Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Frederik Ramm schreef: > Totally true, and actually a good argument for the PD case. Anyone who > takes OSM data and improves it privately is likely to to invest much > more in tracking OSM than it would cost him to just release his data > into OSM and save the effort. But exactly the same goes for OSM. If there is a high quality source that updates lets say every 3 months. It will be more easy to destroy all changes than track them. Which is kinda... unwanted. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksdTdEACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1PPACePujvfO1NlrBrBWsGWA3FcZJw dBAAnjkaPP6BrSUL9XmQPFFYJK9yqRXg =hMRZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
Hi, Michael Barabanov wrote: > To create a value-add, a commercial > entity would have to extend it. That surely is one way to create added value. > So let's say they do in some > non-trivial way (e.g. not just copy the data wholesale or just create POIs). > The next few updates of OSM in the area in question will likely break > those extensions, as there doesn't seem to be a way to merge non-trivial > changes (e.g. topology changes). > The best course of action for such a commercial entity would be to > contribute things back then. Totally true, and actually a good argument for the PD case. Anyone who takes OSM data and improves it privately is likely to to invest much more in tracking OSM than it would cost him to just release his data into OSM and save the effort. 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] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > SteveC schreef: >> I think that developing their own tools, infrastructure, branding, >> product management... for MapMaker might give away what they think >> about that. > > I think you are a little bit biased. Only a little bit :) And if this > is/becomes the OSM Foundation standpoint, I am not surprised such things > will never get any follow up ;) Google was asked publicly at SOTM all about this, of course it's been followed up. Yours &c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: > I think that developing their own tools, infrastructure, branding, > product management... for MapMaker might give away what they think > about that. I think you are a little bit biased. Only a little bit :) And if this is/becomes the OSM Foundation standpoint, I am not surprised such things will never get any follow up ;) Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksdPfMACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0iAACeJGYhj22d1S/IAGudXIWXbzbf BOoAn0z31NuMjdDubX7yRZhQBA5d8vRS =13aP -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > SteveC schreef: >> I have no idea what that means. > > I had no idea about reciprocal license either. > >> Ask Google. It might have something to do with the fact that they >> want to own all the data. Hint hint. > > I have asked Google; Tim was sitting there too. The only thing *we* have > to present is a business case why it would be good for Google to provide > us the 'can trace' material. > > I think the best business case would be: "We trace your photo's for OSM, > we provide you the traces." I think that developing their own tools, infrastructure, branding, product management... for MapMaker might give away what they think about that. Yours &c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: > I have no idea what that means. I had no idea about reciprocal license either. > Ask Google. It might have something to do with the fact that they > want to own all the data. Hint hint. I have asked Google; Tim was sitting there too. The only thing *we* have to present is a business case why it would be good for Google to provide us the 'can trace' material. I think the best business case would be: "We trace your photo's for OSM, we provide you the traces." I see a total win-win here. Anyone that wants to make OSM better can help OSM by contributing to OSM and GoogleMaps. This is not cheap labor, this is value for photo's. >> I don't see how CM can compete in giving back new data, opposed to >> Google. > > See above. The world has moved on from thinking Google is a > benevolent force, get with the times. And so do they about CM... and probably any company that doesn't give them Christmas presents. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksdO7EACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0QdgCgg5HtkAHX8NNijTrQw4Cggh6i i4UAmgNUP55QVRwi9GoSY+g0kwy9Og9Z =CMdO -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > SteveC schreef: >> You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others >> process their data. >> >>> Well the huge difference is that OSM is under a reciprocal license, > > What a difficult set of words were that; honestly never heard of those > before. I have no idea what that means. > >>> Google and others want us to be PD because they don't want to give >>> anything back. > > Never heard that, if Yahoo is giving us aerial photography to trace, why > wouldn't Google do that for us? Ask Google. It might have something to do with the fact that they want to own all the data. Hint hint. > I don't see how CM can compete in giving back new data, opposed to > Google. See above. The world has moved on from thinking Google is a benevolent force, get with the times. Yours &c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SteveC schreef: > You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others > process their data. > >> Well the huge difference is that OSM is under a reciprocal license, What a difficult set of words were that; honestly never heard of those before. >> Google and others want us to be PD because they don't want to give >> anything back. Never heard that, if Yahoo is giving us aerial photography to trace, why wouldn't Google do that for us? >> CM wants to give back all the