally]

On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees  wrote:

> Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be "No", but in
> the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing I'll
> eventually say "Yes"), but the important part of my question was everyone
> else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked?

FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but
it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can
see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted
about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained
throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution.
Turns out this stuff is complicated.

I'm not the first person to say so on the lists, but it seems to bear
repeating - the process has not been a secret, the key details of what
problem the change attempts to solve have been documented for a long
time now and absolutely anybody with a thirst for knowledge on the
matter has had many resources at his or her disposal. When I first
became aware of the documentation and read it, I certainly felt
consulted, and very soon after it became possible to indicate
approval, it was clear to me both that the promoters of the change
wished me to do so (at that point I felt "asked") and how I might go
about doing so.

As of Sunday, we are now aware, those not yet to vote yes are to
"asked" to vote yes or no. It remains unclear whether an OSMF message
is to be a part of this asking - I would tend to feel this would be a
good thing, as some mappers just wanna have fun^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H map,
and may well not know about this process at all.

Many mappers have had concerns and actual difficulties with some of
the consequences of the changes. Some of them have engaged positively
in the process to try and find an accommodation. Many... quite frankly
haven't. I started mapping with OSM in good faith and expecting good
faith from other mappers. So far I have only been disappointed by
those mappers who willfully vandalised the map or undermined it
through tainted data.

This licence change now gives every mapper the means of undermining
the map through withholding of their own data, once freely given and
now very likely a foundation of data created by other mappers, also in
good faith. I understand that many mappers feel they _can't_ relicense
some or all of their work, and that's a really tough situation. But
mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even
though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider
whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part
of.

Dermot

-- 
--
Igaühel on siin oma laul
ja ma oma ei leiagi üles

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Kai Krueger]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 
> Be reminded that you are asked to agree to a contract with OSMF (the 
> CT); you are not asked whether or not you like the way OSMF goes about 
> implementing that contract. It is important to separate these two.
> 
I would love to separate these issues out, as indeed they are very much
different things, in some sense even orthogonal. However, the OSMF as far as
I can tell currently do not intend to (formally) ask the community about
whether they like the way OSMF is going about it or not and so it gives
people no option to separate these things out if they have an opinion on the
later.

OSMF isn't even telling the community what the process is in advance,
instead, as you call it it is this "fuzzy" process that can change at any
point. I do fully understand the reasons why OSMF and the LWG suggest this
"fuzzy" process, but I also hope that they understand why this process is
very uncomfortable to many.

Have a full community vote at the end of the process, once everything is set
in stone and see if the community thinks the consequences are overall
positive or negative. Just like Wikipedia did on their license change. Then
there is a lot less reason to confound these two separate issues.


Kai

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6277946.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] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Ian Dees]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Dermot McNally  wrote:

> On 15 April 2011 23:21, Ian Dees  wrote:
>
> > At what point was the entire (active) OSM community asked if they wanted
> to
> > relicense their data? If they haven't (I certainly wasn't) then when will
> > we? Is this accept/decline that vote? If so, how do I vote no? How do I
> vote
> > yes but withhold the option of changing my vote when I see the final
> > license?
>
> Well, I'm not trolling either, though this probably isn't the answer
> you were looking for. Still, it's one way of breaking what seems to be
> a deadlock:
>
>
Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be "No", but in
the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing I'll
eventually say "Yes"), but the important part of my question was everyone
else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Dermot McNally]

On 15 April 2011 23:21, Ian Dees  wrote:

> At what point was the entire (active) OSM community asked if they wanted to
> relicense their data? If they haven't (I certainly wasn't) then when will
> we? Is this accept/decline that vote? If so, how do I vote no? How do I vote
> yes but withhold the option of changing my vote when I see the final
> license?

Well, I'm not trolling either, though this probably isn't the answer
you were looking for. Still, it's one way of breaking what seems to be
a deadlock:

Ian, could I ask you to consider agreeing to license your work to date
under ODbL? And in addition, to agree to the new CTs, which seem to me
to contain important provisions to avoid orphaning our map data if for
some reason we are not around to agree to some later legally
significant point that a significant majority of the Community active
at that time agrees is necessary?

So now that you've been asked, the discussion can turn in the IMHO
more productive direction of dealing with actual concerns with the
change rather than the protocol.

Dermot

-- 
--
Igaühel on siin oma laul
ja ma oma ei leiagi üles

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Ian Dees]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

>
> Thus it doesn't make any sense to say that you want to base your agreement
> or non-agreement to the CT on whatever plans there may or may not be for
> dealing with objects that have been touched by many people.
>
>
How else does the community "vote" on this transition then? I've asked about
this several times and haven't heard a response. Perhaps someone thinks I'm
trolling? Quite the opposite: I've asked people privately specifically to
keep trolls from exploiting my question and starting a flamewar. (Mostly
because I feel responsible for being the first person to ask such a question
and causing the subsequent destruction of the talk@ mailing list:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-December/045105.html)

At what point was the entire (active) OSM community asked if they wanted to
relicense their data? If they haven't (I certainly wasn't) then when will
we? Is this accept/decline that vote? If so, how do I vote no? How do I vote
yes but withhold the option of changing my vote when I see the final
license?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Frederik Ramm]

Alan,

On 04/15/2011 11:01 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:

What exactly will be done with the existing data, and when?
Understanding what happens to objects and their
parents/siblings/children based on the license acceptance of the
original creator/intermediate editors/last editor is key to deciding
whether I should accept or decline.


I don't think this is cast in stone yet, and it is unlikely to be cast 
in stone any time soon. In my opinion (and I am not part of OSMF board 
or LWG), it is very likely that the process will be a fuzzy one, where 
"easy" cases are decided automatically and everything else by the community.


