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

[Ed Avis]

Grant Slater  firefishy.com> writes:

>There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal
>ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we (some?) in the
>community chose to ignore.

This is a good reason to introduce a new licence but it's not a reason against
keeping the old one as a dual-licensing option for those who do prefer it.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

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

[Ed Avis]

andrzej zaborowski  gmail.com> writes:

>I know a relatively big project that's currently using OSM data under
>CC-By-SA and may be in a nasty surprise when they find OSM is no
>longer suitable.

Fortunately, there is an easy way to fix this: keep CC-BY-SA available as an
option in addition to ODbL.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war, Mitrovica

[Mike Dupont]

OK I have restored mitrovica given the data provided to me by besfort. I did
that by repasting the data, so they got new ids.

please help check the area and clean it up.
thanks,
mike


I guess this will be my last big edit on osm before I get locked out... so
it was nice working with you all.
mike

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Besfort Guri  wrote:

> Mitrovica was deleted by uboot
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7348595 , I have the data I
> try to upload again but it is not working I need to get back Mitrovica
> nothing more who can help me. I dont care who delete it and what was the
> problem but I just need to get the data back nothing more, but check the
> history of Kosovo you can see the difference, three or four times the
> borders was change from Serbians guys, but I dont care about that please
> help me with getting back data for Mitrovica 
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Gent Thaçi  wrote:
>
>> You can also see this changeset made by xybot:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7825961
>>
>> It's not just us.
>>
>> But please don't say like that, we never like to do that.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:21 AM, ThomasB  wrote:
>>
>>> seems more like a mistake. Many streets (not tested if all) in Kosovska
>>> Mitrovica were deleted by a Kosovar (a FLOSSK member) not a Serb. So it
>>> is a
>>> little bit strange that FLOSSK is deleting streets and blaming the Serbs
>>> for
>>> that.
>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7714060
>>>
>>> The changeset includes more that 900 deleted ways. Have checked a few and
>>> all were in and around Kosovska Mitrovica
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Edit-war-Mitrovica-tp6256515p6260593.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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Besfort Guri
> +377 44 49 88 91
> www.besiguri.wordpress.com
> http://besfortp.posterous.com/
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Tobias Knerr]

Am 17.04.2011 06:04, schrieb Russ Nelson:
> Tobias Knerr writes:
>  > Personally, I don't want to sue anyone.
> 
> Then you should put the public domain notice into your Wiki page, so
> that everyone knows that you won't sue them under any circumstances.
> I'm not asking you to do anything that I haven't already done.

You are right, and I've done that roughly 2.5 years ago.

> Then let's add a permission to the CC-By-SA which says "We won't sue if
> you only attribute the project."

> Then let's add permissions to the CC-By-SA which say "We won't sue if
> you combine this work with other licenses. Here are the
> characteristics of those license which we deem acceptable."

> Then let's add permissions to the CC-By-SA which say "I also grant the
> OSMF permission to grant further permissions."

This doesn't work if our data contains contributions from people or
organizations who are using plain CC BY-SA. Luckily, there is a legal
mechanism that makes all that possible: Contributor Terms.

> None of these are arguments for the CT+ODbL. They are arguments for
> granting extra permissions to current licensees.
>
> The REAL purpose of
> the CT+ODbL is to be a bigger stick with which we can beat up OSM
> users.

The CT are what makes it possible for OSMF to grant all these additional
permissions you mentioned.

The ODbL license then actually grants these permissions to our users.

So I think that the desirability of these permissions is actually a very
good argument for introducing the CT, and for using the additional
rights granted to OSMF in order to publish the data under ODbL terms.

They are not arguments for no longer making the data available under the
terms of CC BY-SA in addition to ODbL, but they weren't meant to be.

Tobias Knerr

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

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

[Michael Collinson]

On 17/04/2011 08:39, Andrew Harvey wrote:

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Michael Collinson  wrote:
   

...From Sunday, we will run 5 weeks allowing folks
who decline the ability to continue editing, i.e. CC-BY-SA only
contributions. The objective is get the remaining 77,000 to accept or
decline. If that runs slowly, we add up to 5 more weeks. Else, we proceed to
the question of actually switching from CC-BY-SA to ODbL and has no date
set.
 