time, and does. I don't see how CM can compete in giving back new data, opposed to Google. Google is not related to OSM an anyway and they still 'do good' in sponsoring and like for many other OpenSource related projects GSOC. If CM's primary focus is on creating additional value to the data, for CM to profit from available data, then what CM is giving back is not in terms of being a data provider, but just a commercial user like any other. That makes asking for example for the optimized routing tables irrelevant because the data is a derived product, but useless for the community that doesn't have the software. If we go back to the no advantage not to share equilibrium where we all started from, that would be a great step a head. It already shows that when working on PD data we are making data better, I just can't see any argument that will debunk that statement when company X makes our data better. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksdOK4ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3xeQCgk95LVr3rIZvJmxAzYS0B1olf IMEAmwXCLEVN3mzEMxxSadJxdrCtHh8F =la/Q -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Dec 5, 2009, at 8:25 PM, 80n wrote: > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: > > Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's > > position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own opinion. > > I'm not allowed to have opinions? > > > Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM data? > > The OSMF wont own the data and you know it. > > The Contributor Terms contains the following clause: "You hereby grant to > OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, > non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is > restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the > original medium or any other." > > That's pretty much as close as you can get to owning a piece of data. I think matt killed this. Yours &c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Michael Barabanov wrote: > I wonder how easy it is in fact to usefully take the OSM data without giving > things back, even with the current license. Seems to me, not so easy. OSM > data is not perfect. To create a value-add, a commercial entity would have to > extend it. So let's say they do in some non-trivial way (e.g. not just copy > the data wholesale or just create POIs). > The next few updates of OSM in the area in question will likely break those > extensions, as there doesn't seem to be a way to merge non-trivial changes > (e.g. topology changes). > The best course of action for such a commercial entity would be to contribute > things back then. I take your point, but right now you can basically assume Google is infinitely smart with infinite resources unless it's something that involves a community, as we've seen. And PD wouldn't involve one. Yours &c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
I wonder how easy it is in fact to usefully take the OSM data without giving
things back, even with the current license. Seems to me, not so easy. OSM
data is not perfect. To create a value-add, a commercial entity would have
to extend it. So let's say they do in some non-trivial way (e.g. not just
copy the data wholesale or just create POIs).
The next few updates of OSM in the area in question will likely break those
extensions, as there doesn't seem to be a way to merge non-trivial changes
(e.g. topology changes).
The best course of action for such a commercial entity would be to
contribute things back then.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:50 AM, SteveC wrote:
>
> On Dec 7, 2009, at 5:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > Lambertus schreef:
> >>> I'm just curious... why?
> >>>
> >> You misunderstand: Google would get my data for free and keep it closed.
> >> You'd only be able to use it the way Google intends it to be used: their
> >> map and their navigation software. OSM on the other hand allows you to
> >> do exactly the same as CM, GF, KPN whatever. There's an huge difference,
> >> you know that.
> >
> > You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others process
> > their data.
>
> Well the huge difference is that OSM is under a reciprocal license, Google
> and others want us to be PD because they don't want to give anything back.
> CM wants to give back all the time, and does.
>
> > You do not get anything back from how companies that use OSM
> > for visual representation. And if Google offers OSM in GoogleEarth and
> > maps you are actually benefiting from several things that you cannot get
> > now:
> >
> > - - Massive adoption, visibility to the general public
> > - - Hosting, no more slow world wide tile servers
> > - - And most likely if this `evil' company was involved the 'do trace'
> > photos
> >
> >
> > Honestly, you are only spreading FUD around a company that does nothing
> > more with respect to Geodata then another company in this list wanted to
> > do exclusively on OSM data.
> >
> > You can claim that with 'yournavigation' you do elaborate on the process
> > on how routing is done. You are the 'free' side of OSM. Don't forget
> > that the amount of 'free' commercial projects here are very small.
> > Basically because everyone here seems to be protecting their goods.
> >
> > If the last thing is the only reason for them to vote yes, then I'm very
> > happy I'm having {{PD-user}} and {{OSM-anarchist}} because I want my
> > work on this small blue planet to be build upon not duplicated by some
> > cheap Indian. (nofi)
> >
> >
> > Stefan
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> > Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> >
> > iEYEAREKAAYFAksc+ZoACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1CnQCfRkC14ik2wJ1s43JmiaciCdSD
> > Hy8AoIbd84MEpnNOB3fRcHrP7DoMFst3
> > =h31Z
> > -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
>
> Yours &c.
