[OSM-talk] License plan
It looks like we finally got some kind of "License plan" for the step towards the new license, so everyone check http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan Let me start with the obvious questions first: * why don't you split between the votes whether you like license X and the question whether you're allowing the change of license on your data? After all, I want to have an idea *how much* of the data will still be there after the second vote. If it turns out that any data from someone who gave his approval would be deleted, then count me as no vote. * I still have no response to the question what would happen with my data if it's derived from someone who doesn't give it's approval for a license change. The second person could be tracing yahoo images and later someone else added all the names after a lot of work on the ground. So he can only see the removal of his work. And how are you going to check that anyway? You can do lots of things with CC-BY-SA data (copying, splitting, merging) where it's impossible to My understanding is for example that if you split a way, there's not a single connection between the two parts of the way telling that one derived from the other. And what with the countless relations? If there's one way added to it by someone that didn't give approval, the only thing you can do is remove the relation as it was derived from CC-BY-SA data. Goodbye to your hundreds of kilometers long routes. * "Website to allow users to voluntarily agree to new license. Design allows you to click yes, or if you disagree a further page explaining the position and asking to reconsider as there may be a requirement to ultimately remove the users data. This will help stop people accidentally clicking 'no'. Sign up page now states you agree to license your changes under both CCBYSA and also ODbL." Question: how's that not pushing the new license onto the mappers? Greetings Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, I'll comment on various other aspects later but: Ben Laenen wrote: > And what with the countless relations? If there's one way added to it by > someone that didn't give approval, the only thing you can do is remove > the relation as it was derived from CC-BY-SA data. Goodbye to your > hundreds of kilometers long routes. No, it would be perfectly viable to just remove individual members from a relation. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > I'll comment on various other aspects later but: > > Ben Laenen wrote: > > And what with the countless relations? If there's one way added to > > it by someone that didn't give approval, the only thing you can do > > is remove the relation as it was derived from CC-BY-SA data. > > Goodbye to your hundreds of kilometers long routes. > > No, it would be perfectly viable to just remove individual members > from a relation. Well no, you assume that all other parts in that relation were added independently from the ones already in there. But if I see a route which has a gap and only one possible road to follow between the two (it was badly connected at a junction for example) I can add that part as well, which is then derived from the other data. There's no possible way to tell if part X of the relation was derived that way or not. And if one or both of those parts that were connected by me are from someone who doesn't give approval for the license change and my part is kept we'll end up with wrongly licensed data in the OSM database. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 27 Feb 2009, at 13:19, Ben Laenen wrote: > On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Hi, >> >>I'll comment on various other aspects later but: >> >> Ben Laenen wrote: >>> And what with the countless relations? If there's one way added to >>> it by someone that didn't give approval, the only thing you can do >>> is remove the relation as it was derived from CC-BY-SA data. >>> Goodbye to your hundreds of kilometers long routes. >> >> No, it would be perfectly viable to just remove individual members >> from a relation. > > Well no, you assume that all other parts in that relation were added > independently from the ones already in there. But if I see a route > which has a gap and only one possible road to follow between the two > (it was badly connected at a junction for example) I can add that part > as well, which is then derived from the other data. > > There's no possible way to tell if part X of the relation was derived > that way or not. And if one or both of those parts that were connected > by me are from someone who doesn't give approval for the license > change > and my part is kept we'll end up with wrongly licensed data in the OSM > database. Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk? Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :) With regard to these questions, lets make a clear distinction between the question (which anyone is qualified to raise) and the answer (for which one is likely to need to be a lawyer)! Possibly Ben is a lawyer, I am not sure, but in the past we have tended to form a legal opinion without ever asking a lawyer. My company is taking legal advice on the licence and will publish the conclusions to the community. We will use the Open Issues page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues ) as part of the input to our legal review. If you have questions then please ensure that they are mentioned on that page. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd > > > Ben > > ___ > 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] License plan
To be clear, personal views, not the licensing work group... Ben Laenen wrote: > It looks like we finally got some kind of "License plan" for the step > towards the new license, so everyone check > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan > Read the full announcement in all its glory: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001958.html Discussion is best on legal-talk or the avenues as per announcement. > > * why don't you split between the votes whether you like license X and > the question whether you're allowing the change of license on your > data? > Yes there is a vote for endorsement of the license. See proposed item 31st March. > After all, I want to have an idea *how much* of the data will still be > there after the second vote. If it turns out that any data from someone > who gave his approval would be deleted, then count me as no vote. > We do not know, it's impossible to tell yet. The very last thing any of us want is removal of any data. See final item in Implementation plan. > * I still have no response to the question what would happen with my > data if it's derived from someone who doesn't give it's approval for a > license change. > What do you think will need to happen? How about posting it here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Issues > * "Website to allow users to voluntarily agree to new license. Design > allows you to click yes, or if you disagree a further page explaining > the position and asking to reconsider as there may be a requirement to > ultimately remove the users data. This will help stop people > accidentally clicking 'no'. Sign up page now states you agree to > license your changes under both CCBYSA and also ODbL." > > Question: how's that not pushing the new license onto the mappers? > Well we have to start somewhere... If we do not get new members to sign-up to both licenses during potential transition, it becomes a chicken and egg problem. Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Friday 27 February 2009, Peter Miller wrote: > Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk? > Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own > :) I think this discussion is important enough to take place on the talk mailing list. If it's held on the legal-talk mailing list this will just be obscured as there are not a lot of people subscribed to it. > With regard to these questions, lets make a clear distinction between > the question (which anyone is qualified to raise) and the answer (for > which one is likely to need to be a lawyer)! Possibly Ben is a > lawyer, I am not sure, but in the past we have tended to form a legal > opinion without ever asking a lawyer. > > My company is taking legal advice on the licence and will publish the > conclusions to the community. We will use the Open Issues page > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues ) > as part of the input to our legal review. If you have questions then > please ensure that they are mentioned on that page. Well, IANAL. But the situation looks quite clear to me: * person X enters data * person Y uses that data to make his own data * person X opposes the license change, person Y approves * there's no way to tell the origin of all the data in the OSM database * there could be no way to tell that some of person Y's data is derived from person X * if the new license database keeps all of Y's data not based on the data from X as it can be found in the current OSM database, it will still miss heaps of the derived data. * result: the new database will have improperly licensed data. There's exactly one way to be sure this won't happen: get approval of *all* the people who've been editing OSM. And with a number of around 100.000 mappers I'm very skeptical that you'll be able to manage that. If there's even one mapper not giving his approval, you're not able to move the database as you just can't tell if there's derived data or not. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, Peter Miller wrote: > Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk? > Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :) At what point do we then intend to include those people who are not interested in legal? Is it safe to assume that anyone who is not on legal-talk need not hear about the new license until such time as the web site greets him with "please sign up here, and by the way it is too late to voice your opinion now"? Is the new license really a "technicality" that need not concern the average mapper and has to be kept out of his way? While you are right in saying that talk is busy, I think that the important topic of license change - which, no matter how it turns out, is likely to have a much bigger impact on the project than the question whether, say, one uses "yes" or "true" for boolean values - has been relegated to the "legal" cupboard long enough. The license change is no longer a boring legal affair, it must become a mainstream topic, and must in the end be carried by the majority of people in this project. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Ben Laenen wrote: > There's exactly one way to be sure this won't happen: get > approval of *all* the people who've been editing OSM. And with > a number of around 100.000 mappers I'm very skeptical that > you'll be able to manage that. Not true (IMO at least). We have 100,000 _registered_users_, not mappers. Only a fraction of them have contributed to the map. Of them, again, only a fraction have made substantial changes deserving of copyright* protection. If someone has put one church on the map, or removed an 'n' from 'Avennue', or even just done the uncreative monkey-work of tracing over Yahoo imagery, _most_ jurisdictions will not grant them any copyright over the work. Even in the UK, which follows the "sweat of the brow" principle (i.e. copyright can be gained through effort even without creativity), such effort needs to be significant. Claiming copyright over negligible works is what the RIAA, and those bunch of tards who are trying to stop the Kindle's text-to-speech feature, do. They are rightly vilified for it by people like us. We should be on the side of the angels, and not try and claim rights where such rights shouldn't and don't exist. This should be on legal-talk, but I don't know how to get Nabble to cross-post. Sorry. cheers Richard * read "copyright or similar rights" throughout :) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22247370.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Friday 27 February 2009, Grant Slater wrote: > Read the full announcement in all its glory: > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001 >958.html > > Discussion is best on legal-talk or the avenues as per announcement. I keep disagreeing. This is important enough to be read by anyone. > > * why don't you split between the votes whether you like license X > > and the question whether you're allowing the change of license on > > your data? > > Yes there is a vote for endorsement of the license. See proposed item > 31st March. That's an OSMF vote, not a vote from the community. You have no idea at that time whether everyone would agree, or perhaps 50% would disagree (or not bother to give his or her approval). > > * I still have no response to the question what would happen with > > my data if it's derived from someone who doesn't give it's approval > > for a license change. > > What do you think will need to happen? > How about posting it here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_I >ssues Legally, it should be all removed. Unfortunately there's often no way to tell the link bad licensed data → derived data. So we don't even know what we'd have to remove. So you'll end up having badly licensed data in there after the removal, and I'm pretty worried about that. > > * "Website to allow users to voluntarily agree to new license. > > Design allows you to click yes, or if you disagree a further page > > explaining the position and asking to reconsider as there may be a > > requirement to ultimately remove the users data. This will help > > stop people accidentally clicking 'no'. Sign up page now states you > > agree to license your changes under both CCBYSA and also ODbL." > > > > Question: how's that not pushing the new license onto the mappers? > > Well we have to start somewhere... If we do not get new members to > sign-up to both licenses during potential transition, it becomes a > chicken and egg problem. That's not the point. I'm talking about the warning: "say no here and all your hard work can be gone" (with added note: "oh, and even if you answer yes you may see a lot of your data removed if you're unlucky" because your yes here automatically implies approval of the license change of OSM). I don't mind that you'll ask at that point already whether you allow dual license on the existing and new mappers, but you should at the same time ask whether they would actually like to see OSM change its license or not. These are two completely different issues. If it turns out that basically all who have voted at that round agrees to changing the license, then we can actually give warning "say no here and your data may be removed". And after that second round has passed it's time to decide to actually move to the new license. Look, I'm giving no opinion here on whether the new license is good or bad (I haven't even read it, it's only available now). I'm just saying that you seem to have no concrete plan at all about its exact implementation yet and seem to have ignored a lot of issues. And you want this license change be done with in three months? Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Chris Hill wrote: > Emoticon aside, I think the licence is far too important to just > discuss among a cosy few. When I tried to join legal (out of > interest) I could not. It's not a closed list - it's open to anyone and you can, of course, read on the web or via Nabble. If you try to join again and it doesn't work, let me know (I'm nominally the maintainer of the list). > So, is there a succinct summary of the proposals,plans and options? There's a load of stuff on the wiki, but http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=262 from a year ago is probably the simplest introduction to _why_ a change is necessary (and the options are that we change or don't change). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22247737.