Personally I do not expect any rules about this to be devised until long 
after we've entered phase 4. If you are interested in the process, I 
believe there are lots of opportunities to participate.


Be reminded that you are asked to agree to a contract with OSMF (the 
CT); you are not asked whether or not you like the way OSMF goes about 
implementing that contract. It is important to separate these two. Even 
if there already *were* plans on how exactly to implement things, these 
plans would *not* become part of the contract; they could be changed the 
minute after you have agreed to the CT.


Also, it is not unlikely that the OSMF board overseeing the license 
changeover in phase 5 will be quite different from the board we have now 
(as there will be elections at SOTM).


Thus it doesn't make any sense to say that you want to base your 
agreement or non-agreement to the CT on whatever plans there may or may 
not be for dealing with objects that have been touched by many people.


Bye
Frederik

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

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Fwd: Re: Hoping you can point me in the right direction.

[Steve Coast]

oops think I sent this to talk-IT too...

 Original Message 
Subject: 	[OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Hoping you can point me in the right 
direction.

Date:   Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:58:25 -0700
From:   Steve Coast 
To: talk@openstreetmap.org





 Original Message 
Subject:Re: Hoping you can point me in the right direction.
Date:   Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:00:51 +1000
From:   R Lynch 
To: Steve Coast 



Sorry yes thank you

Sent from my iPhone

On 12/04/2011, at 8:10 AM, Steve Coast > wrote:


you mailed the OSMF board which isn't set up or designed to help with 
what you want, we have mailing lists with people who can help you 
though, so I'm offering to connect you to them


On 4/11/2011 3:11 PM, R Lynch wrote:

Steve,

Sorry im lost, What do you mean mailing list?

Robert



Sent from my iPhone

On 12/04/2011, at 7:40 AM, Steve Coast > wrote:



Robert

Can I forward this to our mailing lists?

Steve

On 4/10/2011 7:44 PM, Robert Lynch wrote:


Hi Steve,

My name is Robert Lynch and I am the owner of a few small transport 
companies in Australia. Over the past 12 months I have been 
building a new transport, logistics and recruitment software to 
Launch in Australia. As part of this software we are looking for 
routing solutions and direct guidance for the drivers and a few 
other unique developments for this industry.


Currently there is nothing like this in the market place and can be 
quickly replicated for other areas around the world.


What i would like to do is speak with someone to see how we can 
partner up through a Joint venture or any other means.


I hope to hear from you soon

*_Robert F. Lynch_*

*Head office:   1300 400 450*

*Direct line:  (02) 8093-1207*

*Fax:(02) 8093-1243*

*Mobile:0403 753 371*



*/PART OF THE DYNAMIC GROUP OF COMPANIES/*

We now do Point-to-Point in Sydney:

*www.dynamicexpress.com.au;* 

Formally All Purpose Messengers; Delivering Excellent since 1954*/__/*

This email and any attached files are confidential. They are 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom 
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, 
please notify the sender by return email, and delete the original.


All outgoing emails and attached files are virus scanned, but we do 
not represent that this email and any attached files are free from 
computer viruses or other defects. Further, we do not accept any 
liability for any damage caused by this email or attachments


   



___
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] Fwd: Re: Hoping you can point me in the right direction.

[Steve Coast]

 Original Message 
Subject:Re: Hoping you can point me in the right direction.
Date:   Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:00:51 +1000
From:   R Lynch 
To: Steve Coast 



Sorry yes thank you

Sent from my iPhone

On 12/04/2011, at 8:10 AM, Steve Coast > wrote:


you mailed the OSMF board which isn't set up or designed to help with 
what you want, we have mailing lists with people who can help you 
though, so I'm offering to connect you to them


On 4/11/2011 3:11 PM, R Lynch wrote:

Steve,

Sorry im lost, What do you mean mailing list?

Robert



Sent from my iPhone

On 12/04/2011, at 7:40 AM, Steve Coast > wrote:



Robert

Can I forward this to our mailing lists?

Steve

On 4/10/2011 7:44 PM, Robert Lynch wrote:


Hi Steve,

My name is Robert Lynch and I am the owner of a few small transport 
companies in Australia. Over the past 12 months I have been 
building a new transport, logistics and recruitment software to 
Launch in Australia. As part of this software we are looking for 
routing solutions and direct guidance for the drivers and a few 
other unique developments for this industry.


Currently there is nothing like this in the market place and can be 
quickly replicated for other areas around the world.


What i would like to do is speak with someone to see how we can 
partner up through a Joint venture or any other means.


I hope to hear from you soon

*_Robert F. Lynch_*

*Head office:   1300 400 450*

*Direct line:  (02) 8093-1207*

*Fax:(02) 8093-1243*

*Mobile:0403 753 371*



*/PART OF THE DYNAMIC GROUP OF COMPANIES/*

We now do Point-to-Point in Sydney:

*www.dynamicexpress.com.au;* 

Formally All Purpose Messengers; Delivering Excellent since 1954*/__/*

This email and any attached files are confidential. They are 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom 
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, 
please notify the sender by return email, and delete the original.