>
> Steve
>
>
> ___
> 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] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Dec 7, 2009, at 5:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Lambertus schreef:
>>> I'm just curious... why?
>>>
>> You misunderstand: Google would get my data for free and keep it closed.
>> You'd only be able to use it the way Google intends it to be used: their
>> map and their navigation software. OSM on the other hand allows you to
>> do exactly the same as CM, GF, KPN whatever. There's an huge difference,
>> you know that.
>
> You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others process
> their data.
Well the huge difference is that OSM is under a reciprocal license, Google and
others want us to be PD because they don't want to give anything back. CM wants
to give back all the time, and does.
> You do not get anything back from how companies that use OSM
> for visual representation. And if Google offers OSM in GoogleEarth and
> maps you are actually benefiting from several things that you cannot get
> now:
>
> - - Massive adoption, visibility to the general public
> - - Hosting, no more slow world wide tile servers
> - - And most likely if this `evil' company was involved the 'do trace'
> photos
>
>
> Honestly, you are only spreading FUD around a company that does nothing
> more with respect to Geodata then another company in this list wanted to
> do exclusively on OSM data.
>
> You can claim that with 'yournavigation' you do elaborate on the process
> on how routing is done. You are the 'free' side of OSM. Don't forget
> that the amount of 'free' commercial projects here are very small.
> Basically because everyone here seems to be protecting their goods.
>
> If the last thing is the only reason for them to vote yes, then I'm very
> happy I'm having {{PD-user}} and {{OSM-anarchist}} because I want my
> work on this small blue planet to be build upon not duplicated by some
> cheap Indian. (nofi)
>
>
> Stefan
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEAREKAAYFAksc+ZoACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1CnQCfRkC14ik2wJ1s43JmiaciCdSD
> Hy8AoIbd84MEpnNOB3fRcHrP7DoMFst3
> =h31Z
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
Yours &c.
Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Lambertus schreef: > I have no problems with Google using my data, but only if others can > use it too, which means that the database should be accessible (the > planet dump). Your contributions are PD, which goes ever further, so > you agree with this? Yes. From your standpoint Google could make maps out of OSM data today, if changes to that data are contributed back, or make available. Nowhere is required to give up software that does the transformation. Anthony schreef: > I think you are confusing me, because I think data use is a good > thing too. In fact, that's why I'm against the ODbL, since it's > *more restrictive* than CC-BY-SA. I see your point, but it is not my main concern to be against the change :) Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksdGf8ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn0FnQCfRNK96VnBsgfTvlcDmnv2/4PJ XNYAnizlvBdfx7h2n2yydr++G+pBaxS8 =/3DF -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Anthony schreef: > > You're confusing me with Lambertus. I never said anything good about > > Cloudmade. > > I'm not confusing you; it is current practice that the data is used. I > thought that was a /good/ thing. > I think you are confusing me, because I think data use is a good thing too. In fact, that's why I'm against the ODbL, since it's *more restrictive* than CC-BY-SA. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
I still think that you misunderstand me, or maybe I misunderstand you. I
thought that Jonh Smith was talking about users starting to map in
Google's MapMaker and I responded that I would never do that. There is a
big difference between CM, GF etc that use OSM and Google owning the
data and not sharing that raw data.
I have no problems with Google using my data, but only if others can use
it too, which means that the database should be accessible (the planet
dump). Your contributions are PD, which goes ever further, so you agree
with this?
Stefan de Konink wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Lambertus schreef:
>>> I'm just curious... why?
>>>
>> You misunderstand: Google would get my data for free and keep it closed.
>> You'd only be able to use it the way Google intends it to be used: their
>> map and their navigation software. OSM on the other hand allows you to
>> do exactly the same as CM, GF, KPN whatever. There's an huge difference,
>> you know that.
>
> You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others process
> their data. You do not get anything back from how companies that use OSM
> for visual representation. And if Google offers OSM in GoogleEarth and
> maps you are actually benefiting from several things that you cannot get
> now:
>
> - - Massive adoption, visibility to the general public
> - - Hosting, no more slow world wide tile servers
> - - And most likely if this `evil' company was involved the 'do trace'
> photos
>
>
> Honestly, you are only spreading FUD around a company that does nothing
> more with respect to Geodata then another company in this list wanted to
> do exclusively on OSM data.