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 27 Feb 2009, at 14:42, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Peter Miller wrote: >> Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal- >> talk? Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of >> our own :) > > At what point do we then intend to include those people who are not > interested in legal? > > Is it safe to assume that anyone who is not on legal-talk need not > hear about the new license until such time as the web site greets > him with "please sign up here, and by the way it is too late to > voice your opinion now"? Is the new license really a "technicality" > that need not concern the average mapper and has to be kept out of > his way? > > While you are right in saying that talk is busy, I think that the > important topic of license change - which, no matter how it turns > out, is likely to have a much bigger impact on the project than the > question whether, say, one uses "yes" or "true" for boolean values - > has been relegated to the "legal" cupboard long enough. > > The license change is no longer a boring legal affair, it must > become a mainstream topic, and must in the end be carried by the > majority of people in this project. Agreed, but can I suggest we try to keep the detailed legal discussions legal talk - ie discussion about the implications of this or that phrase or word on legal-talk and that the conversation on talk is of a more general form, of the sort that is going on at present - ie, why are we changing, and what will happen to peoples data if it is derived from someone's data who is not contactable, or who says no. To me the big risk is from major contributors who can not be contacted. or people who bulk imported who can't be contacted. I suggest people aim to get in contact with major contributors in areas the care about asap if they have not already done so. Peter > > > Bye > Frederik > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 08:08, Peter Miller wrote: > Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk? > Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :) Why do the non-lawyers need to go to the lawyers if they're making proposals that impact everyone in OSM, lawyers or not? The announcement of the implementation plan wasn't even cc:ed to the larger community, which is completely inexcusable. > With regard to these questions, lets make a clear distinction between > the question (which anyone is qualified to raise) and the answer (for > which one is likely to need to be a lawyer)! Possibly Ben is a lawyer, > I am not sure, but in the past we have tended to form a legal opinion > without ever asking a lawyer. IANAL, but it's my understanding that case law in my particular jurisdiction says that a contract hasn't been broken when one party makes a reasonable interpretation of the language of the contract, even if it isn't what the writer of the contract intended it to mean. If the wording of the license leads reasonable people on this list to make the wrong assumptions, you need to know about it so you can change it. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 27 Feb 2009, at 15:05, Chris Hill wrote: > Peter Miller wrote: >> Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal- >> talk? Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of >> our own :) >> >> > Emoticon aside, I think the licence is far too important to just > discuss among a cosy few. When I tried to join legal (out of > interest) I could not. >> With regard to these questions, lets make a clear distinction >> between the question (which anyone is qualified to raise) and the >> answer (for which one is likely to need to be a lawyer)! > I don't need to be a lawyer to have an opinion and just because > someone is a lawyer doesn't mean they are right. > > So, is there a succinct summary of the proposals,plans and options? There are a bunch of wiki pages of varying quality and accuracy that relate to the licence here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Open_Data_Licence Sure, there are also a bunch of unanswered questions and as I am 'on the outside' as well I don't have the answers to them and actually I think the people on the inside are still working on some of them. I suggest that we capture the questions on the 'open issues' wiki page Regards, Peter > > Cheers, Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
2009/2/27 Richard Fairhurst : > > Ben Laenen wrote: >> There's exactly one way to be sure this won't happen: get >> approval of *all* the people who've been editing OSM. And with >> a number of around 100.000 mappers I'm very skeptical that >> you'll be able to manage that. > > Not true (IMO at least). > > We have 100,000 _registered_users_, not mappers. Only a fraction of them > have contributed to the map. > > Of them, again, only a fraction have made substantial changes deserving of > copyright* protection. > And even if you take the ultra cautious approach and say all edits are deserving of copyright protection, you can still draw a line around minor edits both temporal and spatial ie: a single edit can only possibly infect edits made after it, and within say 50m of it. So a single minor edit is slightly annoying... a lot is obviously a problem.. and this is where you want all the bot owners, tracers, and general fixers to agree because otherwise it makes a large mess. We don't need 100% of users, but we need a very high proportion if you want to remove any irritatingly subjective legal discussion. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Peter Miller wrote: > Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk? > Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :) > > Emoticon aside, I think the licence is far too important to just discuss among a cosy few. When I tried to join legal (out of interest) I could not. > With regard to these questions, lets make a clear distinction between > the question (which anyone is qualified to raise) and the answer (for > which one is likely to need to be a lawyer)! I don't need to be a lawyer to have an opinion and just because someone is a lawyer doesn't mean they are right. So, is there a succinct summary of the proposals,plans and options? Cheers, Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Just out of curiosity: If the CC-by-SA license give the copyright to all contributors, then who is to decide what stays in the database and what is removed. Also who has the right to require a change to a new license? Is it the person who owns the server? Is it OSMF? Steve Coast as founder perhaps? If we change to the new license then do we have a tool available that will remind me of the bits that are going to be rolled back because of my contribution being dependent on someone who did not agree to the license? I would like to know which bits of my data are going to be rolled back so I can edit that area again to fix it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Friday 27 February 2009, Dave Stubbs wrote: > And even if you take the ultra cautious approach and say all edits > are deserving of copyright protection, you can still draw a line > around minor edits both temporal and spatial ie: a single edit can > only possibly infect edits made after it, and within say 50m of it. > So a single minor edit is slightly annoying... a lot is obviously a > problem.. and this is where you want all the bot owners, tracers, and > general fixers to agree because otherwise it makes a large mess. Well, if person X who dislikes the new license was someone editing some roads straight through the London city centre, and draw an (arbitrary) 50m radius around all his edits, you'll still end up with a lot of roads which are possibly derived from badly licensed data... Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
>If someone has put one church on the map, or removed an 'n' from 'Avennue', >or even just done the uncreative monkey-work of tracing over Yahoo imagery, I take exception to this. I have spent many a long winter night (over two winters!) adding almost all the lakes and rivers of Peru to OSM (for largely personal reasons, it's what I wanted to do - and there were very few already there when I started). Except for in built up areas, these are features that are mostly so remote that no-one will ever visit more than a few of them with a GPS. The only way these will ever be added is from satellite imagery. I don't think this is uncreative monkey-work - it's probably upwards of 50 hours of effort in total. I tried things like the lake-walker plugin to speed it up, but with only limited success, so most of it is totally manual. I suspect that in most cases of smaller, more remote lakes OSM is the first map on which these lakes have appeared, ever. A lot of this I would not consider particularly 'useful', but for me it is a form of art - just like when I draw a picture, or sing a song, or write a blog entry. I'd like to be able to look back and think "yeah, I did that". Are you saying that this would not be covered by copyright? I think I've added a significant amount of creativity to the original data from which it is derived - i.e. they are now on a map as opposed to just a satellite picture. I'd have no problem with someone copying a lake or two and using them under a different licence, but if they copy the whole lot and abuse the licence for my artwork (creative commons for now, the new OSM licence if I decide to agree to it) then I'd be seriously unhappy. Even for more 'conventional' uses of tracing satellite imagery for adding roads, the contribution can be significant, even if it's not as good as using a GPS to collect the data. Cheers, Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
David Lynch wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 08:08, Peter Miller wrote: > >> Would it be appropriate to continue this conversation on legal-talk? >> Talk is very busy at the moment and we have a lovely list of our own :) >> > > Why do the non-lawyers need to go to the lawyers if they're making > proposals that impact everyone in OSM, lawyers or not? The > announcement of the implementation plan wasn't even cc:ed to the > larger community, which is completely inexcusable. > Actually my mistake not CCing... fixing the situation in the next few minutes. Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
>Even in the UK, which follows the "sweat of the brow" principle (i.e. copyright >can be gained through effort even without creativity), such effort needs to >be significant. Sorry I meant to add at the end of my previous email - what I was saying is that tracing of satellite imagery can be significantly non-negligible, and often needs to be quite creative too. You try telling the difference between a lake and the shadow of a cloud on a very dark satellite image for example! Also, you have to make judgements as to where a lake or river ends and the land starts - it's not a simple case of where this is water, as that depends on the season, amount of rain and other factors. >Claiming copyright over negligible works is what the RIAA, and those bunch >of tards who are trying to stop the Kindle's text-to-speech feature, do. >They are rightly vilified for it by people like us. We should be on the side >of the angels, and not try and claim rights where such rights shouldn't and >don't exist. Yes I agree totally with this, I think in this example a text-to-speech feature should be considered fair use (not to mention that denying this use might fall foul of anti-discrimination laws in some jurisdictions). However, I'm aware that, in the UK at least, fair use is not a well-defined concept legally. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, Lambertus wrote: > Just out of curiosity: If the CC-by-SA license give the copyright to all > contributors, then who is to decide what stays in the database and what > is removed. Ultimately this will be the person operating the database (server). You can of course always operate your own database and make different decisions. > Also who has the right to require a change to a new license? Nobody, but of course the database operator can say "I won't host your data any longer unless you agree to this". > If we change to the new license then do we have a tool available that > will remind me of the bits that are going to be rolled back because of > my contribution being dependent on someone who did not agree to the > license? I would like to know which bits of my data are going to be > rolled back so I can edit that area again to fix it. I think it is unfortunate that the discussion circles around this, which is one of weak spots of the whole process. I think it is absolutely clear that we cannot and will not accept the loss of a large amount of present-day data. Once we have agreed to start transition to a new license then we will have to work very hard to get as many people on board as possible, convince them to agree. We can, as Richard pointed out, surely argue our way through some things (minor edits that are not copyrightable etc). In those cases where we cannot reach the original mapper even though we have tried hard (sending one email is not enough), it might even be an option to document this process and assume the mapper is ok with relicensing unless he turns up later and says otherwise. But in the end it will be a whole lot of work and we will all have to help. If, and the end of the whole process, we find that we'd have to remove half our data to be able to continue then the relicensing has clearly failed and must not be allowed to go on. But I think there are many more things about the new license that warrant a good discussion and a close look; the "what happens to my data" question is, in my eyes, one of the less important points. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