Mike, if the OSMF is permitting current contributors to decline the
CTs and continue editing, i.e. CC-BY-SA only contributions, why can't
the OSMF allow new contributors to sign up and decline the CTs and
begin editing CC-BY-SA only contributions?
   

Andrew, Time and not making a rod for our own backs is the short answer.

There are 370,000 registered users today.  We were much criticised, and 
in retrospect I think rightly, for trying to push things through while 
the user base was small and the process maneagable for a volunteer team. 
Doing it this way, the problem does not grow and we are moving at the 
much slower pace demanded. Reaching, informing and persuading 77,000 
folks with 12,500 of them contributing 98%+ of all OSM data is still 
daunting but possible. Older users should also have been around long 
enough for most to know that a license change has been actively 
discussed since 2005 and be aware of some of the issues.


As to the converse.  Much as I would like to completely assume that the 
process will succeed, it may not, and it would be unfair to cut off 
older contributors in this way until the numbers become clearer.


If we make the numbers, then these new users are unaffected.

If we do not, new users are still unaffected, they have agreed to the 
use of either CC-BY-SA or ODbL.  They also have the right, which older 
contributors do not, of triggering a democratic,  frameworked and much 
shorter process to demand a license change ... which could of course 
include CC-BY-SA.


Mike

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

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

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

uation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of examples
> by now.

>It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some 
>proprietary giant's database. Would you prefer to wait? Or even: If you

>were a member of the OSMF board entrusted with our data's safe keeping,

>would you prefer to wait? And then, when users complain, you'd say: "Oh

>well, lawyers told me back in 2008 that this would happen but I figured

>I'd rather not upset the apple cart"?


I would not have a problem with that. 

OSM will still be there and the world will have better data on average.
And free data cannot be exploited commercially, unless improved.
But the thieve won't have the community behind it to maintain the stolen
data 
and OSM would.
Please stop creating free data, if at the same time you restrict it's
free-ness.


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] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

+1

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 16 april 2011 21:18
Aan: Frederik Ramm
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3
Pre-Announcement

Frederik Ramm writes:
 > It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into
some 
 > proprietary giant's database.

Worry about the license less and map more. The more we map, the more
value there is in participating in the community as a peer rather than
a parasite.

-- 
--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

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

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

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

So we need to change then ? Tell them to reconsiderate
there legal model. OSM gives, they receive !
I am perfectly happy with someone deciding NOT to use
what we have to offer !!! 

>If this is what you have been complaining about then you have half
>missed the point.
>There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal
>ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we (some?) in the
>community chose to ignore.


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] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Tobias Knerr]

ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
>
>> If this is what you have been complaining about then you have half
>> missed the point.
>> There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal
>> ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we (some?) in the
>> community chose to ignore.
>
> So we need to change then ? Tell them to reconsiderate
> there legal model. OSM gives, they receive !
> I am perfectly happy with someone deciding NOT to use
> what we have to offer !!! 

On the one hand you suggest that one should stop "creating free data, if
at the same time you restrict it's free-ness". On the other hand you
oppose removing existing restrictions of the free-ness of our data that
actually prevent people from using that supposedly free data.

Is there any consistent motivation underlying your arguments beyond not
wanting to change anything?

Tobias Knerr

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

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

[80n]

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Michael Collinson  wrote:
>
> If we make the numbers, then these new users are unaffected.
>
Now would be a good time to mention what those numbers are.

How many users need to agree to CT before the community is comfortable
with the consequential data loss?

What percentage of content must be covered by the new license terms
before the community is comfortable with the consequential data loss?

When are you planning to ask the community these questions?  Or are
you planning to make up these numbers in a closed room?

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

[OSM-talk] XAPI issues

[Nakor Osm]

   Hello,

I am trying to use XAPI but am facing the following problems:

http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/... returns a blank page
http://open.mapquestapi.com/xapi/api/0.6/... slows down on finally crashes
my browser (FF4 on WIndows, FF3.6 on Linux).

Any idea how to get XAPI to work?