All outgoing emails and attached files are virus scanned, but we do 
not represent that this email and any attached files are free from 
computer viruses or other defects. Further, we do not accept any 
liability for any damage caused by this email or attachments


   



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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

[Mike Dupont]

What worries me here is that there are all these versions of the document,
the licenses etc. How are you going to deal with different people agreeing
to different contracts at different times?

mike

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:08 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:

> On 14 April 2011 21:06, David Groom  wrote:
> > - Original Message - From: "andrzej zaborowski" <
> balr...@gmail.com>
> >> Under the Contributor Terms 1.2.4 I believe it will be the
> >> OpenStreetMap Foundation's responsibility to remove such data before
> >> switching the license, you will not be liable.  Until then the data
> >> will only be distributed under CC-By-SA and you can accept these new
> >> Contributor Terms by which you would be granting OSMF only the rights
> >> which you are able to grant.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct and if it's not then I
> >> would like to know the correct interpretation to be able to give an
> >> answer to people asking about this in non-English forums.
> >
> > see this thread (in particular Fracis Davey's comments) on the legal talk
> > mailing list
> >
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005915.html
>
> So my understanding now, from Francis' comment, is that CC-By-SA and
> CC-By are not compatible (you can't accept the CTs if you've
> contributed data obtained under those licenses, without infringing
> those licenses?), but ODbL for example might be compatible with CT
> although it's not compaitble with the current OSM's license.  But it
> might be in the future.
>
> Is that correct?  Is that also the intent of the CTs 1.2.4?  I think
> it would be good to have a "human readable" form of this document
> written by its authors.
>
> I haven't read the CC-By-SA license "code" in this context but I'm
> reading in Francis' response that there's something in it that makes
> it not compatible.
>
> Cheers
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org
flossal.org
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Alan Mintz]

At 2011-04-12 11:56, Michael Collinson wrote:
This is to let you know the license
change process is moving to Phase 3 [1] very shortly.
What exactly will be done with the existing data, and when? Understanding
what happens to objects and their parents/siblings/children based on the
license acceptance of the original creator/intermediate editors/last
editor is key to deciding whether I should accept or decline.

--
Alan Mintz 



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

Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:36:55 -0400
Richard Welty  wrote:

> this occurred to me while surveying speed limits in a somewhat rural
> part of the US.
> 
> are any of the routing engines looking at the surface tag as part of
> their decision making?
> 
> i ask this because in NY, the default speed limit in rural areas is 55
> on all roads. there are numerous unpaved roads (dirt, gravel) which
> do not have posted speed limits, but where driving at 55 is not
> reasonable unless you're a rally driver and the road is closed.
> 
> i want to tag these accurately, and am doing so, but i should think
> that the routing engines ought to avoid, when possible, this
> combination or others like it:
> 
> highway=unclassified
> name=Mead Road
> maxspeed=55 mph
> surface=dirt
> 
> richard
> 
Navit considers the highway type and the surface type. Exactly what
speed you expect to do for those parameters is user configurable in a config 
file. 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 20:36:34 +0200
Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 04/15/2011 05:55 PM, Kai Krueger wrote:
> > I thought that the new CTs were supposed to "fix" this issue
> 
> [...]
> 
> I have answered on legal-talk.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 

Frederick, it has occurred to me that if you are unhappy with what is
discussed on talk, you could unsubscribe.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Andreas Perstinger]

On 2011-04-14 21:18, Alex Ruddick wrote:

If NEII's (and others) are removed, we can add the United States to
Australia as 'countries the OSMF is willing to sacrifice.'


I'm not afraid that NEII's contributions are lost because he states on 
his user page: "All of my edits are released into the public domain."

(http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2)

Bye, Andreas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 04/15/2011 05:55 PM, Kai Krueger wrote:

I thought that the new CTs were supposed to "fix" this issue


[...]

I have answered on legal-talk.

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines

[john]

You are assuming that all dirt roads will be well-maintained, and that all dirt 
roads are in dry regions.  Both assumptions are false.  Most of the eastern 
half of the USA, and the Pacific Northwest of the USA, get plenty of rainfall, 
and even the dryer regions get some rainfall, some of it heavy enough to erode 
an unpaved roadway.

---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines
>From  :mailto:nro...@gmail.com
Date  :Fri Apr 15 09:53:24 America/Chicago 2011


Hello Richard,

Gosmore looks at maxspeed and tracktype.

I did not use surface, because I am under the impression that it is
possible to drive fast on properly maintained dirt roads in dryer
regions.

Regards,
Nic

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Richard Welty  wrote:
> this occurred to me while surveying speed limits in a somewhat rural
> part of the US.
>
> are any of the routing engines looking at the surface tag as part of
> their decision making?
>
> i ask this because in NY, the default speed limit in rural areas is 55
> on all roads. there are numerous unpaved roads (dirt, gravel) which
> do not have posted speed limits, but where driving at 55 is not
> reasonable unless you're a rally driver and the road is closed.
>
> i want to tag these accurately, and am doing so, but i should think
> that the routing engines ought to avoid, when possible, this combination
> or others like it:
>
> highway=unclassified
> name=Mead Road
> maxspeed=55 mph
> surface=dirt
>
> richard
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

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

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?

[Anthony]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> CC-BY-SA works exactly as intended.  In fact, the
> license even explicitly states its intent:  "Nothing in this License
> is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any uses free from copyright
> or rights arising from limitations or exceptions that are provided for
> in connection with the copyright protection under copyright law or
> other applicable laws."

This is a fundamental principle of free licenses.  Any license which
does not contain such a provision, is not a free license.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Anthony]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> David Murn wrote:
>>
>> Out of interest Grant, what other large-scale open source projects have
>> changed their licence the way that OSM has?  In fact, changed their
>> licence full-stop..?
>
> Wikipedia went from GFDL to CC-BY-SA.

Wikipedia went from GFDL to a GFDL/CC-BY-SA dual license - with the
help of the FSF.