2009/2/27 Ben Laenen : > On Friday 27 February 2009, Dave Stubbs wrote: >> And even if you take the ultra cautious approach and say all edits >> are deserving of copyright protection, you can still draw a line >> around minor edits both temporal and spatial ie: a single edit can >> only possibly infect edits made after it, and within say 50m of it. >> So a single minor edit is slightly annoying... a lot is obviously a >> problem.. and this is where you want all the bot owners, tracers, and >> general fixers to agree because otherwise it makes a large mess. > > Well, if person X who dislikes the new license was someone editing some > roads straight through the London city centre, and draw an (arbitrary) > 50m radius around all his edits, you'll still end up with a lot of > roads which are possibly derived from badly licensed data... > How so? Do you have a mechanism in mind creating these derivatives? 50m is obviously arbitrary, but cuts out all connected ways, and anything that's positioned next to that street, and any splits to the ways are captured. At what point away do you think things become definitely independent, or are you saying there is no safe distance? It's probably something like distance away is proportional to (copyright legal paranoia) over (you can't copyright a fact) Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! Grant Slater schrieb: > Read the full announcement in all its glory: > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001958.html > > Discussion is best on legal-talk or the avenues as per announcement. > I disagree. This matter is important enough that it should be announced and explained to as many mappers as possible. Actually, I cannot think of any matter more important for OSM. Especially when you expect people to happily vote in favour of a proposal it might be a good idea to inform them ahead of time rather than annoy them by keeping them out of the loop until it is too late to comment. In my opinion, a statement about this that is understandable to a non-lawyer belongs not only on talk, but onto the national mailing lists, onto the forum, onto the wiki news, the login page and any other place where you can reach mappers. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Lambertus wrote: > > If we change to the new license then do we have a tool available > > that will remind me of the bits that are going to be rolled back > > because of my contribution being dependent on someone who did not > > agree to the license? I would like to know which bits of my data > > are going to be rolled back so I can edit that area again to fix > > it. > > I think it is unfortunate that the discussion circles around this, > which is one of weak spots of the whole process. I think it is > absolutely clear that we cannot and will not accept the loss of a > large amount of present-day data. I don't call it just a weak spot. I call it fundamental to the entire process of license changing. As long as there's no answer to it, there's really no point in going on IMHO, as no-one knows what to expect in cases where for example 5% of users opposed the change or never replied. And personally I wouldn't even accept the loss of even a tiny amount of my uploaded data. And I'm sure that's what most mappers are most interested in as well. And I would refuse to answer any question to relicense my data as well as long as there's not a single statement on what would happen with data derived from badly licensed data. And I want a very detailed answer as well, like what exact metrics would be used to calculate the amount of data without approval, and how much removed data would be acceptable. > Once we have agreed to start transition to a new license then we will > have to work very hard to get as many people on board as possible, > convince them to agree. > > We can, as Richard pointed out, surely argue our way through some > things (minor edits that are not copyrightable etc). In those cases > where we cannot reach the original mapper even though we have tried > hard (sending one email is not enough), it might even be an option to > document this process and assume the mapper is ok with relicensing > unless he turns up later and says otherwise. Ugh, and here I thought people in the FOSS world actually cared about proper use of licenses. Here's one: why not proposing to put it all under a proprietary license, and also relicense the works of those that you can't get an answer from. > But in the end it will be a whole lot of work and we will all have to > help. If, and the end of the whole process, we find that we'd have to > remove half our data to be able to continue then the relicensing has > clearly failed and must not be allowed to go on. I understand you don't really know what will happen when the vote gets out, but I'd say that now is the time to get an idea? A plain simple question somewhere "Would you like to see OSM moving towards a new license? Yes, no, don't know, under certain conditions." At least we wouldn't just be blindly guessing what could or would happen... > But I think there are many more things about the new license that > warrant a good discussion and a close look; the "what happens to my > data" question is, in my eyes, one of the less important points. The new license may be the best thing since sliced bread, but that's really not my concern. I care about whether the database will still be "clean" after a possible change (meaning, properly licensed). If that can't be worked out there will certainly be no-one making use of OSM since it'd be a legal mess. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, Ben Laenen wrote: > I care about whether the database will still > be "clean" after a possible change (meaning, properly licensed). The current license is anything but "properly licensed". If you take a *strict* view then we're all violating CC-BY-SA every day by not listing every individual contributor, and we're also violating the database rights of the operator of the database because nowhere does CC-BY-SA grant you the permission required by European law to use someone else's database. If you take a *relaxed* view then all our data is un-protected anyway because facts are not copyrightable. > If that can't be worked out there will certainly be no-one making use of > OSM since it'd be a legal mess. I hope that I have shown that we're in a legal mess already, and basically have been there from day one. This still doesn't mean we have to change the license; we could simply choose to keep the mess we have. But saying that our data was "properly licensed" at the moment is really very misleading. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Ben Laenen wrote: > > I care about whether the database will still > > be "clean" after a possible change (meaning, properly licensed). > > The current license is anything but "properly licensed". At least it's under one license, and no-one questions that it's licensed under that license. That's what I mean with "properly licensed". > If you take a *strict* view then we're all violating CC-BY-SA every > day by not listing every individual contributor, and we're also > violating the database rights of the operator of the database because > nowhere does CC-BY-SA grant you the permission required by European > law to use someone else's database. > > If you take a *relaxed* view then all our data is un-protected anyway > because facts are not copyrightable. With that relaxed view I'd be copying teleatlas maps by now. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 27/02/2009 16:02, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> If we change to the new license then do we have a tool available that >> will remind me of the bits that are going to be rolled back because of >> my contribution being dependent on someone who did not agree to the >> license? I would like to know which bits of my data are going to be >> rolled back so I can edit that area again to fix it. > > I think it is unfortunate that the discussion circles around this, which > is one of weak spots of the whole process. I think it is absolutely > clear that we cannot and will not accept the loss of a large amount of > present-day data. > > Once we have agreed to start transition to a new license then we will > have to work very hard to get as many people on board as possible, > convince them to agree. I think the biggest problem is likely to be people who we can no longer get in touch with as their email addresses are no longer current and they've lost interest. This will be a particular problem if this happened with someone who made lots of changes and then went off in a huff for some reason. I will find it very hard to say we should proceed if I don't know before saying so what the effect will be. But if everyone says no because fo that, we end up in a stalemate. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Donald Allwright wrote: >>Even in the UK, which follows the "sweat of the brow" principle (i.e. copyright >>can be gained through effort even without creativity), such effort needs to >>be significant. > > Sorry I meant to add at the end of my previous email - what I was saying > is that > tracing of satellite imagery can be significantly non-negligible, and > often needs > to be quite creative too. You try telling the difference between a lake > and the > shadow of a cloud on a very dark satellite image for example! Also, you > have to > make judgements as to where a lake or river ends and the land starts - > it's not > a simple case of where this is water, as that depends on the season, > amount > of rain and other factors. Sure. And the law is just as ill-defined! I think it's pretty unarguable that, in the UK, your tracing of the Peruvian lakes would merit copyright or similar protection (as "sweat-of-the-brow"). I think it's also unarguable that if I trace eight streets in a city, then in the US, that doesn't merit any copyright protection. I _suspect_ your Peruvian lakes wouldn't, either, but IANAL and so on. Between that is shades of grey. Extensive, skilled tracing, which can't simply be learned in an hour or two, assessed in sweat-of-the-brow jurisidictions: yes, there's probably some rights in there. Everything else is much less likely. Really do need to get away from thinking "copyright applies to everything we do". If that was the case then CC-BY-SA wouldn't be so unsuitable. I'm not knocking Yahoo tracing - it's not something I personally have any interest in, but then I've spent hours upon hours upon hours tracing from NPE which is roughly comparable. FWIW (as the owner of the NPE scans) I don't make any restriction on people tracing from my maps - not just because I believe in open data, but also because I don't think I'd have the legal right to even if I wanted. Broadly the same applies to why we're allowed to trace from Yahoo imagery. "Non-copyrightable" doesn't mean "worthless"! cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22251077.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Ben Laenen wrote: > As long as there's no answer to it [...] > I wouldn't even accept [...] > I would refuse [...] > I want a very detailed answer [...] > that's really not my concern [...] Hey, this is a collaborative project. No-one is being paid for this. You could, you know, even _help_. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22251171.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, Ben Laenen wrote: > Ugh, and here I thought people in the FOSS world actually cared about > proper use of licenses. Well if it were my call... > Here's one: why not proposing to put it all under a proprietary license, > and also relicense the works of those that you can't get an answer > from. I know this was meant as a crass example but it is not at all, it is almost exactly the situation we are in at the moment. Currently, we assume that every contributor is the licensor of his data. If, today, I take the data authored by mapper "X" and use it in my proprietary product without attribution, then nobody but mapper X can actually start legal proceedings against me; it is a thing between him and me. If you witness me abusing his data, then the only thing you can do is try to reach him and ask him to sue me. If he is completely unreachable, or unwilling to sue me, then I can continue to use his data any way I please. 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] License plan
On Friday 27 February 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Ben Laenen wrote: > > As long as there's no answer to it [...] > > I wouldn't even accept [...] > > I would refuse [...] > > I want a very detailed answer [...] > > that's really not my concern [...] > > Hey, this is a collaborative project. No-one is being paid for this. Great use of the ellipsis. You may have missed that I actually had some things to say there. I was just pointing out what was missing before you can do anything like deciding to go on with a license change. > You could, you know, even _help_. This *is* where I'm helping: pointing out these issues that stand completely unresolved. Or am I not allowed to voice any concern here to what may happen with the data without giving the complete resolution of all problems I'm mentioning? My hope basically when starting this thread was that these fundamental issues would have been cleared up by now in legal-talk or wherever since you now made the schedule available. Some people are leading this license change, they have certainly thought about the problems. So are they just ignoring the problems with phrases like "you can't copyright facts anyway, so you're mapping work isn't licensed, so we can do anything we want". Or is it more like "no mapper will sue us, so we can ignore any missing approval of the license change"? Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
> This will be a particular problem if this happened with someone who made > lots of changes and then went off in a huff for some reason. What about data donated by varous organizations? In these cases, the user that uploaded them usually just "merely" converted the data from another format (possibly adding some manual cleanup, and thus copyrightable, etc ...), but the major contribution is from the organization itself. This won't be problem in case of PD sources (for example from various government agencies, as their output is "automatically" PD in many countries), but may pose a problem with private companies donating data (they may or may not be happy with the license change) As for the new license - it's 10 pages of legalese, so I'd expect once we start asking users about it, there would be some human-readable excerpt nearby. As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license - what about tagging such data with some tag like "license=cc_by_sa" to warn people that this part is licensed otherwise and keep the data in database? This should be acceptable for most contributors (no data lost) but may be a bit troubling for people who want to use the data (if cc-by-sa is not good for them they would have to filter these out). Also, those cc-by-sa parts could be replaced in time by "properly licensed" data (someone would redraw/reimport the affected area or alike ...). Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I think it's pretty unarguable that, in the UK, your tracing of the > Peruvian > lakes would merit copyright or similar protection (as "sweat-of-the-brow"). Both the UK "sweat-of-the-brow" and the Norwegian (and Dutch?) protection of a large number of facts _might_ be invalid after the database directive. I have seen legal scholars argue that the Norwegian protection of databases, are stronger than the database directive permits. This has, as far as I know, never been tested in a court case, and as such does little more than add tp the confusion surrounding database rights. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Ben Laenen wrote: > Great use of the ellipsis. You may have missed that I actually had > some things to say there. Yes, I'm sure you did. But what I was trying to say is that (IMO) the really important bit is this: > My hope basically when starting this thread was that these > fundamental issues would have been cleared up by now in > legal-talk or wherever since you now made the schedule available. Seriously - who is this "you"?!!! There is no "you" in OSM. There's a big "us". It's an open source, collaborative project. (I presume you can't mean the OSMF board in this context as I'm not on it and haven't been for going on a year, as I'm sure you checked on the OSMF website.) I expect the OSMF people think they _have_ sorted out the "fundamental issues". Similarly, Potlatch does everything that I would ever need and I never open another mapping program. But, amazingly, some people have a different view and use this strange thing called JOSM. Their definition of the "fundamentals" of mapping aren't the same. That's good. We have thousands of mappers, of course they'll think differently. And this is doubly true of licensing, which is always going to be the single most controversial area in this or any open-source project. So "I want a very detailed answer", in your previous message, is the wrong way to go about things. "In my view, this could be a problem. Could we do _this_ to solve it?" is exactly the right way. Come and join in, it's fun. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22260658.