Thanks,

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

Re: [OSM-talk] XAPI issues

[Pierre-Alain Dorange]

Nakor Osm  wrote:

> I am trying to use XAPI but am facing the following problems:
> 
> http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/... returns a blank page
> http://open.mapquestapi.com/xapi/api/0.6/... slows down on finally crashes
> my browser (FF4 on WIndows, FF3.6 on Linux).
> 
> Any idea how to get XAPI to work?

It depends on your request, for my part mapquest xapi seems working.

-- 
Pierre-Alain Dorange
OSM experiences : 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] XAPI issues

[Jorge Gustavo Rocha]

Hi Nakor,

I use the API mostly from the command line. Things like (in one line):

curl -g
"http://jxapi.openstreetmap.org/xapi/api/0.6/*[amenity=pharmacy][bbox=-9.2,39.68,-6.2,42.19]";
 -o farmacias.osm

works for me. The output (farmacias.osm) can be load in JOSM, for
example.

Regards,

Jorge

Dom, 2011-04-17 às 09:44 -0400, Nakor Osm escreveu:
>Hello,
> 
> I am trying to use XAPI but am facing the following problems:
> 
> http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/... returns a blank page
> http://open.mapquestapi.com/xapi/api/0.6/... slows down on finally
> crashes my browser (FF4 on WIndows, FF3.6 on Linux).
> 
> Any idea how to get XAPI to work?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> N.
> 
> ___
> 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] XAPI issues

[Nathan Edgars II]

jgrocha wrote:
> 
> Hi Nakor,
> 
> I use the API mostly from the command line. Things like (in one line):
> 
> curl -g
> "http://jxapi.openstreetmap.org/xapi/api/0.6/*[amenity=pharmacy][bbox=-9.2,39.68,-6.2,42.19]";
> -o farmacias.osm
> 
> works for me. The output (farmacias.osm) can be load in JOSM, for
> example.
> 
You can also load this directly in JOSM using ctrl-L. The second tab on the
download dialog contains the coordinates in exactly the same format for easy
copying after selecting the area in the first tab.

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/XAPI-issues-tp6280998p6281436.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] Thank you for being precise

[Nathan Edgars II]

I would just like to thank whoever wrote in the API message that one 
does not need to accept the new contributor terms to continue editing. 
This kind of openness is a good thing.


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

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

[Richard Fairhurst]

80n wrote:
> There is zero chance that any large organisation would try to use
> OSM's CC-BY-SA licensed map data and think that they would 
> get away with it.

I agree with you here FSVO "large".

I doubt we have to worry about Google, Tele Atlas or Navteq consistently and
deliberately using OSM data under the current licence. For them, it's not
about the law one way or another: it's about reputation risk. No matter if
we have CC-favoured "community norms" on top of a PD waiver, ODbL+CT, or
CC-BY-SA, for these three companies, being seen to "do the wrong thing" in
their key market would be a sufficient disincentive. Plus, of course, TA/NT
sure as hell aren't going to use OSM and therefore undermine their sole
selling point - "to get good data, you have to pay professionals".

So Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq are, in my view, largely irrelevant to the
licence discussion.

It's everyone else who we have to worry about. In the last couple of months,
I've personally noticed a national railway company, a charity with a
turnover of >£100m, a vast firm of couriers, a magazine publisher, a book
publisher, all infringing our requirements/requests for attribution and
share-alike. (I've spotted these by chance: I don't go out there looking for
this stuff.) Deliberate? In some cases, definitely. You wouldn't put an
entirely fictitious credit to another organisation if you were just innocent
of the niceties.

No, Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq aren't infringing OSM's licence. Everyone
else is, though.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6281529.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

[Kai Krueger]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 
> It's everyone else who we have to worry about. In the last couple of
> months, I've personally noticed a national railway company, a charity with
> a turnover of >£100m, a vast firm of couriers, a magazine publisher, a
> book publisher, all infringing our requirements/requests for attribution
> and share-alike. (I've spotted these by chance: I don't go out there
> looking for this stuff.) Deliberate? In some cases, definitely. You
> wouldn't put an entirely fictitious credit to another organisation if you
> were just innocent of the niceties.
> 
With the value of the data going up, no doubt, more and more companies will
try to infringe the (spirit of the) license. That would be the case even
with the strongest license. Take a look for example at the GPL. It has been
upheld in several court cases in a variety of jurisdictions and a variety of
settings. In contrast, I am not aware of a single court case, where the GPL
was deamed unenforceable. So that is kind of the strongest a license can be.
Nevertheless one regularly reads about cases where companies large and small
deliberately infringe on the GPL. Presumably as they hope that no one will
notice or bother to sue them.