If OSMF wanted to go from CC-BY-SA to a CC-BY-SA/ODbL dual license,
that would greatly simplify things.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Anthony]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Grant Slater
 wrote:
> The revert script used to remove Anthony's edits (which were traced
> from Google) was a basic revert script which only used API methods.
> There were also mistakes made like reverting the items anthony had
> deleted only after most of the cleanup/improvement work had already
> been done. Live an learn.

Except that you haven't learned.  By reinstating edits which I had
created and then later deleted, you have failed to remove all my
contributions (and created a bigger mess).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?

[Anthony]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> He knows perfectly well, because he has been told a thousand
> times, that one of the countries where CC-BY-SA doesn't work for our data is
> his country of residence, the USA.

Being told something is not equivalent to knowing it.  There is
absolutely no evidence that "CC isn't recognised for map data" in the
United States.

> He has gone on record, multiple times,
> saying that he likes the CC-BY-SA precisely because he belives that it
> doesn't work.

I'm not sure what you mean by the intentionally ambiguous phrase
"doesn't work".  CC-BY-SA works exactly as intended.  In fact, the
license even explicitly states its intent:  "Nothing in this License
is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any uses free from copyright
or rights arising from limitations or exceptions that are provided for
in connection with the copyright protection under copyright law or
other applicable laws."

In any case, my question was what jurisdiction does not recognize CC
for map data.

> I think my message was entirely in order. Even a newbie could be expected to
> read at least a few articles of background on our Wiki before engaging in a
> discussion. Anyone reading e.g.
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable would
> immediately be informed that the USA is one of the countries in which
> CC-BY-SA won't work for our data.

Again with the intentionally ambiguous phrase "won't work".  And
again, being told something is not equivalent to knowing it.

> As you probably know, Anthony's account on OSM has been terminated because
> he openly boasted about violating copyright.

That is completely untrue.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines

[Richard Welty]

On 4/15/11 11:30 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2011/4/15 Richard Welty:

i ask this because in NY, the default speed limit in rural areas is 55
on all roads.
highway=unclassified
name=Mead Road
maxspeed=55 mph
surface=dirt


I suggest you also add source:maxspeed=US:NY:rural or sth. similar to
the roads with no explicit maxspeed sign.
Have a look here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source:maxspeed

thanks. there are a bunch of interesting things on that page.

richard


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

[Kai Krueger]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 
> It would be very hard to construct something of that kind. The most 
> common thing is certainly going to be the above "third" case, where you 
> have the right to distribute data under CC-BY-SA or maybe even ODbL or 
> maybe you even have the right to distribute it under any license with a 
> BY component, but you do not have the right to authorize a third party 
> (OSMF) to perform such distribution.
> 
> For data of your "fourth" kind you would have to have a data provider 
> who says "you can use my data under CC-BY-SA or ODbL, and you have the 
> right to sublicense not only under these licenses, but you also under 
> these licenses plus the additional privilege of further sublicensing". 
> I'm not aware of such a situation even existing.
> 

Looking at the imports catalogue (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue ), there seem to be a
number of imports that have an explicit licensing of "CC-BY-SA or ODbL" and
thus sound like they fall into that category (e.g. plan.at or "Afghanistan
Roads"). So they would be compatible with the OSM license, but not the CT.

In addition, it is imho not clear that not some of the many imports listed
as "Attribution" licensed wouldn't fall into this category, too (rather than
in category 3 as CC-BY).

I thought that the new CTs were supposed to "fix" this issue by only
requiring people to give the "full" rights they them selves own and then
vouch for that the data is also compatible with the current licensing. But
it sounds like that clause was dropped again in CTs 1.2.4? (At least that is
how I understood the recent discussion on legal-talk). So we are back to
nothing is compatible with the CTs other than a PD (like) license?

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-begins-Sunday-tp6272616p6276776.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] question for folks working on routing engines

[Richard Welty]

On 4/15/11 10:53 AM, Nic Roets wrote:

Hello Richard,

Gosmore looks at maxspeed and tracktype.

I did not use surface, because I am under the impression that it is
possible to drive fast on properly maintained dirt roads in dryer
regions.

interesting. i haven't been setting tracktype because these are named
roads with a mixture of residences, farms, or other businesses along
them and so end up with highway=unclassified instead of track

but setting tracktype in this case seems a reasonable way to signal
the road condition. the roads i'm looking at generally fall under
grade2 or grade3 standards.

richard


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

Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2011/4/15 Richard Welty :
> i ask this because in NY, the default speed limit in rural areas is 55
> on all roads.
> highway=unclassified
> name=Mead Road
> maxspeed=55 mph
> surface=dirt


I suggest you also add source:maxspeed=US:NY:rural or sth. similar to
the roads with no explicit maxspeed sign.
Have a look here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source:maxspeed

cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] question for folks working on routing engines

[Nic Roets]

Hello Richard,

Gosmore looks at maxspeed and tracktype.

I did not use surface, because I am under the impression that it is
possible to drive fast on properly maintained dirt roads in dryer
regions.