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Saturday 28 February 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > My hope basically when starting this thread was that these > > fundamental issues would have been cleared up by now in > > legal-talk or wherever since you now made the schedule available. > > Seriously - who is this "you"?!!! With "you" I mean the people who are pushing ahead with this license change. The license plan didn't just come out of nowhere. I'm sure some people discussed it somewhere. So I mean those people. > There is no "you" in OSM. There's a big "us". But just because there's a big "us", is it too much to ask "us" for "our" opinion about the license change and for "us" to mention "our" concerns to the people mentioned above (from now on referred to as "them")? I personally just don't like it that "they" just decided that in one month I have to immediately make a decision on relicensing my data. The implication of that question is too much to begin with, and as said I'm very wary that because I say "yes" I would pass the approvals across some kind of threshold which would delete say 10% of all data and their derivative data which might include a lot of my work. I need to know first that that won't happen. > So "I want a very detailed answer", in your previous message, is the > wrong way to go about things. Well sorry, but I really do want it. Who comes up with it (it could be me) doesn't matter. This should really be resolved before getting to the question we will all get in a month. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Ben Laenen wrote: > On Saturday 28 February 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > > My hope basically when starting this thread was that these > > > fundamental issues would have been cleared up by now in > > > legal-talk or wherever since you now made the schedule available. > > > > Seriously - who is this "you"?!!! > > With "you" I mean the people who are pushing ahead with this license > change. The license plan didn't just come out of nowhere. I'm sure some > people discussed it somewhere. So I mean those people. > > > There is no "you" in OSM. There's a big "us". > > But just because there's a big "us", is it too much to ask "us" > for "our" opinion about the license change and for "us" to > mention "our" concerns to the people mentioned above (from now on > referred to as "them")? I personally just don't like it that "they" > just decided that in one month I have to immediately make a decision on > relicensing my data. The implication of that question is too much to > begin with, and as said I'm very wary that because I say "yes" I would > pass the approvals across some kind of threshold which would delete say > 10% of all data and their derivative data which might include a lot of > my work. I need to know first that that won't happen. > We[1] are listening. You'd prefer to stay with the same license than lose 10% of the data. We should take that kind of feedback on board. What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? We should probably exclude mass donated data as 90% is probably TIGER anyway. So what percentage of *user contributed* data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? 80n [1] We = Us > > > So "I want a very detailed answer", in your previous message, is the > > wrong way to go about things. > > Well sorry, but I really do want it. Who comes up with it (it could be > me) doesn't matter. This should really be resolved before getting to > the question we will all get in a month. > > Ben > > ___ > 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] License plan
On 28/02/2009 12:21, 80n wrote: > So what percentage of *user contributed* data would other people feel > willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? I think I'd need to see what the data is rather than put it in percentage terms. For example, let's say we're going to lose lots of one way streets (that I mapped originally) in my area because user X went round changing them from 'yes' to 'true' and then decided they didn't agree with the license (or more likely weren't contactable any more), then I could in principle recreate these from my original data. Not that I want to spend time doing this, but if I had to I could. But in any case, I'd say 10% is too high. Even if it's 0.1% but it's all in my area because there's a particular individual working here blocking it, it's WAY too high and would destroy over two years of my work. Personally, if we lose anything that isn't easily remapped (i.e. almost zero work), I'd rather stick with the old license. Trouble is, I can't vote no once I've voted yes, but if I vote no initially, I'll be undermining everyone else. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Do we need to collect stats on what percentage of data is from users who are active and contactable and still care about editing maps? (e.g. what percentage of non-bulk-upload data was originally from someone who logged-in within the last month) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 01:09:31PM +, OJ W wrote: > Do we need to collect stats on what percentage of data is from users > who are active and contactable and still care about editing maps? > (e.g. what percentage of non-bulk-upload data was originally from > someone who logged-in within the last month) > That would be a good metric. Also, - how many users have not logged in for a year ? - how many users with significant/long-term contributions have not logged in for a month/year ? -- - Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 28/02/2009 13:29, veg...@engen.priv.no wrote: > - how many users with significant/long-term contributions have not > logged in for a month/year ? The 'significant' bit is not the point: it only needs people to have made *insignificant* changes to other people's *significant* changes (including original mapping) to be invalidated. But most important of all is to know what's happening or going to happen so any damage can be repaired (without infringing on the ex-contributor's changes of course) David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
80n wrote: > What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see > sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? I'd be interested to see this related to our userbase and editing stats. If (say) we lose 5%, how many months - at current rates of growth - does it take us to get back to the previous level? And an alternative way of looking at it is: might we lose people if we stick with CC-BY-SA? I suspect whatever decision is made, some people will leave; the question is how long it takes us to recover. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22262330.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > 80n wrote: >> What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see >> sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? > > I'd be interested to see this related to our userbase and editing stats. > > If (say) we lose 5%, how many months - at current rates of growth - does it > take us to get back to the previous level? And how will future growth be affected if potential contributors know that peoples' work was discarded in the past? (are there any stats from wikipedia on this - their notability campaign involves deleting peoples' work, so they might know about how much if at all it deters people from contributing when the project has a history of removing stuff) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Ulf Möller wrote: > 80n schrieb: > > What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed >> in order to move forward with the new license? >> > > Judging from the discussions at various places, loosing data seems to be > the main concern with the new license. > > I think a longer transition period would help to alleviate that concern. > We've had CC-BY-SA licensed planet files for several years now, so adding > another year - while dual-licensing all new contributions - wouldn't seem to > cause much damage. > > If the contributions from users who don't agree to the new license were to > remain in the database for some time, but be marked as legacy data (and > perhaps shown in a particularly ugly color in the editors), mappers can > replace that data as part of their regular mapping and data verification > activities. > We know that the appearance of rendered data is a very strong influence. I would consider this to be a totally unacceptable way of making people agree to a new license. > > I believe in that way most of the old data would be replaced within a just > few months without causing much disruption. > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Ulf Möller wrote: > 80n schrieb: > > > If the contributions from users who don't agree to the new license > > were to remain in the database for some time, but be marked as > > legacy data (and perhaps shown in a particularly ugly color in the > > editors), mappers can replace that data as part of their regular > > mapping and data verification activities. > > > > We know that the appearance of rendered data is a very strong > > influence. I would consider this to be a totally unacceptable way of > > making people agree to a new license. > > But simply making the data _disappear_ is acceptable? Weird. > Sorry, I misread your message as a suggestion that users could be coerced to change to the new license by rendering their data in an ugly way. That's not what you said. Actually, the data doesn't really disappear, it will always be available in some old planet file, and I'm sure some renderer would show the old data, perhaps as a separate layer. ODbL layer + CC layer = what license? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
From: David Earl >The 'significant' bit is not the point: it only needs people to have >made *insignificant* changes to other people's *significant* changes >(including original mapping) to be invalidated. Linking this chain of thought with the one that myself and Richard Fairhurst were discussing earlier on in another strand of this thread, I wonder if the insignificant changes could/would/should be deemed not to be copyrightable at all. It certainly doesn't add any creativity to change a 'yes' to 'true', and as long as it's insignificant in quantity wouldn't be as a result of hard labour of any sort. Depends on jurisdiction of course, but maybe the contributions of this individual who refuses to agree to the new licence (or maybe just isn't contactable) could therefore be essentially ignored and left as is in the database without worrying about them? At the end of the day, if the individual comes back and objects to this at a later date, we can still remove them at that point in time if they have a good case that their small 'contributions' are indeed copyrightable. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, David Earl wrote: > But most important of all is to know what's happening or going to happen > so any damage can be repaired (without infringing on the > ex-contributor's changes of course) That's a very interesting topic. We would have to have a kind of "there was something here but I won't tell you what it was" map view that alerts us to things that have gone missing. (Hopefully, many objects will not have to be deleted entirely, but rather just revert to an earlier version). Since the new license allows the creation of "produced work" under a different license, I could imagine creating a derived work of "the OSM planet file one day before license change" and "the current OSM data set" in the form of a browsable slippy map where all items that were there in the old data but aren't in the new data highlighted somehow. This map would then be CC-BY-SA and it would not be allowed to make a derived work from it for re-integration into OSM but it would serve as a good indication of where healing work is required... 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] License plan
El Sábado, 28 de Febrero de 2009, 80n escribió: > So what percentage of *user contributed* data would other people feel > willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? I'm one of the persons who consider CC-by-sa to be a risk for the integrity of the project (i.e. there are potential legal loopholes). I'd rather nuke half the user-contributed data than lose everything. Also, I think we're making history here: there is the GPL as a share-alike *software* license, the CC-by-sa as a share-alike *artistic* license and there will be ODbL as a share-alike *database* license. This is a bold move, as OSM is the first project to embark into a share-alike license for databases (and I'm happy we're pioneering this field). I also think it's a much needed move. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega Un ordenador no es un televisor ni un microondas, es una herramienta compleja. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: > El Sábado, 28 de Febrero de 2009, 80n escribió: > > So what percentage of *user contributed* data would other people feel > > willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? > > I'm one of the persons who consider CC-by-sa to be a risk for the integrity > of > the project (i.e. there are potential legal loopholes). > > I'd rather nuke half the user-contributed data than lose everything. > 50% right? > > Also, I think we're making history here: there is the GPL as a share-alike > *software* license, the CC-by-sa as a share-alike *artistic* license and > there will be ODbL as a share-alike *database* license. > > This is a bold move, as OSM is the first project to embark into a > share-alike > license for databases (and I'm happy we're pioneering this field). I also > think it's a much needed move. > > -- > -- > Iván Sánchez Ortega > > Un ordenador no es un televisor ni un microondas, es una herramienta > compleja. > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 28/02/09 12:21, 80n wrote: > What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see > sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? We should > probably exclude mass donated data as 90% is probably TIGER anyway. So > what percentage of *user contributed* data would other people feel > willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? I'm not sure it's particularly useful to speculate on the question. Why don't we go through the exercise of attempting relicensing, see what the percentage actually is, and if there are particular areas or countries which would be hard-hit, and then have the debate? If I say 10%, and the actual figure was 11%, what would I do? No idea. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Feb 27, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Richard Fairhurst > wrote: I think it's pretty unarguable that, in the UK, your tracing of the Peruvian lakes would merit copyright or similar protection (as "sweat-of-the- brow"). Both the UK "sweat-of-the-brow" and the Norwegian (and Dutch?) protection of a large number of facts _might_ be invalid after the database directive. I think that the reason that the US only protects creativity and not facts is because the US doesn't want to give out a monopoly on a set of facts about the world. I'm unfamiliar with how "sweat-of-the-brow" works. Does it actually give a monopoly on a listing of facts? For example, in the US, you could make a listing of every postcode, and your only claim to copyrightability would be any judgement your exercised on which postcodes you listed and which you chose to not list. It seems like in the UK, you could do the same thing and have a copyright on it -- but another person could exercize the same brow- sweating and claim a copyright on EXACTLY the same facts. Which then brings up the interesting possibility of a third party infringing two copyrights. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > I think that the reason that the US only protects creativity and not facts > is because the US doesn't want to give out a monopoly on a set of facts > about the world. I'm unfamiliar with how "sweat-of-the-brow" works. Does > it actually give a monopoly on a listing of facts? For example, in the US, > you could make a listing of every postcode, and your only claim to > copyrightability would be any judgement your exercised on which postcodes > you listed and which you chose to not list. It seems like in the UK, you > could do the same thing and have a copyright on it -- but another person > could exercize the same brow-sweating and claim a copyright on EXACTLY the > same facts. Which then brings up the interesting possibility of a third > party infringing two copyrights. Whether you infringe on copyright depends on where you copied it from. If you copied from both datasets then quite possibly you infringe both. If you don't copy form someone else then there's no problem. It's the means that matter, not the results. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout http://svana.org/kleptog/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