So the question is possibly less how many people / companies try to infringe
on the license (that probably more reflects the value of the data then the
strength of the license), but how do they react once confronted with the
infringement, once one threatens legal action and ultimately how the case
would be decided in front of court, should it ever get that far.

Even though so far there haven't been any significant large scale
infringement's, if OSM continues to grow and thrive, eventually there will
very likely be one, independent of what license OSM is using.

At the moment beyond how people/companies react to "confrontation with
infringement" appears unknown for both CC-BY-SA as well as ODbL, although
one can hope and expect that ODbL is more enforceable given that it was
designed specifically for databases.

Btw. Given that there have been several cases of infringement of the license
by now, some of which OSMF has been involved in dealing with, what would be
the case where there was the most trouble in trying to enforce it and what
was their line of argument in their defense?



Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> 
> No, Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq aren't infringing OSM's licence.
> Everyone else is, though.
> 
Well, indirectly Google has infringed on OSM's license through one of their
"subsidiary" data providers (e.g. in Colombia) and I have heard of several
alleged other cases, although by the sounds of it, there was not enough
evidence to pursue it further.

Given the experience with large scale companies infringing on GPL code, it
wouldn't surprise me if eventually even Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq would
attempt it. However, that would likely take a lot longer. Alone the fact
that they would have to admit that OSM has better data then them, is likely
a deterrent for quite a while.

Kai 


--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6281681.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

[Ed Avis]

Richard Fairhurst  systemed.net> writes:

>For them, it's not
>about the law one way or another: it's about reputation risk.

Yes, and the fact that if they did try to claim they could copy the OSM map
data, then their own maps would equally well be copyable.  Which would be great
for us, and bad for them.

>So Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq are, in my view, largely irrelevant to the
>licence discussion.

(except in so far as we may be able to influence them to contribute to OSM
or to free their own maps - which unfortunately doesn't appear to be much)
 
>It's everyone else who we have to worry about. In the last couple of months,
>I've personally noticed a national railway company, a charity with a
>turnover of >£100m, a vast firm of couriers, a magazine publisher, a book
>publisher, all infringing our requirements/requests for attribution and
>share-alike.

What's not clear is how the ODbL+DbCL licence would help this situation.
It would at least straightforwardly permit the publishing of map tiles without
any attribution or share-alike requirement, so we wouldn't have the work of
trying to track down and contact such infringers.  That is a bit of an odd
reason to switch to it, though, if the supposed purpose is to stop people
misusing the data.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

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

[David Murn]

On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 12:16 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote:
> If we make the numbers, then these new users are unaffected.
> 
> If we do not, new users are still unaffected, they have agreed to the 
> use of either CC-BY-SA or ODbL.

What about a case for example of a mapper who wants to map the
flood/cyclone disaster areas in Australia?  The 'new mappers' are
affected as they dont have the right to use any of our data sources as
they have already agreed to incompatible terms.  The 'old mappers' are
affected because they have the right to use the disaster aerial imagery,
but OSM has removed their right to contribute data back.

Sure, in the long term, these 'new users' are unaffected, but if they
want to use data sources right now, they may not be able to.  But thats
okay, Im sure Bing will start giving away 3cm imagery for our country
soon (or maybe we should just settle with 15cm imagery (if lucky) that
provides blotchy coverage like they give us at the moment, after all, if
we're going to shoo away data providers who are giving us better quality
information, then its about all we deserve to have as a community.

David


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

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

[Frederik Ramm]

Ed,

Ed Avis wrote:

Yes, and the fact that if they did try to claim they could copy the OSM map
data, then their own maps would equally well be copyable.


No. To get access to (at least TeleAtlas's or Navteq's) data you will 
have to sign an agreement that binds you to much more than just plain 
copyright.


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 Pre-Announcement

[Richard Fairhurst]

Ed Avis wrote:
> What's not clear is how the ODbL+DbCL licence would help this 
> situation. It would at least straightforwardly permit the publishing 
> of map tiles without any attribution or share-alike requirement

Disagree. (This has been gone over ad nauseam on legal-talk, I'm just
pointing it out here for the record.)