Regards,
Nic

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Richard Welty  wrote:
> this occurred to me while surveying speed limits in a somewhat rural
> part of the US.
>
> are any of the routing engines looking at the surface tag as part of
> their decision making?
>
> i ask this because in NY, the default speed limit in rural areas is 55
> on all roads. there are numerous unpaved roads (dirt, gravel) which
> do not have posted speed limits, but where driving at 55 is not
> reasonable unless you're a rally driver and the road is closed.
>
> i want to tag these accurately, and am doing so, but i should think
> that the routing engines ought to avoid, when possible, this combination
> or others like it:
>
> highway=unclassified
> name=Mead Road
> maxspeed=55 mph
> surface=dirt
>
> richard
>
>
> ___
> 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] question for folks working on routing engines

[Richard Welty]

this occurred to me while surveying speed limits in a somewhat rural
part of the US.

are any of the routing engines looking at the surface tag as part of
their decision making?

i ask this because in NY, the default speed limit in rural areas is 55
on all roads. there are numerous unpaved roads (dirt, gravel) which
do not have posted speed limits, but where driving at 55 is not
reasonable unless you're a rally driver and the road is closed.

i want to tag these accurately, and am doing so, but i should think
that the routing engines ought to avoid, when possible, this combination
or others like it:

highway=unclassified
name=Mead Road
maxspeed=55 mph
surface=dirt

richard


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Alex Ruddick]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Do you expect any positive outcome from this, or is it for moral reasons
> that you choose this course of action?  There are regions in OSM where a
> visible "no" vote will lead to your data being re-surveyed and replaced by
> other contributors rather quickly. I can only hope that this is not the case
> in your area because otherwise what you plan to do will yield the worst
> possible outcome - others duplicating the efforts you have put in (instead
> of using their time for something more productive), and you being miffed
> because your contributions have been removed before you had the chance to
> redecide.
>

I hope to delay the process as long as possible in the interest of another
plan being implemented.  My two hopes are (1) remaining with the current
license until CC4 fixes things.  (2) an ODbL fork instead of a CC one.  My
data won't be resurveyed, but that doesn't change my view anyway.  Please
note I ultimately plan to stay with the project under the new terms!

>
> There are regions in OSM where a visible "no" vote will lead to your data
> being re-surveyed and replaced by other contributors rather quickly. I can
> only hope that this is not the case in your area because otherwise what you
> plan to do will yield the worst possible outcome - others duplicating the
> efforts you have put in (instead of using their time for something more
> productive), and you being miffed because your contributions have been
> removed before you had the chance to redecide.
>
>
>  My contributions aren't as numerous as his ,
>> but if removed they would set my area back a half-decade.
>>
>
> How so, if it has only taken you three years ;)?
>

It's much more lossy to go backwards, since my edits are intertwined with
others.  You know as well as I do that reverting is a messy process, and
will lose more than I originally put in.  I said a half-decade because I was
thinking TIGER started in 2006, so I stand corrected on that.

>
>  If NEII's (and others) are removed, we can add the United States to
>> Australia as 'countries the OSMF is willing to sacrifice.'
>>
>
> It's a hard language to use.


Avoiding saying difficult things doesn't mean they're not happening.
Actions speak too.


> We don't want to lose any contributors, and we don't want to lose any data
> either. I don't want to compare OSM to a hill of mindless ants each of whom
> just execute their genetic programming; I believe that OSM works precisely
> because we're all individuals and contribute our own ideas, our style, our
> quirks. Every contributor is uniqe and (with very, very little exceptions)
> every contributor adds something valuable to OSM. Still, in the grand scheme
> of things, no single contributor is irreplaceable. Rip something out (and
> shed a couple tears about the love that went into it and is now lost to OSM)
> - it will grow back in time, and bring with it new people, a new community
> rallied to the cause.
>
> You are perfectly correct here overall, but I see one caveat.  The
*magnitude* of the time it will take OSM to 'grow back' is rather
significant in my case.  (i.e. the US).  The community here has just barely
gotten off the ground, and I fear the damage caused by mass deletion will be
enough to kill it.  I see a rather strong parallel to the US nuclear
industry: it had just about recovered from TMI but is now set back further
decades because of Fukushima.


> We're not "sacrificing countries". We saw that we have built our project on
> (legal) sand, and we're moving to rectify the situation. The patient may
> lose some tissue about this but he will live, and after the wounds have
> healed, will be healthier than before.
>
> I'm talking all flowery because this is the talk list. If you want hard
> facts, go to legal-talk.
>
> I read legal-talk occasionally, and have not been convinced that the
illness is more dangerous than the medicine.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

[Grant Slater]

On 15 April 2011 13:28, john whelan  wrote:
> Johnwhelan is the account name.  Unfortunately I have made a fair number of
> edits.  The concern is I'm not comfortable that all of these meet the new
> standard but I'm unsure which ones do and which don't.  I'm happy to reenter
> data  following the new guidelines.  I'm not happy to have some one else say
> don't worry about it.
>

Thanks for that. What is the answer to my second question? Where do
the potentially problem contributions come from? Email me off list if
you must.

Regards
 Grant


> Thanks John
>
> On 15 April 2011 03:55, Grant Slater  wrote:
>>
>> On 15 April 2011 00:38, john whelan  wrote:
>> >>If data is "tainted" in a way that makes in incompatible with the
>> >> currently
>> >> used license then it will have to be removed in order not to put the
>> >> project
>> >> at risk (e.g. data copied from proprietary sources). This is
>> >> independent of
>> >> the license change.
>> >
>> > I assume that the currently used license means to the ODBL license now
>> > in
>> > use by contributors.  If  so how and to whom do I serve notice that even
>> > though I clicked on the accept button I'm not comfortable that all my
>> > edits
>> > before March 2011 contain only data is that is completely untainted so
>> > rather than put the OSM project at risk could they be removed.  I'm
>> > happy to
>> > get out my GPS and notepad and ensure anything I add from today forward
>> > will
>> > meet the new criteria.
>> >
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> What is your OSM account name? Where did the imported data come from:
>> government source, printed map, something else?
>>
>> Regards
>>  Grant
>
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

[john whelan]

Johnwhelan is the account name.  Unfortunately I have made a fair number of
edits.  The concern is I'm not comfortable that all of these meet the new
standard but I'm unsure which ones do and which don't.  I'm happy to reenter
data  following the new guidelines.  I'm not happy to have some one else say
don't worry about it.