MP gmail.com> writes: >As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license - >what about tagging such data with some tag like "license=cc_by_sa" to >warn people that this part is licensed otherwise and keep the data in >database? I don't think that would work. If some parts of the data are CC-BY-SA, and some parts are under a new licence, then the resulting database )or maps derived from it) would be a derived work of both. That means that it can be distributed only under CC-BY-SA, and also that it can be distributed only under the new licence. The result would be that you cannot legally distribute it at all. Presumably OSM chose CC-BY-SA to stop other organizations taking the OSM data and distributing it under different conditions. Even if only some of the data in your work is OSM data licensed CC-BY-SA, you must distribute the whole work under that licence, or not at all. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Iván Sánchez Ortega sanchezortega.es> writes: >I'm one of the persons who consider CC-by-sa to be a risk for the integrity of >the project (i.e. there are potential legal loopholes). > >I'd rather nuke half the user-contributed data than lose everything. This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose everything' and how would changing to a different licence avoid that? -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Ben Laenen wrote: > On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> If you take a *relaxed* view then all our data is un-protected anyway >> because facts are not copyrightable. > > With that relaxed view I'd be copying teleatlas maps by now. except that TA data *isn't* just factual because they add in "creative" easter eggs. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 02/03/2009, Ed Avis wrote: > MP gmail.com> writes: > > >As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license - > >what about tagging such data with some tag like "license=cc_by_sa" to > >warn people that this part is licensed otherwise and keep the data in > >database? > > > I don't think that would work. If some parts of the data are CC-BY-SA, and > some > parts are under a new licence, then the resulting database )or maps derived > from Well, if you need the data for personal use - you can use them even with mixed license. If you need to distribute them, etc ... you could filter the cc-by-sa data out. This would allow the remaining cc-by-sa data to be iteratively deleted and then redrawn under "correct" license. I think this could be viable, if there would be only small part of such data. (so the period in which the data won't be properly distributable will be quite small, perhaps few days till all is redrawn) Martin > it) would be a derived work of both. That means that it can be distributed > only > under CC-BY-SA, and also that it can be distributed only under the new > licence. > The result would be that you cannot legally distribute it at all. > > Presumably OSM chose CC-BY-SA to stop other organizations taking the OSM data > and distributing it under different conditions. Even if only some of the > data > in your work is OSM data licensed CC-BY-SA, you must distribute the whole > work > under that licence, or not at all. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for > the > gander. > > > -- > Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
2009/3/2 MP : > On 02/03/2009, Ed Avis wrote: >> MP gmail.com> writes: >> >> >As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license - >> >what about tagging such data with some tag like "license=cc_by_sa" to >> >warn people that this part is licensed otherwise and keep the data in >> >database? >> >> >> I don't think that would work. If some parts of the data are CC-BY-SA, and >> some >> parts are under a new licence, then the resulting database )or maps derived >> from > > Well, if you need the data for personal use - you can use them even > with mixed license. If you need to distribute them, etc ... you could > filter the cc-by-sa data out. > > This would allow the remaining cc-by-sa data to be iteratively deleted > and then redrawn under "correct" license. I think this could be > viable, if there would be only small part of such data. (so the period > in which the data won't be properly distributable will be quite small, > perhaps few days till all is redrawn) > You probably don't mean it that way, but "redrawn" here sounds suspiciously like "copy", which of course you can't do :-) You'd obviously have to redo from scratch, which if there's anything remotely significant would take more than a few days. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
MP gmail.com> writes: >>>As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new >>>license - what about tagging such data with some tag like >>>"license=cc_by_sa" >>I don't think that would work. >Well, if you need the data for personal use - you can use them even >with mixed license. If you need personal use only then Google Maps is fine. Freely distributable map data is the raison d'etre of OpenStreetMap. >This would allow the remaining cc-by-sa data to be iteratively >deleted and then redrawn under "correct" license. That would have to be a very careful process. Imagine that you started with a printout of Google Maps and iteratively rubbed out small sections and redrew them. Even when you had redrawn the whole thing, do you think you'd really be on a firm legal footing? The purported reason for relicensing is to put the project on an undeniably sound legal basis. The only way to do that is to get explicit permission from some contributors, and remove the contributions of all the rest (as well as anything that depends on or was derived from those contributions). Obviously a flag 'this road was formerly marked as one-way, but that tag was removed for copyright reasons' would just be a way of copying the removed data. So you would have to be careful when removing data and make sure that whatever is re-added is done from scratch, by re-tracing the satellite outlines and re-walking the streets, and without any automatic notice 'something is missing here'. There would need to be reasonable checks that nobody is copying data from the CC-BY-SA licensed set, since doing so would be very tempting. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
El Lunes, 2 de Marzo de 2009, Ed Avis escribió: > Iván Sánchez Ortega sanchezortega.es> writes: > >I'm one of the persons who consider CC-by-sa to be a risk for the > > integrity of the project (i.e. there are potential legal loopholes). > > > >I'd rather nuke half the user-contributed data than lose everything. > > This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose everything' and > how would changing to a different licence avoid that? It is my opinion that CC-by-sa poses a high risk of not being enforceable to databases. That would mean losing the share-alike rights to the data. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
>> This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose everything' and >> how would changing to a different licence avoid that? > > It is my opinion that CC-by-sa poses a high risk of not being enforceable to > databases. That would mean losing the share-alike rights to the data. So you mean the data will become sort of "public domain"? Well, then there is question: what is worse? 1. Have all the data, but risk someone "abusing it"? 2. Or force the license change, therefore enforcing the share-alike rights correctly, but tossing some data away? Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to abuse the license using some loophole will simply grab last dump srill published under cc-by-sa instead of the new license - and then abuse the non-enforcability of cc-by-sa to databases. As for the possible data loss - since new license is basically still in spirit of cc-by-sa we can assume that most users will agree to license change, if we can contact them. So if we assume we will contact everybody who has logged/uploaded data at least once in last month and we will fail to contact the others - how many data will be removed? Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
So now we are talking about changing the OSM license. On the one hand I agree that this is necessary but we have to be quite sure that this is the right thing to do. We might lose more during this process then we gain: First of all we will lose data. We won't get everyone to agree on the new license. No matter why. Maybe they don't approve the new license or we just can't reach them anymore. The worst thing would be a huge data lose that we gained because of governments or organizations. But we could lose even more! The ones that don't agree on the change might start a fork and that would be the worst thing that could happen. We got already more then enough to do but splitting our resources into two or more different projects would be awe full. And one more thing. How can we be sure that the coming up license suites the project? I don't want to have this discussion in 3 years again. Roger ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
El Martes, 3 de Marzo de 2009, MP escribió: > Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to abuse > the license using some loophole will simply grab last dump srill > published under cc-by-sa instead of the new license - and then abuse > the non-enforcability of cc-by-sa to databases. ... Which is, IMHO, the reason for the migration to ODbL to be as fast as possible. (If this happens, though, we should start looking for loopholes in other people's data). > So if we assume we will contact everybody who has logged/uploaded data > at least once in last month and we will fail to contact the others - > how many data will be removed? We won't know until we ask. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega - ¿Cuanto tiempo lleva muerto? - Unas cinco horas. - Interrogadle -- "Fringe", 2008 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 03:39, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: > El Martes, 3 de Marzo de 2009, MP escribió: >> Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to abuse >> the license using some loophole will simply grab last dump srill >> published under cc-by-sa instead of the new license - and then abuse >> the non-enforcability of cc-by-sa to databases. > > ... Which is, IMHO, the reason for the migration to ODbL to be as fast as > possible. > > (If this happens, though, we should start looking for loopholes in other > people's data). What about finding a loophole that will allow convert from cc-by-sa to ODbL without asking anybody? :) I think wikipedia is doing something similar with their transition from GFDL to cc-by-sa >> So if we assume we will contact everybody who has logged/uploaded data >> at least once in last month and we will fail to contact the others - >> how many data will be removed? > > We won't know until we ask. I tried running some statistics on extract of Czech Republic from (~ 78000 km^2, 684 Mb uncompressed) If i take data from all users, that have uploaded/modified at least one node, way or relation in last month, I end up with 72.66% of all the data. If I use last two months instead, I end up with 85.56% of data. That is only current state, not considering any history or possible derivative work, etc When I tried the same for germany, I get 59.82% for one-month-recent contributors and 79.17% for two-month-recent. Even worse. If we assume people without contribution in last two months as unreachable (lack of interest in OSM for them), we lose at least 20% data. If the loss would be such high, I think we'll have another fork very soon. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! MP schrieb: >>> This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose everything' and >>> how would changing to a different licence avoid that? >> It is my opinion that CC-by-sa poses a high risk of not being enforceable to >> databases. That would mean losing the share-alike rights to the data. > > So you mean the data will become sort of "public domain"? That is not the same. PD means the data is open to everybody. Abusing a bad licence means the data is open for grabbing for unscrupulous people that don't care about violating the idea. But it is still restricted to honest users respecting the licence. A ridiculous situation. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! MP schrieb: > What about finding a loophole that will allow convert from cc-by-sa to > ODbL without asking anybody? :) I think wikipedia is doing something > similar with their transition from GFDL to cc-by-sa An extremely bad idea. This is the perfect way to alienate people even more and cause a counter-initative or split in the community. From the reactions I see, many people are annoyed that the initiative for a new licence has been conducted in secret by a small group of people, that the information has not been spread and not been translated and that they are being overrun and forced to agree by threat of deletion of their data. These are not my words but taken from posts in lists and forum. The only way to get this rolling is to inform people and ask for their cooperation. It has had a very bad start, but looking for loopholes will feel to many people like you're stealing their data. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
> Well, then there is question: what is worse? > > 1. Have all the data, but risk someone "abusing it"? > 2. Or force the license change, therefore enforcing the share- > alike > rights correctly, but tossing some data away? > > Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to > abuse > the license using some loophole will simply grab last dump > srill > published under cc-by-sa instead of the new license - and then > abuse > the non-enforcability of cc-by-sa to databases. As I think someone else pointed out, if it is abusable then we could abuse it and not lose any data with the switch. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! Ed Loach schrieb: > > As I think someone else pointed out, if it is abusable then we could abuse it and not lose any data with the switch. Yep, we would just loose the people and the credibility. This could only be considerd a last resort for data of people that still cannot be reached after trying really hard. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
I wrote: > As I think someone else pointed out, if it is abusable then we > could abuse it and not lose any data with the switch. And before the flood of emails - I forgot the smiley. I'm sure I read somewhere lots of suggestions about what would happen to various items based on whether the people who created it/amended it agreed to the new licence or not, but can't find where. Was it in the wiki or on an email list? Can anyone remember. Anyway, I don't understand all these legal aspects. I joined the project to help improve the map and will continue to do so whether the licence changes or not, hoping that those people who do know what they are talking about are acting in the best interest of the project. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
wer-ist-roger wrote:
> First of all we will lose data. We won't get everyone to agree on the
> new license. No matter why. Maybe they don't approve the new
> license or we just can't reach them anymore.
There's three categories to consider relating to existing data.
1. People who have made edits and can't be contacted. This is the hard one.
(As said previously, I think _minor_ contributors - whose work isn't
"substantial" - could be moved across automatically if they don't respond,
though still given the right to withdraw at a later time, but this isn't a
universally-held opinion.)