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6281939.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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> I doubt we have to worry about Google, Tele Atlas or Navteq consistently and
> deliberately using OSM data under the current licence. For them, it's not
> about the law one way or another: it's about reputation risk. No matter if
> we have CC-favoured "community norms" on top of a PD waiver, ODbL+CT, or
> CC-BY-SA, for these three companies, being seen to "do the wrong thing" in
> their key market would be a sufficient disincentive.

Google seemed to have no problem with the reputation risk of violating
the copyrights of thousands of book authors.

> It's everyone else who we have to worry about.

Worry about?  What exactly is there to worry about?

> In the last couple of months,
> I've personally noticed a national railway company, a charity with a
> turnover of >£100m, a vast firm of couriers, a magazine publisher, a book
> publisher, all infringing our requirements/requests for attribution and
> share-alike. (I've spotted these by chance: I don't go out there looking for
> this stuff.) Deliberate? In some cases, definitely. You wouldn't put an
> entirely fictitious credit to another organisation if you were just innocent
> of the niceties.

Would a different license change this?  If so, why?

> No, Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq aren't infringing OSM's licence. Everyone
> else is, though.

Are they infringing the license, or are they following it in a way
that wasn't intended?

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

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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Ed,
>
> Ed Avis wrote:
>>
>> Yes, and the fact that if they did try to claim they could copy the OSM
>> map
>> data, then their own maps would equally well be copyable.
>
> No. To get access to (at least TeleAtlas's or Navteq's) data you will have
> to sign an agreement that binds you to much more than just plain copyright.

If the data were public domain, it'd only take a single anonymous
individual to get the data and upload it to Bittorrent, though.

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

[OSM-talk] PD tick box

[Steve Coast]

Today I watched a few people sign up for OSM and they all ticked the PD 
box without even looking at it, it was very entertaining.


Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] PD tick box

[Serge Wroclawski]

I've seen the same pattern.

While I certainly understand the pro-PD argument, what would folks
think about putting the checkbox after the submit button?

- Serge

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

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

[Russ Nelson]

Frederik Ramm writes:
 > No. To get access to (at least TeleAtlas's or Navteq's) data you will 
 > have to sign an agreement that binds you to much more than just plain 
 > copyright.

Did you sign an agreement to use your personal navigation device?
Almost certainly not. So what's to stop you from reverse-engineering
the data files, and publishing them?

Copyright.

-- 
--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] PD tick box

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

>Today I watched a few people sign up for OSM and they all ticked the PD
box without even looking at it, it was very entertaining.:
>While I certainly understand the pro-PD argument, what would folks
>think about putting the checkbox after the submit button?

It's rather degrading saying this about community members signing up, 
when at the same time you same people expect that clicking 
another box on another page ("I agree to the CT") 
creates a binding contract.

If you really need votes that you can account for, send
the members a printed form to sign.
Or at least use a input box where people
have to (copy)type a simple phrase like

"I hereby understand that "

 Gert

___
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] PD tick box

[Fabio Alessandro Locati]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:38 AM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen  wrote:
>
>>While I certainly understand the pro-PD argument, what would folks
>>think about putting the checkbox after the submit button?
I agree, it should be done
>
> It's rather degrading saying this about community members signing up,
> when at the same time you same people expect that clicking
> another box on another page ("I agree to the CT")
> creates a binding contract.
>
> If you really need votes that you can account for, send
> the members a printed form to sign.
> Or at least use a input box where people
> have to (copy)type a simple phrase like
In all the countries I know of ticking a checkbox is comparable to
sign a printed contract, so I thin is pointless to have a written
contract or a Copy&Past thing ;)

Fabio A Locati
-- 
Fabio Alessandro Locati

Home: Segrate, Milan, Italy (GMT +1)
Phone: +39-328-3799681
MSN/Jabber/E-Mail: fabioloc...@gmail.com

PGP Fingerprint: 5525 8555 213C 19EB 25F2  A047 2AD2 BE67 0F01 CA61

Involved in: KDE, OpenStreetMap, Ubuntu, Wikimedia

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