>
> You can claim that with 'yournavigation' you do elaborate on the process
> on how routing is done. You are the 'free' side of OSM. Don't forget
> that the amount of 'free' commercial projects here are very small.
> Basically because everyone here seems to be protecting their goods.
>
> If the last thing is the only reason for them to vote yes, then I'm very
> happy I'm having {{PD-user}} and {{OSM-anarchist}} because I want my
> work on this small blue planet to be build upon not duplicated by some
> cheap Indian. (nofi)
>
>
> Stefan
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEAREKAAYFAksc+ZoACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1CnQCfRkC14ik2wJ1s43JmiaciCdSD
> Hy8AoIbd84MEpnNOB3fRcHrP7DoMFst3
> =h31Z
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Anthony schreef: > You're confusing me with Lambertus. I never said anything good about > Cloudmade. I'm not confusing you; it is current practice that the data is used. I thought that was a /good/ thing. At least I came here for the usage of data and being making it better, for me that implicitly meant sharing back. > Actually, Cloudmade is one of the main reasons I fear handing so much > power (the power to relicense) to OSMF. Too much of a potential > conflict of interest there. Come on; if you want to see a conspiracy there is always one. I think the best way to prevent this 'power' is to give more people the freedom to do what they want. The point now with the license seems to be a copyright claim by the OSMF prevents /any/ future forks. While the only possible fork point is actually created by this license change. If you read the first line of the last paragraph again you might notice that this might also prevent any commercial party to run away with OSM. But I need an law degree to confirm that. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksdCscACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3CNACfR11pvhwhYgiU990atBV/mMcE /p8Ania59HhkCUBXx/2sZ3U/b+BBSyPB =2VZl -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote: > Anthony schreef: > > There's nothing stopping them from putting the tile servers behind a > > restrictive TOS, requiring a key to use the API, and limiting the number > > of accesses per key, is there? > > Is there for Cloudmade? The routing api, their custom tiles? > You're confusing me with Lambertus. I never said anything good about Cloudmade. Actually, Cloudmade is one of the main reasons I fear handing so much power (the power to relicense) to OSMF. Too much of a potential conflict of interest there. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Anthony schreef: > There's nothing stopping them from putting the tile servers behind a > restrictive TOS, requiring a key to use the API, and limiting the number > of accesses per key, is there? Is there for Cloudmade? The routing api, their custom tiles? It is `free' data, if they want to offer a service they can limit it to what they want. The competition is here that someone else can offer it without the restrictions and /without/ the SLA. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksdB00ACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn11/wCeMGCiDobyviAQfSl7LLB4k7Ww IZYAn1ZOSZgl1O6pf5f5wJgzYvuEuEEv =8LuO -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Stefan de Konink wrote: > And if Google offers OSM in GoogleEarth and > maps you are actually benefiting from several things that you cannot get > now: > > - - Massive adoption, visibility to the general public > - - Hosting, no more slow world wide tile servers > - - And most likely if this `evil' company was involved the 'do trace' > photos > There's nothing stopping them from putting the tile servers behind a restrictive TOS, requiring a key to use the API, and limiting the number of accesses per key, is there? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
Dunno about the rest of you, but I fantasise about the day that a taxi driver takes me through a shortcut that I added to OSM... I map on OSM because I want everyone to have the changes, not because I'm on an open source crusade. (I'll be quiet again.) Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Maarten Deen schreef: >> You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others process >> their data. You do not get anything back from how companies that use OSM >> for visual representation. And if Google offers OSM in GoogleEarth and >> maps you are actually benefiting from several things that you cannot get >> now: > > I thought that using OSM data now means also contributing to OSM. With the > new license, is this not necessary anymore? Can you just take the data and > not give back? Contribution 'upstream' (as in OSM) is not required now, the contribution and the derived works are made available on the same license. If your question is; "Can anyone use OSM without giving back?", sure they can. Since 80n already pointed it out that the license change was actually invented to facilitate more usage (hence BBC Broadcasts for example) the chances that the big 'G' company is going to use OSM, might even increase by the license change. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksc/nkACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn2AtACgkULm2iInI49Lld0iLaYl5Jdo 7AoAn2NG0PqZT9izweWQ7sG/5Z0bsg2w =G2D1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Lambertus schreef:
>> I'm just curious... why?