2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get
the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this
percentage should be very small. I'm reminded of a participant at the SOTM
licence debate (I won't identify him, he can speak up if he wants) who spoke
fervently against PD - which of course isn't what's being proposed here -
but later said "I think if you moved to PD, I wouldn't withdraw my data, I
just wouldn't contribute any more". If that's the case for PD then surely he
wouldn't withdraw from a different share-alike/attribution licence.
3. Large organisations. I believe Canada has been done with the expectation
of a move anyway; the US is PD so no bother; it's immaterial to Yahoo. So
the issue is largely reassuring the original owners of the European imports.
IMO ODbL should always be better for them because of its "contribute back
the source of improvements" clause, which of course CC-BY-SA doesn't have:
so, AND (for example) are guaranteed access to all improvements based upon
their work. But this is probably an evangelism job for the foundation.
So all in all, if done right (and that's a big if), the amount of data we
lose _should_ be very small assuming that ODbL is deemed acceptable and the
bugs are ironed out.
There's then a second question: how does a licence move change future
contributions?
Much harder to measure, but my gut feeling is that because the licences are
both attribution/share-alike, the move will be largely neutral, maybe even
positive.
I know a bunch of people who haven't contributed significantly to OSM
because of CC-BY-SA, generally either because of unclarity ("I don't have
any confidence this will stand up, so I'm not contributing to something that
could easily be exploited") or the old derived work issue. For myself, I'm
spending every evening this week working on a detailed map of the
Chesterfield Canal and the surrounding area: data which I'd put into OSM
under ODbL, but which at present I do entirely standalone under Adobe
Illustrator, because of CC-BY-SA. This is a regular occurrence (our magazine
runs a detailed set of canal maps every month) and it frustrates me every
time.
But, on the other side, there will be a handful who genuinely prefer
CC-BY-SA, and we'll lose them.
Re: automatically moving from CC-BY-SA to ODbL via a licence upgrade: for
those who don't follow legal-talk, I raised the idea there in the
expectation that the nice chap from Creative Commons would respond, and sure
enough, he did. However, his reply was that CC's position is that data
should be licensed as public domain, so they wouldn't be interested in such
a move.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22304926.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
I can't see how any plan that involves deleting non-trivial amounts of data is ever going to work anyway as who is going to stop people from re-uploading the data with minor changes to tags and all the nodes moved by a metre or two? Kevin Ed Loach wrote: > I wrote: > >> As I think someone else pointed out, if it is abusable then we >> could abuse it and not lose any data with the switch. > > And before the flood of emails - I forgot the smiley. > > I'm sure I read somewhere lots of suggestions about what would > happen to various items based on whether the people who created > it/amended it agreed to the new licence or not, but can't find > where. Was it in the wiki or on an email list? Can anyone remember. > > Anyway, I don't understand all these legal aspects. I joined the > project to help improve the map and will continue to do so whether > the licence changes or not, hoping that those people who do know > what they are talking about are acting in the best interest of the > project. > > Ed > > > > ___ > 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] License plan
Hi, wer-ist-roger wrote: > But we could lose even more! The ones that don't agree on the change might > start a fork and that would be the worst thing that could happen. That's why we talk to each other before taking the next step. If people feel rushed or left out then they are likely to fork; if we work hard to include as many people as possible - sometimes a symbolic gesture is enough to make people feel that their concerns are heard, sometimes the wording of the license needs to be adapted -, then we might just get this through. > And one more thing. How can we be sure that the coming up license suites the > project? I don't want to have this discussion in 3 years again. The ODbL has a provision for automatic upgrades to later versions. It is currently unclear (a) who decides what a "later version" is, (b) whether we can convince everybody to trust them enough, and (c) how we can be sure that *if* we require a change to the license, a matching "later version" will be provided by them. But if these things are sorted out then we should be reasonably safe... Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > There's three categories to consider relating to existing data. > 1. People who have made edits and can't be contacted. > 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. > 3. Large organisations. I have a fourth category to add: 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release (which seems to be planned for 28th March), or people who have legitimate concerns and find them answered with an "I don't know" from the legal counsel and an "we'll press ahead anyway" from OSMF. Having a proper process that takes our project members and their concerns seriously, rather than holding a gun to their heads and saying "agree to this license or go away", is not only important for keeping as much data as possible, it is also, in my eyes, a requirement of project ethics. I can live with some data being lost. But I would like to avoid press headlines like "20% of OpenStreetMap members quit over license row / Disgruntled mappers say they feel ignored / Fake SteveC: 'Crisis? What Crisis?'" - I think *that* kind of thing would hurt us more than having to redraw a few villages. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Frederik Ramm schrieb: > Hi, > > Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> There's three categories to consider relating to existing data. > >> 1. People who have made edits and can't be contacted. >> 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. >> 3. Large organisations. > > I have a fourth category to add: > > 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which > it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make > sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed > away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release > (which seems to be planned for 28th March), or people who have > legitimate concerns and find them answered with an "I don't know" from > the legal counsel and an "we'll press ahead anyway" from OSMF. > > Having a proper process that takes our project members and their > concerns seriously, rather than holding a gun to their heads and saying > "agree to this license or go away", is not only important for keeping as > much data as possible, it is also, in my eyes, a requirement of project > ethics. > > I can live with some data being lost. But I would like to avoid press > headlines like "20% of OpenStreetMap members quit over license row / > Disgruntled mappers say they feel ignored / Fake SteveC: 'Crisis? What > Crisis?'" - I think *that* kind of thing would hurt us more than having > to redraw a few villages. FULL ACK!!! Personally I am feeling excluded from what's going on behind the scenes and I think this is not the way for a project that has "open" in his name ... There were only very few news on talk/talk-de available for such an important thing as a license change. A little bit more respect to the people that actually did the mapping work would probably be a very good idea. "We're only loosing 5% of the data" is a very, very strange attitude for me. Not because of the data but because of the people behind that data. I must say that this is the first time that I'm seriously thinking about to stop my effort with OpenStreetMap completely and I'm feeling very sorry about that. But I just won't continue to spend effort if OSM in the long run probably ends up as a commercial thing. You're probably not aware, but with the way the current license discussion is done you are spreading a lot of FUD on your own project :-( Just wanted to let you know how the current actions are received from people not being directly involved in legal talk ... Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, Ulf Lamping wrote: > "We're only loosing 5% of the > data" is a very, very strange attitude for me. Not because of the data > but because of the people behind that data. Well, we always said "we have unlimited free labour" ,-) > But I just won't continue to spend effort if OSM in > the long run probably ends up as a commercial thing. The idea that the new license is somehow paving the way for OSM to "end up as a commercial thing" is utterly wrong, and whoever claims this should be hit over the head with a large cluebat. However the fact that there seem to more such people than cluebats tells us that somewhere there's a lesson to be learned about communication. It seems that the new license effort, so far, has been a prime example of how *not* to do it. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Ulf Lamping wrote: > Personally I am feeling excluded from what's going on behind > the scenes and I think this is not the way for a project that > has "open" in his name ... If it helps, there _isn't_ anything going on behind the scenes... well, at least not that I know of. Post in German, or French, or whatever, on here if you like - we all have Google Translate, someone will step up to translate manually, and it's a million times better than not posting. Put stuff on the wiki. Ask questions. Vent. Rant. Anything from a misplaced capital in ODbL to a serious doubt about the entire licensing philosophy. Just say it. Far, far better that you speak up and post "I'm worried about this because...", even in Schwabisch dialect if you like, than you sit there in silence thinking "there's this conspiracy to make OSM commercial and I feel left out". Because There Is No Cabal. Look around you - who's organised enough to come up with a conspiracy? If there was a conspiracy they'd be doing it better. But OSM is at heart a disorganised rabble - that's why the communication on the licence issue has been shit, yes, but that's also why we've mapped large portions of the world, because you couldn't organise it better than that. I've said it a million times before but: there is no "you" in this project, there is only "us". Of course, this might be why Steve thinks I'm a filthy communist. If I could cross-post this to talk-de, talk-fr, talk-it and the rest, I would do. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22306472.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
> A little bit more respect to the people that actually did the mapping > work would probably be a very good idea. "We're only loosing 5% of the > data" is a very, very strange attitude for me. Not because of the data > but because of the people behind that data. Losing 5% of data will do much more damage than it looks - as we can probably assume, that the 5% would be rather randomly distributed, random 5% of objects would "disappear". Now you need to go through the remaining 95% and check/remap it, especially for areas that are already mapped "almost completely", to find out what was lost and redraw it. People will be "stuck" for weeks/months checking the data and repairing the damage - and some of them may get frustrated and leave the project. I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except the original data). Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get > the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this > percentage should be very small. except that the ODbL does represent a fundamental change in licensing of map images - previously they were sharealike, but with ODbL it will only require attribution? This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-reserved map images based on their data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
OJ W wrote: > This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are > doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights- > reserved map images based on their data. Yeah, just like I lie in bed at night fretting that people can sell all-rights-reserved, closed-source routing services based on my data. Come on. cheers Richard (On a point of order, I don't believe ODbL _does_ allow all-rights-reserved anyway; that's what the reverse-engineering clause is about.) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22308562.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
MP gmail.com> writes: >I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some >transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but >we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming >from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with >some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from >scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except >the original data). You would have to be very careful about doing that. I don't think it would work to view the map, see a street tagged 'bad licence', delete it and then add it back. Even if you were honest enough to close your eyes, turn around three times and then re-trace it from the aerial photography, it still looks very suspect. And when deleting the street you would have to delete all its nodes, including those that are intersections with other streets, since it obviously doesn't do anything to delete the way but leave all the nodes there to be straightaway reconnected. Try this thought experiment: suppose a user imported data from Google Maps and randomly scattered it around the map. But he added a special tag to it so that people could later delete these tainted map features and recreate them. Even after the last bit of tagged data had been deleted and re-added, could you really claim that the resulting map was clean and legally sound? If a mishmash of CC-BY-SA and ODbL licensed map data is workable, then let's trace all the missing towns from Google Maps right now and mark them with a special tag to be replaced later when we get round to it. I'm sure the Google licence doesn't allow you to mix it with your own data and release the result under a licence of your choice, but then neither does CC-BY-SA or the permission grant made by users when they sign up to the project. Since the reason for relicensing is to be ultra-cautious and take care of certain theoretical legal bogeymen, it makes sense to be ultra-cautious in removing possibly tainted data. There is no point doing a relicensing that leaves the project in a more questionable legal situation than before. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > OJ W wrote: >> This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are >> doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights- >> reserved map images based on their data. > > Yeah, just like I lie in bed at night fretting that people can sell > all-rights-reserved, closed-source routing services based on my data. Come > on. Could you expand that answer? Removing cartography from the scope of OSM's license would seem to deserve a better explanation than a dismissal like that. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W wrote: > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst > wrote: >> 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get >> the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this >> percentage should be very small. > It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the following questions: - do you delete only data from contributors who explicitly say 'no' to the new licence or also if you have no response ? what is the argument to consider an absence of response to be a 'yes' or 'no' ? - do you delete data from big contributors only or also all small or single contributions ? - if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are only part of the history of objects, do you rollback to a previous version of these objects ? remove completely the objects if the contributor is the creator or the last modifier ? only if the contributor is the single contributor on the whole history of the object ? - if the objects you delete are part of a relation, do you keep the relation at the end even if all members have to be deleted ? or you also delete the relation in this case ? what happen if another contributor (who accepted the new license) added/changed properties of a relation where all members have to be deleted ? - if someone says 'no' to the new license and wrote a bot, do you also delete the bot contributions ? - after deletion, do you keep the trace in the history of other related objects ? will it be possible for someone else to revert the deletion through Potlatch for instance ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