Thanks John

On 15 April 2011 03:55, Grant Slater  wrote:

> On 15 April 2011 00:38, john whelan  wrote:
> >>If data is "tainted" in a way that makes in incompatible with the
> currently
> >> used license then it will have to be removed in order not to put the
> project
> >> at risk (e.g. data copied from proprietary sources). This is independent
> of
> >> the license change.
> >
> > I assume that the currently used license means to the ODBL license now in
> > use by contributors.  If  so how and to whom do I serve notice that even
> > though I clicked on the accept button I'm not comfortable that all my
> edits
> > before March 2011 contain only data is that is completely untainted so
> > rather than put the OSM project at risk could they be removed.  I'm happy
> to
> > get out my GPS and notepad and ensure anything I add from today forward
> will
> > meet the new criteria.
> >
>
> Hi John,
>
> What is your OSM account name? Where did the imported data come from:
> government source, printed map, something else?
>
> Regards
>  Grant
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Frederik Ramm" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday




Hi,

On 04/15/2011 10:13 AM, David Groom wrote:

There's also a third kind of "tainted" that sits in the middle of these
two, namely data that has e.g. been released CC-BY. Such data looks
compatible at first, but closer inspection (see current discussion on
legal-talk) reveals that CC-BY explicitly forbids sublicensing, and
sublicensing is what the new scheme is all about. So in that case we'd
have a legal outcome (data being distributed with attribution) but an
untidy process that took us there. I don't know if this is a minor
problem that can be ignored, or a showstopper.



There's also a fourth kind of "tainted" data. Data that might be
compatible with CC-BY-SA, and might be compatible with ODbL, but is
incompatible with the CT's.


It would be very hard to construct something of that kind. The most common 
thing is certainly going to be the above "third" case, where you have the 
right to distribute data under CC-BY-SA or maybe even ODbL or maybe you 
even have the right to distribute it under any license with a BY 
component, but you do not have the right to authorize a third party (OSMF) 
to perform such distribution.


For data of your "fourth" kind you would have to have a data provider who 
says "you can use my data under CC-BY-SA or ODbL, and you have the right 
to sublicense not only under these licenses, but you also under these 
licenses plus the additional privilege of further sublicensing". I'm not 
aware of such a situation even existing.




Surely all you need is a data provider who says  "you can use my data under 
CC-BY-SA or ODbL but you dont have the right to grant a worldwide, 
royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act 
that is restricted by copyright , in respect of my data"




In which case the question becomes, if someone who has accepted the
CT's, is in breach of the CT's because some data they have contributed
in the past is incompatible with the CT's, will all their data be
removed and their user account blocked?


The best was to deal with such situations is to identify the affected data 
and remove only that. Ideally, users should, when agreeing to the CT, 
notify OSMF of those past contributions that are not CT compatible.




So your "ideal" is that people should agree to the CT's even if they know 
that they are in breach of the CT's!


That's not my idea of "ideal", but I guess we will have to agree to differ 
on this point, and wait to see what the official OSM position is on dealing 
with people who are in breach of the CT's


David


The idea of accepting selected individual contributions without CT 
agreement - i.e. contributions which are "CC-BY-SA or ODbL only with 
sublicensing option" - has been floated over half a year ago, and this is 
a real possibility for cases where data loss would be too great otherwise. 
This would essentially defer data loss - the loss would not happen right 
away but at some later time if the license is changed again. This will 
always have to be a case-by-case decision by OSMF because it has the 
potential to cause trouble in the future and puts holes in the shiny new 
license regime we're hoping to have.



Or is OSM happy to allow those people who are in breach of the CT's to
continue to contribute to the project, in which case why bother having
the CT's in the first place?


As I said, there might be *selected* *individual* cases where we say "oh 
well, we'll rather have your data now and accept that we have to remove it 
if we should ever change the license again, than not have your data at 
all". But just because we say so in one or two cases, doesn't mean we 
abandon the idea of a simplified later license change altogether.


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] Edit war, Mitrovica

[Vincent Pottier]

Le 15/04/2011 13:24, Frederik Ramm a écrit :

Hi,

On 04/15/2011 01:14 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:

I don't like 'duplicate node removing' scripts or bots. Duplicate nodes
may well have a function, or may not be duplicate at all.


+1. Anyone who plans to indiscriminately "fix" duplicate nodes without 
actually looking at the situation (e.g. anyone running a bot removing 
such nodes) *must* discuss their planned actions with the affected 
community beforehand.


Bye
Frederik

+1 !
I fear for the survey marks in France !
--
FrViPofm

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war, Mitrovica

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 04/15/2011 01:14 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:

I don't like 'duplicate node removing' scripts or bots. Duplicate nodes
may well have a function, or may not be duplicate at all.


+1. Anyone who plans to indiscriminately "fix" duplicate nodes without 
actually looking at the situation (e.g. anyone running a bot removing 
such nodes) *must* discuss their planned actions with the affected 
community beforehand.


Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war, Mitrovica

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 04:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
ThomasB  wrote:

> >Mitrovica was deleted by uboot
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7348595
> 
> could you please stop publicly blaming others for mistakes that you
> personally has made? 
> ubot has deleted 15 ways and add some 60. The other edits were DupNode
> fixes. 
> 
> You personally have deleted the streets there
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/98163924/history
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/98171028/history
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/96950414/history
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/96577541/history
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/97831272/history
> 
> do you want me to continue?
> 

There is a logic error here. How does removing duplicates remove an
entire city of streets?
Mike has reimported the streets overnight, using the original data, and
they are slowly being rendered.