>>
> You misunderstand: Google would get my data for free and keep it closed.
> You'd only be able to use it the way Google intends it to be used: their
> map and their navigation software. OSM on the other hand allows you to
> do exactly the same as CM, GF, KPN whatever. There's an huge difference,
> you know that.
You cannot see the process how Cloudmade, Geofabrik and others process
their data. You do not get anything back from how companies that use OSM
for visual representation. And if Google offers OSM in GoogleEarth and
maps you are actually benefiting from several things that you cannot get
now:
- - Massive adoption, visibility to the general public
- - Hosting, no more slow world wide tile servers
- - And most likely if this `evil' company was involved the 'do trace'
photos
Honestly, you are only spreading FUD around a company that does nothing
more with respect to Geodata then another company in this list wanted to
do exclusively on OSM data.
You can claim that with 'yournavigation' you do elaborate on the process
on how routing is done. You are the 'free' side of OSM. Don't forget
that the amount of 'free' commercial projects here are very small.
Basically because everyone here seems to be protecting their goods.
If the last thing is the only reason for them to vote yes, then I'm very
happy I'm having {{PD-user}} and {{OSM-anarchist}} because I want my
work on this small blue planet to be build upon not duplicated by some
cheap Indian. (nofi)
Stefan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEAREKAAYFAksc+ZoACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn1CnQCfRkC14ik2wJ1s43JmiaciCdSD
Hy8AoIbd84MEpnNOB3fRcHrP7DoMFst3
=h31Z
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Lambertus schreef: > Sorry, but I don't see a lot of OSM people going over to 'the dark > side'. No matter how good or bad OSM is being run. > > If I don't agree with how things are being done here at OSM then I'll > try to fix it, work around it or quit, but I'm *not* going to be an > unpaid employee for Google's mega profits. So you do not mind to be part of the (mega-) profits and success of Cloudmade, GeoFabrik, KPN, Bliin, Nulaz, Cyclomedia, Ilse Media, Trackrr, Flickr, [...], etc. but you do mind to be part of the success of Google. I'm just curious... why? Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAksc7SwACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn294ACbBEuRElmH4JteQC3+QOk/2msF 7VwAn28U/BJP8mNHH5/dMiRdpX5TiEYB =Vl63 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
Sorry, but I don't see a lot of OSM people going over to 'the dark side'. No matter how good or bad OSM is being run. If I don't agree with how things are being done here at OSM then I'll try to fix it, work around it or quit, but I'm *not* going to be an unpaid employee for Google's mega profits. John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/6 Ulf Lamping : >> Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb: >>> So you think that the OSMF is forcing people to do things, and controlling >>> instead of supporting? >> Does: "Say yes to the new license or we'll delete your data" sound more >> like supporting or controlling to you? > > I had the unfortunate experience to be involved with a project that > did something similar, it set the project's momentum back a lot and > with Google breathing down OSM's neck this would be the perfect > oportunity to give them all the human resources they could ever wish > for, at which point people will question if there is any point to OSM > any more since so much data might vanish and well I can't see that > being a good outcome. > > ___ > 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] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
> So ask for a clause that "ownership" is transferred to another org in > the event that OSMF is "bought out" or no longer has the best > interests of it's contributors, but it's not uncommon to assign rights > to an org, as you point out the FSF has been doing it for a long time, > why was there any reason to trust them in the begining? > I assume that it was time when organizations like FSF sounded like hippy geeks without any serious possibility to penetrate market. Free software, free for all to use, sell, customize, analyze? Are you kiddin? Real intent of FSF and GNU only got serious coverage after Linux came in (because GNU fit so well as support layer of new os); at that point FSF already were serious players in community and have proven that they are "fanatic" enough not to sell out. To keep on believing in right thing takes some faith. OSM, in other case, have already attracted lot of commercial competition and there are worries about their markets - and in same time lot of casual map users too. Therefore, having one organization like target will make things a lot easier if someone will seriously try to silence this project. Also people aready seen signs, they seen Microsoft doing nothing about Netscape or Firefox - and loosing. No commercial vendor wants OSM to become "Linux of the maps" or "Firefox of the maps". Question is - can we trust OSMF? I can put up some faith for it, but how about others? That's why is so important to explain this license change again, again and again. Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
2009/12/7 Graham Seaman : > This is the aspect of the whole thing I find most worrying too: this > signover of rights to a centralised body makes external attack much more > possible. Is it really necessary for the OSMF to have both functions > (management and rights ownership)? For example, I would be happier > signing over any rights I personally hold to the FSF, which has a much > longer track record of being unassailable, with the FSF required to > relinquish all responsibility to the OSMF as long as the data is kept > free. An attack on the OSMF would then become much less likely, being > pointless. So ask for a clause that "ownership" is transferred to another org in the event that OSMF is "bought out" or no longer has the best interests of it's contributors, but it's not uncommon to assign rights to an org, as you point out the FSF has been doing it for a long time, why was there any reason to trust them in the begining? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