OJ W wrote: > Could you expand that answer? Removing cartography from the scope > of OSM's license would seem to deserve a better explanation than a > dismissal like that. Sure. A printed map; an online routing service (like, say, YOURS, OpenRoutingService, or CloudMade routing); and a dedicated satnav device all perform the same function: they communicate a subset of map data to the user in an understandable, friendly way. Under CC-BY-SA, as I'm sure you know, a printed map can only be licensed as copyleft. The cartographer therefore no longer has exclusive rights to their "added value" (colours, selection of data to include, and so on), which are clearly apparent from the map. These can be trivially copied. Under CC-BY-SA, a routing service does not have to be licensed as copyleft.[1] The author of the routing service does not have to disclose their "added value" (weightings for different types of road, any transformations applied to the data, etc.). These cannot be trivially copied: to do so would require reverse-engineering a near-infinite set of requests and you'd probably be banned for DoSing before that. ;) It's an artefact of the fact we're currently using a "creative works" licence - the copyleft therefore applies to creative works. ODbL is a database licence, therefore the copyleft applies to data. ODbL is not interested either in art or in computer source code. The really good thing is that OSM therefore gets [2] the "added value", the data, in computer-readable form from both - something CC-BY-SA doesn't offer. You could, of course, argue the opposite of ODbL - that the routing service author should have to publish their added value in full, just as the cartographer does - and indeed Lutz.horn on the wiki has said exactly that. I think that would be a very honest position to take, and if you're the kind of guy who believes everything should be Free in the RMS sense, I respect your opinion though it's obviously not one I share. But I don't see how arguing for full disclosure by cartographers, but not by routing system authors, is tenable. I think Rob Myers summed it up well on legal-talk: "It's a pragmatic step to ensure that what users of free maps actually need (free maps generated using quality geodata) isn't denied by ensuring that the subject of copyleft in the wild is something else (low-resolution maps rendered from that data)." cheers Richard [1] and indeed several aren't, e.g. CloudMade routing, OpenRouteService [2] subject to the "bug" Frederik and I raised on odc-discuss yesterday, and Dave raised on legal-talk today -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22310036.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W wrote: > except that the ODbL does represent a fundamental change in licensing > of map images - previously they were sharealike, but with ODbL it will > only require attribution? That is hos the license is understood by most people, yes. Some questions on the final wording are still outstanding, as you have probably seen. > This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are doing > surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-reserved > map images based on their data. > It could, potentially, even if I agree with Richard. I think it is important to explain why this change is to the better in the majority of the cases. It is no longer possible to make massive amendments to the OSM data set, make a mp of this and not share the data. Previously, you had to share the map image, including design elements like pictograms, but to get the updated map data into the database again, someone would have to to georectification of the map and trace the changes. With the ODbL, the image of the map does not have to be free, but the data have to be shared. This means that the design elements are proprietary, but the data are easily available. This also opens up uses where you can combine data sources with different licenses. One example could be digital elevation models combined with data from OSM, to make a good hiking map. Two examples: I want to make a map of Copenhagen, with some good beer pubs. I am a lousy artist, and would like to grab some pictograms from istockphoto.com to make a good looking map. This is not possible today, and the map will lack good pictograms. I will also be adding some extra pubs and other information which is not in the database today. If anyone want to add this extra information to the database, so they will be available for other users, they will have to do this manually and the project gains very little. Cloudmade and Geofabrik have some nice looking stylesheets that I would like to base the above map on. Even if the map tiles are available to me, they are little of no use to me. I will need to customize some things, like rendering of pubs and restaurants, and cannot use the tiles directly. The share alike properties of these images is not worth very much to me. I think the bottom line here, is that the _data_ are very much more valuable than any image made with them. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Pieren wrote: > It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with > the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer > the following questions: It's not been decided. What do you think should happen? Everything is up for debate. ODbL itself is up for debate. As Jordan (co-author) said on odc-discuss earlier re: a point we raised: "It (like the rest of the ODbL) isn't set in stone and so totally open for discussion." Really, there's no evil force presenting a fait accompli here. There is no "you" or "them", only "us". cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22310154.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Richard Fairhurst systemed.net> writes: >Under CC-BY-SA, as I'm sure you know, a printed map can only be >licensed as copyleft. The cartographer therefore no longer has >exclusive rights to their "added value" (colours, selection of data to >include, and so on), which are clearly apparent from the map. These >can be trivially copied. > >Under CC-BY-SA, a routing service does not have to be licensed as >copyleft.[1] The author of the routing service does not have to >disclose their "added value" (weightings for different types of road, >any transformations applied to the data, etc.). These cannot be >trivially copied: to do so would require reverse-engineering a >near-infinite set of requests and you'd probably be banned for DoSing >before that. ;) >But I don't see how arguing for full disclosure by cartographers, but >not by routing system authors, is tenable. What you wrote above is a very good argument for it. Rendering the data into a printed map is not a great deal of effort. Anyone can do it and many already do so. There are not many people who would be put off from rendering maps by being unable to make the result proprietary. The copyleft requirement is pretty trivial and doesn't create disincentives to rendering a map, because rendering a map is so easy. (In any case, even though you can freely copy a PNG file of a map or photocopy a page, and even though you can see for yourself what colour scheme was used, you don't have the program code that was used to render the ways and the text, which is the hard part. That code doesn't have to be distributed.) On the other hand, the data for a routing service such as road weightings takes a bit of effort to get right and is something that many companies wish to keep secret (while nobody thinks that map coloration can be a secret). If using OSM data meant you also had to reveal your routing database, it might act as a serious brake on use of OSM by the commercial routing services, and perhaps even in academic projects. Tele Atlas are quite happy to license their data without insisting that you disclose your algorithms or weights, and if OSM ends up being more restrictive then the companies won't use it. No loss to them - only to us. I support the principle of copyleft, but it is important not to get too greedy. Just because some seeming bad use of the data can technically be prevented by a certain extra clause in the licence does not mean that it should be. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Ed Avis wrote: > What you wrote above is a very good argument for it. > > Rendering the data into a printed map is not a great deal of effort. > Anyone can do it and many already do so. There are not many > people who would be put off from rendering maps by being unable to > make the result proprietary. The copyleft requirement is pretty trivial > and doesn't create disincentives to rendering a map, because > rendering a map is so easy. I think you're approaching that from a very programmatic perspective, and this confirms it: > (In any case, even though you can freely copy a PNG file of a map > or photocopy a page, and even though you can see for yourself what > colour scheme was used, you don't have the program code that was > used to render the ways and the text, which is the hard part. No, no, no, no, no, no. It might be easy to do an automated rendering. That's not what I'm talking about. What concerns me is hand-drawn cartography. The "program code" for that, in my case, is something like Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator, which anyone can have - but that's incidental. I spend days on getting the cartography right for the maps we produce in the magazine every month. It isn't "rendering". It's entirely done by hand. Getting the label placement right, choosing the colour set, working on the pull-outs, generalising features so that they don't collide but the user doesn't notice the distortion: that _is_ a great deal of effort. I try to aspire to OS Landranger quality of cartography, not MapQuest! http://www.systemeD.net/osm/caldon_2.jpg http://www.systemeD.net/osm/caldon_3.jpg http://www.systemeD.net/osm/caldon_4.jpg (There's no OSM data in there - and conversely, OSM doesn't have all that data either; and even if the maps were CC-BY-SA, which they weren't, the generalisation is such that CC-BY-SA doesn't give much useful return to the project.) Believe me, I first wrote a passable routing program with reasonably decent weighting at the age of 19 or so (heh, I found a review - http://www.thecompclub.org.uk/newsletters/12.pdf), and it was a whole host more trivial than the n years of experience that have, I hope, given me the skills to design attractive maps. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22311108.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Richard Fairhurst wrote: >Sent: 03 March 2009 2:55 PM >To: talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] License plan > > >Pieren wrote: >> It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with >> the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer >> the following questions: > >It's not been decided. What do you think should happen? > >Everything is up for debate. ODbL itself is up for debate. As Jordan >(co-author) said on odc-discuss earlier re: a point we raised: "It (like >the >rest of the ODbL) isn't set in stone and so totally open for discussion." > >Really, there's no evil force presenting a fait accompli here. >There is no "you" or "them", only "us". Its about time you added that tag to Map Features ;-) > >cheers >Richard >-- >View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan- >tp22245532p22310154.html >Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > >___ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.6/1980 - Release Date: 03/02/09 >23:02:00 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Gustav Foseid wrote: >> This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are doing >> surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-reserved >> map images based on their data. > > It could, potentially, even if I agree with Richard. I think it is important > to explain why this change is to the better in the majority of the cases. > [...] > With the ODbL, the image of the map does not have to be free, but the data > have to be shared. This means that the design elements are proprietary, but > the data are easily available. I agree. However, judging from some feedback on the German forums (where I have explained exactly this situation), it seems that some users are not going to accept the possibility of creating produced works under non-free licenses, pointing out that the added value might not even be because of a change to the data, but the (unpublished) tools creating the images, thus nothing of use would be contributed back to the "free world" with ODbL. I don't think explaining that data is more useful for us than images will help (I've already tried that), because that won't stop them from demanding both. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
> There were only very few news on talk/talk-de available for such an > important thing as a license change. I admit that I feal a little left out too but talk and talk-de are not the right place for leagel stuff. I assume that the "legal-talk" or "legal-general" discussed this a little more and these mailing lists are free for all. I didn't sign up for them because I'm just not a persone who knows a lot about legel things. The only thing I'm missing right now is a little more explenation on the wiki page. For example why needs the database a license at all? The database is nothing without the data init. So first of all why dose the database need a license and why do we need two different licenses for database and the data within? Roger ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, > except that the ODbL does represent a fundamental change in licensing > of map images - previously they were sharealike, but with ODbL it will > only require attribution? The source data will be available for anyone. So either the cartographer has invested a lot of time to artfully create a beautiful map that nobody else can make; in which case I'm tempted to say let him enjoy ownership of the result. Or he has simply run some automated rendering engine, in which case anyone else can trivially do the same. Share-alike starts to eat itself if it becomes too greedy. Results of "map image share-alike" are (a) map image does not get produced at all or (b) map image is produced and available to OSM for tracing data off of it. Neither helps bring OSM forward. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Thanks, what you wrote about hand-drawn cartography makes some sense. There might indeed be a case for removing the copyleft requirement for maps drawn from the OSM data. I don't believe however that wanting copyleft on the maps and not on derived databases is a necessarily inconsistent position. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