The most polite thing that I think may have happened is for two
"duplicate node removers" to have decided to attack the area at once. 
The result was devastation of the map in that area.

I don't like 'duplicate node removing' scripts or bots. Duplicate nodes
may well have a function, or may not be duplicate at all.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 04/15/2011 10:13 AM, David Groom wrote:

There's also a third kind of "tainted" that sits in the middle of these
two, namely data that has e.g. been released CC-BY. Such data looks
compatible at first, but closer inspection (see current discussion on
legal-talk) reveals that CC-BY explicitly forbids sublicensing, and
sublicensing is what the new scheme is all about. So in that case we'd
have a legal outcome (data being distributed with attribution) but an
untidy process that took us there. I don't know if this is a minor
problem that can be ignored, or a showstopper.



There's also a fourth kind of "tainted" data. Data that might be
compatible with CC-BY-SA, and might be compatible with ODbL, but is
incompatible with the CT's.


It would be very hard to construct something of that kind. The most 
common thing is certainly going to be the above "third" case, where you 
have the right to distribute data under CC-BY-SA or maybe even ODbL or 
maybe you even have the right to distribute it under any license with a 
BY component, but you do not have the right to authorize a third party 
(OSMF) to perform such distribution.


For data of your "fourth" kind you would have to have a data provider 
who says "you can use my data under CC-BY-SA or ODbL, and you have the 
right to sublicense not only under these licenses, but you also under 
these licenses plus the additional privilege of further sublicensing". 
I'm not aware of such a situation even existing.



In which case the question becomes, if someone who has accepted the
CT's, is in breach of the CT's because some data they have contributed
in the past is incompatible with the CT's, will all their data be
removed and their user account blocked?


The best was to deal with such situations is to identify the affected 
data and remove only that. Ideally, users should, when agreeing to the 
CT, notify OSMF of those past contributions that are not CT compatible.


The idea of accepting selected individual contributions without CT 
agreement - i.e. contributions which are "CC-BY-SA or ODbL only with 
sublicensing option" - has been floated over half a year ago, and this 
is a real possibility for cases where data loss would be too great 
otherwise. This would essentially defer data loss - the loss would not 
happen right away but at some later time if the license is changed 
again. This will always have to be a case-by-case decision by OSMF 
because it has the potential to cause trouble in the future and puts 
holes in the shiny new license regime we're hoping to have.



Or is OSM happy to allow those people who are in breach of the CT's to
continue to contribute to the project, in which case why bother having
the CT's in the first place?


As I said, there might be *selected* *individual* cases where we say "oh 
well, we'll rather have your data now and accept that we have to remove 
it if we should ever change the license again, than not have your data 
at all". But just because we say so in one or two cases, doesn't mean we 
abandon the idea of a simplified later license change altogether.


Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:49:20 +0200
Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Eric Marsden wrote:
> >   It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read
> > on the wiki, whether choosing "Decline" is a irreversible decision,
> > or whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT.
> 
> "Decline" is reversible. "Accept" isn't. Once we've got you, we'll
> never let go.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 

This is not a simplistic legal question at all.
Where I am, right now, a contract has to have certain features to be
valid. It must be agreed to by both parties, and there shall not be
coercion, and it must not be unconscionable.
So a shrink-wrap or click-through licence is not enforceable.
We have already one example of a person who has mistakenly agreed, and
who has notified OSMF, and will have to be released from the "contract".
So instead of claiming that every "yes" is permanent, protocols will
need to be made for these circumstances.
As OSMF has delved into contract law with the ODbL, the various
contract laws of hundreds of nations worldwide will have to be
considered. Hopefully they fall into major groupings to make your task
easier.

Liz

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

Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 01:38:30 +0200
Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> So I chose a slightly humorous response, treating Anthony as if he 
> really were an innocent newbie.
> 
> I didn't expect that I would have to explain the humour, but I guess
> I should have known better.

Humour is quite language specific.
I don't expect you to get Strine jokes.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Frederik Ramm" 

To: "David Murn" 
Cc: "Talk Openstreetmap" 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday



Hi,

David Murn wrote:

What about if you become aware that once youve got someone, who has
agreed and who has contributed tainted data?  Will you (or someone else
wielding the magical OSMF+3 wand) reverse it?


If data is "tainted" in a way that makes in incompatible with the
currently used license then it will have to be removed in order not to
put the project at risk (e.g. data copied from proprietary sources).
This is independent of the license change.

If data is "tainted" in a way that makes it compatible with the
currently used license, but it is likely that the data will have to be
removed should OSM ever change to a different license under the CT "2/3
of active mappers" clause, then things are difficult - it would
certainly be better in the long run to replace such data by data that is
fully compliant, and I would estimate tools to be developed that would
aim to gradually phase out such limited-release data and make sure such
data is not used to "build upon" if it can be avoided. But I don't think
it would be removed outright - I guess the decision will be delayed
until such time as anyone actually proposes changing the license again.

There's also a third kind of "tainted" that sits in the middle of these
two, namely data that has e.g. been released CC-BY. Such data looks
compatible at first, but closer inspection (see current discussion on
legal-talk) reveals that CC-BY explicitly forbids sublicensing, and
sublicensing is what the new scheme is all about. So in that case we'd
have a legal outcome (data being distributed with attribution) but an
untidy process that took us there. I don't know if this is a minor
problem that can be ignored, or a showstopper.



There's also a fourth kind of "tainted" data.  Data that might be compatible 
with CC-BY-SA, and might be compatible with ODbL, but is incompatible with 
the CT's.


In which case the question becomes, if someone who has accepted the CT's, 
is in breach of the CT's  because some data they have contributed in the 
past is incompatible with the CT's, will all their data be removed and their 
user account blocked?