2009/3/3 Pieren : > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst >> wrote: >>> 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get >>> the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this >>> percentage should be very small. >> > > It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the > license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the > following questions: As has been said, a lot of this is up for discussion of various kinds... here's my brief attempt at answering... all responses are just my interpretation... feel free to say I'm wrong :-) > - do you delete only data from contributors who explicitly say 'no' to > the new licence or also if you have no response ? what is the argument > to consider an absence of response to be a 'yes' or 'no' ? No response == no... but they might change their mind later and ask for their data to be reintegrated which really is /fun/. See next q though. > - do you delete data from big contributors only or also all small or > single contributions ? YMMV on this one. For cleanest DB you delete everything, for most data kept we run the risk with small "uncopyrightable" contributions. Also we may treat no response differently to no for this. From now on I'm assuming a cleanest DB scenario... > - if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are > only part of the history of objects, do you rollback to a previous > version of these objects ? yes > remove completely the objects if the > contributor is the creator or the last modifier ? yes for creator, revert for modifier > only if the > contributor is the single contributor on the whole history of the > object ? yes > - if the objects you delete are part of a relation, do you keep the > relation at the end even if all members have to be deleted ? or do you revert the relation to the point before the object was added to the relation, or even to the point before the object was edited (as otherwise your remaining relation maybe "derived" from the object). Personally I think you're probably OK removing the object. Does an empty, unreferenced relation serve any purpose? And if it doesn't do we care? > or you > also delete the relation in this case ? what happen if another > contributor (who accepted the new license) added/changed properties of > a relation where all members have to be deleted ? relations are like any other object -- revert to the relation state before the person edited, then start removing things from it. > - if someone says 'no' to the new license and wrote a bot, do you also > delete the bot contributions ? we can't tell the difference, so yes. But we may be able to mark most of the edits as trivial and not remove them. > - after deletion, do you keep the trace in the history of other > related objects ? will it be possible for someone else to revert the > deletion through Potlatch for instance ? Nasty question :-) Really the history should be deleted. You can leave a trace that something happened, but details shouldn't be available, neither should revert. We don't currently have a way to do that. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM, wer-ist-roger wrote: > The only thing I'm missing right now is a little more explenation on the > wiki > page. For example why needs the database a license at all? The database is > nothing without the data init. So first of all why dose the database need a > license and why do we need two different licenses for database and the data > within? What is an appropriate wiki page? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 03/03/09 09:43, Frederik Ramm wrote: > 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which > it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make > sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed > away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release > (which seems to be planned for 28th March), I agree that the timeline is too tight, particularly given that people have to manage communication with communities other than English. But where are suggestions being "brushed away"? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
>>I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some >>transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but >>we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming >>from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with >>some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from >>scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except >>the original data). > > You would have to be very careful about doing that. I don't think it > would work to view the map, see a street tagged 'bad licence', delete > it and then add it back. Even if you were honest enough to close your > eyes, turn around three times and then re-trace it from the aerial > photography, it still looks very suspect. And when deleting the > street you would have to delete all its nodes, including those that > are intersections with other streets, since it obviously doesn't do > anything to delete the way but leave all the nodes there to be > straightaway reconnected. Sometimes (if current data are drawn very inaccurately and do not contain any valuable tags like name, etc..) I do this - delete current data, then draw it again from scratch from aerial photography with greater accuracy. It is faster than trying to move existing vertices around, splitting and merging the ways in the process. Yes, you have to be very catious when redrawing, but I think it may be possible. > Try this thought experiment: suppose a user imported data from Google Well, this is disallowed completely in first place. But here we have good data, just under different (but similar) license. > Since the reason for relicensing is to be ultra-cautious and take care > of certain theoretical legal bogeymen, it makes sense to be ultra-cautious > in removing possibly tainted data. There is no point doing a relicensing > that leaves the project in a more questionable legal situation than before. Well, but how can you then explain to users that half of the data is lost just due to small incompatibilities between cc and odbl? Also, technically, when "mixing licenses", we won't have mashup of cc-by-sa and odbl, we will have mashup of cc-by-sa without consent to relicense later under odbl and cc-by-sa with consent to relicense later under odbl. I think such "mashup" could work for short time (before we persuade all to get consent or delete and replace their data if we have no consent), once we have all "cc-by-sa with consent for odbl", we can just switch to odbl. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
2009/3/3 MP : >>>I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some >>>transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but >>>we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming >>>from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with >>>some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from >>>scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except >>>the original data). >> >> You would have to be very careful about doing that. I don't think it >> would work to view the map, see a street tagged 'bad licence', delete >> it and then add it back. Even if you were honest enough to close your >> eyes, turn around three times and then re-trace it from the aerial >> photography, it still looks very suspect. And when deleting the >> street you would have to delete all its nodes, including those that >> are intersections with other streets, since it obviously doesn't do >> anything to delete the way but leave all the nodes there to be >> straightaway reconnected. > > Sometimes (if current data are drawn very inaccurately and do not > contain any valuable tags like name, etc..) I do this - delete current > data, then draw it again from scratch from aerial photography with > greater accuracy. It is faster than trying to move existing vertices > around, splitting and merging the ways in the process. > > Yes, you have to be very catious when redrawing, but I think it may be > possible. > >> Try this thought experiment: suppose a user imported data from Google > > Well, this is disallowed completely in first place. But here we have > good data, just under different (but similar) license. > And what makes Google's data /bad/? Presumably that it's copyrighted and we can't copy it right? Well, guess what... so's the cc-by-sa data. >> Since the reason for relicensing is to be ultra-cautious and take care >> of certain theoretical legal bogeymen, it makes sense to be ultra-cautious >> in removing possibly tainted data. There is no point doing a relicensing >> that leaves the project in a more questionable legal situation than before. > > Well, but how can you then explain to users that half of the data is > lost just due to small incompatibilities between cc and odbl? > By telling them? No body wants to loose data here. That doesn't mean we can just go around violating our own license. > Also, technically, when "mixing licenses", we won't have mashup of > cc-by-sa and odbl, we will have mashup of cc-by-sa without consent to > relicense later under odbl and cc-by-sa with consent to relicense > later under odbl. I think such "mashup" could work for short time > (before we persuade all to get consent or delete and replace their > data if we have no consent), once we have all "cc-by-sa with consent > for odbl", we can just switch to odbl. Sure, but somebody copying the data and then deleting the original doesn't make it OK and "with consent". All this idea does is muddy the water by inviting people to copy data and cause us problems. If we have to delete stuff, we should delete it properly and keep ourselves clean. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, Gervase Markham wrote: >> 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which >> it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make >> sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed >> away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release >> (which seems to be planned for 28th March), > > I agree that the timeline is too tight, particularly given that people > have to manage communication with communities other than English. But > where are suggestions being "brushed away"? Nothing has been "brushed away" as far as I am aware; I just think there is a (considerable IMHO) risk that things will either be brushed away or at least be seen to. 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] License plan
Richard Fairhurst writes: > 80n wrote: >> What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see >> sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? > > I'd be interested to see this related to our userbase and editing stats. > > If (say) we lose 5%, how many months - at current rates of growth - does it > take us to get back to the previous level? It is not that simple. What if those 5% is half of South Africa? You certainly can not interpolate overall OSM growth to re-surveying South Africa. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:28:10PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the > license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the > following questions: My take: > - do you delete only data from contributors who explicitly say 'no' to > the new licence or also if you have no response ? Delete both. > what is the argument to consider an absence of response to be a 'yes' > or 'no' ? The main thing is, no contributor, unless they have specifically stated otherwise, has (or in some cases, can) assign the rights to OSM, and OSM cannot just assume rights other than those given by the licence they were contributed under. Some users have declared their contributions to be in the public domain (or as close as law permits). Whether or not they respond, I think it’s safe to assume their data can be distributed under the terms of the new licence (I’d hope we’d be polite and ask anyway). > - do you delete data from big contributors only or also all small or > single contributions ? All data incompatible with the new licence, large or small. > - if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are > only part of the history of objects, do you rollback to a previous > version of these objects ? Rollback to the last version before any changes incompatible with the new licence are made. There is the idea floating around that modifications to existing data are insubstantial, and successive contributions could potentially be kept without issue, but I think it is safest to remove them. Maybe if a user responds “no”, a further page could ask whether or not they agree with their modifications to other peoples’ data being used under the terms of the new licence. > remove completely the objects if the contributor is the creator or the > last modifier ? Remove the object completely if the contributor is the creator. If the contributor is the last modifier, revert to the revision before as above. > only if the contributor is the single contributor on the whole history > of the object ? Remove the object completely. > - if the objects you delete are part of a relation, do you keep the > relation at the end even if all members have to be deleted ? > or you also delete the relation in this case ? I am not sure there is much point in keeping the relation. If someone needs to use a relation to describe the same thing they can always create a new one. There is another question here: If the contributor created a relation and added ways and nodes appropriately, do you delete the relation even when it includes references to objects from other contributors? I think, to be safe, you do, but I also feel there is a looser coupling if the relation only relates objects compatible with the new licence. > what happen if another contributor (who accepted the new license) > added/changed properties of a relation where all members have to be > deleted ? I still don’t think there is much point in keeping the relation. > - if someone says 'no' to the new license and wrote a bot, do you also > delete the bot contributions ? Yes, unless they say otherwise. It may well be that the bot author feels that, while they do not agree to the new licence for their own modifications, those made by the bot may be insubstantial (e.g. spelling corrections), and say “no” for their own edits, and “yes” for their bot’s edits. > - after deletion, do you keep the trace in the history of other > related objects ? In the interests of keeping it clean, any reverts made due to incompatible changes would not be kept in the history. A backup can be kept of the old database of CC-by-sa compatible data. It might come in handy if some non‐responders pipe up and say “yes”, or the “no” voters change their minds. > will it be possible for someone else to revert the deletion through > Potlatch for instance ? It shouldn’t be. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > It might be easy to do an automated rendering. That's not what I'm talking > What concerns me is hand-drawn cartography. The "program code" for > that, in my case, is something like Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator, which > anyone can have - but that's incidental. > > I spend days on getting the cartography right for the maps we produce in the > magazine every month. It isn't "rendering". It's entirely done by hand. > Getting the label placement right, choosing the colour set, working on the > pull-outs, generalising features so that they don't collide but the user > doesn't notice the distortion: that _is_ a great deal of effort. I try to > aspire to OS Landranger quality of cartography, not MapQuest! Currently OSM surveyors do their thing in the understanding that cartographers will turn the result into something nice that they can use (and the surveyors know that they will benefit from this due to the map images being sharealike) If the cartographers then devise a new license that says "my contributions are more important than yours, I should get exclusive rights over my additions to the map with a paintbrush while you shouldn't get exclusive rights over your additions to the map with a GPS" then it reduces the incentive for people to survey, since the work they do can be published in a way that they can't use or copy. The only counter-argument to this seems to be that the freetards are invited to do a free version of cartography themselves, duplicating effort that has already been done in the proprietary world in order to get access to the results (as nice map images) of their own surveying ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 05:21:02PM +0100, Tobias Knerr wrote: > because of a change to the data, but the (unpublished) tools creating > the images, thus nothing of use would be contributed back to the "free > world" with ODbL. Then we need to make sure as many tools as possible are free software, and are at least as good as the proprietary competition. I have had to explain to free software advocates before (I am one) that OpenStreetMap is about free geodata, not necessarily free software. Still, some free software advocates will go off in a hissy fit because they believe the project has its priorities wrong. The better answer would to get behind the free software tools that are already out there, maybe even help to develop more, and compete with proprietary software the same way free software always has done. It turns out that much of the software for OpenStreetMap is free software. > I don't think explaining that data is more useful for us than images > will help (I've already tried that), because that won't stop them from > demanding both. Similarly, we can put enough free images out there for them to be useful to all, and make the non‐free ones hardly worth the pixels/vectors. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