Or is OSM happy to allow those people who are in breach of the CT's to 
continue to contribute to the project, in which case why bother having the 
CT's in the first place?


David



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] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

[Grant Slater]

On 15 April 2011 00:38, john whelan  wrote:
>>If data is "tainted" in a way that makes in incompatible with the currently
>> used license then it will have to be removed in order not to put the project
>> at risk (e.g. data copied from proprietary sources). This is independent of
>> the license change.
>
> I assume that the currently used license means to the ODBL license now in
> use by contributors.  If  so how and to whom do I serve notice that even
> though I clicked on the accept button I'm not comfortable that all my edits
> before March 2011 contain only data is that is completely untainted so
> rather than put the OSM project at risk could they be removed.  I'm happy to
> get out my GPS and notepad and ensure anything I add from today forward will
> meet the new criteria.
>

Hi John,

What is your OSM account name? Where did the imported data come from:
government source, printed map, something else?

Regards
 Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

[80n]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:08 AM, andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
> So my understanding now, from Francis' comment, is that CC-By-SA and
> CC-By are not compatible (you can't accept the CTs if you've
> contributed data obtained under those licenses, without infringing
> those licenses?), but ODbL for example might be compatible with CT
> although it's not compaitble with the current OSM's license.  But it
> might be in the future.

Is ODbL licensed content compatible with the current CTs?

My understanding is that ODbL does not allow you to grant "a
worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence
bla bla bla..." to anyone.  So no ODbL licensed datasets can be
contributed to OSM.  None at all.  And that includes ODbL content that
came from OSM in the first place.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] We Need to Stop Google's Exploitation of Open Communities

[Frederik Ramm]

Mikel,

On 04/11/2011 05:27 PM, Mikel Maron wrote:

http://brainoff.com/weblog/2011/04/11/1635


In the following message, all quotes are from your blog post.

I've given this matter some thought and I think while your concerns are 
legitimate, you are perhaps overreacting a bit.


OpenStreetMap and Google have always been friendly competitors. We have 
profited a lot from Google. They have invented many things that we could 
copy (e.g. the "slippy map"); they have blazed a trail that we could 
follow, they have made online maps into the commodity they are, they 
have established the product and created the market.


How often have I had it easy to OSM to someone because I could say: This 
is just like Google Maps, just that .


Google have also supported us directly. Ed Parsons being present at a 
number of State of the Map conferences has given us a credibility boost 
in the eyes of many (when they could also have sent a low-ranking minion 
for information gathering). Google gave us cash for a new server at a 
time when money wasn't flowing like it is today; and they have given our 
project Summer of Code stipends even though it would have been perfectly 
in their right to say "no, we don't want to support the competition".


On top of all this, they have patiently accepted that we are bashing 
their product nearly every time we "market" OSM: We are like Google 
Maps, only better!



Google’s strategy is to build market in Africa by appropriating the
appearance of open data community methodologies, yet maintaining
corporate control of what should rightfully be a common resource.


I share your sentiment, but I have long given up fighting this. I stand 
aghast at someone waving their iPhone, asking them why on earth they 
willfully submit to Apple's dictate over what they can and cannot do on 
this little machine that, for many, quickly becomes an integral part of 
their life. Their answer: "It just works!" - I see people uploading half 
their lifes to Twitter, geocaching.com, Facebook, and I say "don't you 
know these are closed platforms operated by commercial entities with the 
aim of maintaining corporate control?" - and they go "but everyone does 
it, and it works so well, it doesn't cost a thing, and anyway it's not 
really closed, look it even has an API!"


And what works for the individual also works for large organisations - 
whole universities training their geography students in ESRI software 
because ESRI made this great offer where the academic license was almost 
free and comes with premium support - when one could argue that this 
provides them quite a bit of corporate control over education.


What you lament for countries in Africa has happended to cities in 
Germany in very similar fashion - the city had their own geodata but no 
printed street map; a publishing house came along and offered to print 
free street maps for everyone if they get an exclusive license to using 
the data in print; the city said "great, win-win situation" and signed 
the contract; now they're stuck with second-rate printed maps and don't 
even control their own resources.


It happens all over the world, all the time - commercial entities making 
offers that are too good to refuse, just sign away a tiny little part of 
your sovereignty here and we'll give you all this for free. (Thing 
exploration of natural resources!) I, too, find a lot to be criticised 
here, but I think it is unfair to single out Google.



What bothers me so much is how they have blatantly copied
OpenStreetMap. First their MapMaker product is directly modelled on
OSM, but with a restrictive data license, where you can not use the
data as you see fit. Second, they have stolen the idea of Mapping
Parties, a unique concept and name we developed. Third, they’re even
copying initiatives to map impoverished informal settlements, like
Map Kibera.


I think "blatantly copy" and "steal" are not the right words to describe 
the situation. Could we have patented the ideas of OSM and of mapping 
parties if we had wanted to? I doubt it. It is ok for others to be 
inspired by the success of OSM - just as we have been inspired by what 
Google offers their users in online mapping.


I think we have to admit that "free and open" is a luxury thing. First 
you want a working computer, and then you can think about whether it's 
free and open. If Microsoft offers to install a Windows PC in every 
school in your impoverished city, you will not say no just because it's 
a proprietary operating system.


And while some might bash Microsoft for exploiting the weakness of the 
other side in this situation, I don't think that's fair - they make an 
offer and the other side is free to accept or reject.


Which brings us back to Google offering, as you say "free maps" to 
impoverished countries in return for, I assume, commercial exploitation 
rights to the geodata that has been collected. Yes, you could say 
they're exploiting the weakness of the other side - but th