80n wrote: > > > Yes, one of the major consequences is that OSMF gets to change the license. > > If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned by > companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting > target. The safeguards that have been put in place (a vote of the OSMF > membership and recent contributors) would be very easy to circumvent. > This is the aspect of the whole thing I find most worrying too: this signover of rights to a centralised body makes external attack much more possible. Is it really necessary for the OSMF to have both functions (management and rights ownership)? For example, I would be happier signing over any rights I personally hold to the FSF, which has a much longer track record of being unassailable, with the FSF required to relinquish all responsibility to the OSMF as long as the data is kept free. An attack on the OSMF would then become much less likely, being pointless. Graham > ___ > 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] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
Am 6 Dec 2009 um 16:12 hat Matt Amos geschrieben: > ok, let's try and be constructive about this... what would you > suggest? given that this tactic would work with any service - the only > thing i can think of is to have an organisation governed by its members; > OSMF. this introduces other problems, which we've tried to work around, but > i'd be thrilled to hear if there are better options. > I think there is the fundamental misunderstanding. You and some others seem to assume the organisation is the OSMF while other seem to assume that the organisation is the community of contributors to OSM. Since even the OSMF states that it is all about the contibutors only the contributors can initiate a license change. So the first thing would be to ask them if they want a license change. The argument that the current license is not a good one does not matter if the contributors don't care about that. Klaus Leiss ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Matt Amos wrote: >> >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned >> > by >> > companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting >> > target. The safeguards that have been put in place (a vote of the OSMF >> > membership and recent contributors) would be very easy to circumvent. >> >> they would have to first gain a majority of the OSMF members, which >> would take a lot of resources but i guess it's doable. but then they'd >> *further* need to gain a majority of active contributors, which would >> mean they'd need to find a majority of contributors editing in three >> out of the last six months. given that this number appears to be in >> the region of 70,000 mappers at the moment, and will presumably grow >> over time, i think this is too much effort even for a large mapping >> company. >> > Easy enough to create fake accounts and bots to provide contributions. The > contributor terms do not define the term "contributor" and it would be very > onerous to sift through 70,000 accounts to try to differentiate between real > and fake accounts. Not something that you'd be able to enforce very > practically. > >> >> but, let's be constructive instead; what do you think would be an >> adequate safeguard while still allowing the license to change in >> response to community needs? > > You could get the contributor terms reviewed by a decent lawyer for a start, > with a brief to look at the terms with a view to protecting the rights of > the contributors. If you've had any legal review what brief did you give > them? as you well know, we've had the contributor terms reviewed by Clark, with the brief to look at if from OSMF's point of view and the contributor's point of view. so, having done that, what else do you think would be an adequate safeguard while still allowing the license to change in response to community needs? >> > There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing >> > the >> > Contributor Terms. They can do that at any point in the future without >> > any >> > kind of vote or other formality. That's a pretty big hole in itself >> > >> >> the funny thing is, OSMF can't change the contributor terms once >> you've signed it. it's a contract between you and OSMF which follows >> the usual rule - it can only be amended by a further agreement in >> writing signed by both parties. so, no. OSMF can't change the >> contributor terms for existing contributors. >> > So existing contributors would be denied access until they assent to the new > Contributor Terms. This is pretty common practice and most contributors > would be inclined to click through without giving it much thought. Indeed > it's how the OSMF propose to implement these terms in the first place. ok, let's try and be constructive about this... what would you suggest? given that this tactic would work with any service - the only thing i can think of is to have an organisation governed by its members; OSMF. this introduces other problems, which we've tried to work around, but i'd be thrilled to hear if there are better options. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Matt Amos wrote: > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned > by > > companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting > > target. The safeguards that have been put in place (a vote of the OSMF > > membership and recent contributors) would be very easy to circumvent. > > they would have to first gain a majority of the OSMF members, which > would take a lot of resources but i guess it's doable. but then they'd > *further* need to gain a majority of active contributors, which would > mean they'd need to find a majority of contributors editing in three > out of the last six months. given that this number appears to be in > the region of 70,000 mappers at the moment, and will presumably grow > over time, i think this is too much effort even for a large mapping > company. > > Easy enough to create fake accounts and bots to provide contributions. The contributor terms do not define the term "contributor" and it would be very onerous to sift through 70,000 accounts to try to differentiate between real and fake accounts. Not something that you'd be able to enforce very practically. > but, let's be constructive instead; what do you think would be an > adequate safeguard while still allowing the license to change in > response to community needs? > You could get the contributor terms reviewed by a decent lawyer for a start, with a brief to look at the terms with a view to protecting the rights of the contributors. If you've had any legal review what brief did you give them? > > > There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing > the > > Contributor Terms. They can do that at any point in the future without > any > > kind of vote or other formality. That's a pretty big hole in itself > > the funny thing is, OSMF can't change the contributor terms once > you've signed it. it's a contract between you and OSMF which follows > the usual rule - it can only be amended by a further agreement in > writing signed by both parties. so, no. OSMF can't change the > contributor terms for existing contributors. > > So existing contributors would be denied access until they assent to the new Contributor Terms. This is pretty common practice and most contributors would be inclined to click through without giving it much thought. Indeed it's how the OSMF propose to implement these terms in the first place. > cheers, > > matt > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned by > companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting > target. The safeguards that have been put in place (a vote of the OSMF > membership and recent contributors) would be very easy to circumvent. they would have to first gain a majority of the OSMF members, which would take a lot of resources but i guess it's doable. but then they'd *further* need to gain a majority of active contributors, which would mean they'd need to find a majority of contributors editing in three out of the last six months. given that this number appears to be in the region of 70,000 mappers at the moment, and will presumably grow over time, i think this is too much effort even for a large mapping company. but, let's be constructive instead; what do you think would be an adequate safeguard while still allowing the license to change in response to community needs? > There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing the > Contributor Terms. They can do that at any point in the future without any > kind of vote or other formality. That's a pretty big hole in itself the funny thing is, OSMF can't change the contributor terms once you've signed it. it's a contract between you and OSMF which follows the usual rule - it can only be amended by a further agreement in writing signed by both parties. so, no. OSMF can't change the contributor terms for existing contributors. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:55 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing the > Contributor Terms. They can do that at any point in the future without any > kind of vote or other formality. That's a pretty big hole in itself At least the data before the license change will be under the previous license. I also don't think the community will let this happen. I left wikimapia because of empty promises, and also because the community didn't care the least about the data being non-free .(a few people only cared, and I guess they left too) Niklas -- Niklas Holmkvist ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Dave Stubbs wrote: > >> > >> as far as i can see the contributor terms definition says the same > >> thing, except ... > > > > ...except the context is different. With CC BY-SA you are giving > everyone > > the same rights. With the Contributor Terms the only one to have those > > rights is the OSMF. > > > > > > But only with the condition that they give everyone else those rights > when publishing the data (via cc-by-sa or odbl). There's a slight > change to attribution in that redirection which is just a > formalisation of the current practice of attribution to OSM, and a > wiki page for large contributors. > > The only extra right you give OSMF here, over and above everyone else, > is the license change part -- and that can only be initiated by OSMF, > Yes, one of the major consequences is that OSMF gets to change the license. If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned by companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting target. The safeguards that have been put in place (a vote of the OSMF membership and recent contributors) would be very easy to circumvent. There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing the Contributor Terms. They can do that at any point in the future without any kind of vote or other formality. That's a pretty big hole in itself > the rest has to go to a vote of the OSM contributors. With cc-by-sa > you currently give this right to Creative Commons, who think we should > be using CC0 for data anyway. > > Dave > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
>> >> as far as i can see the contributor terms definition says the same >> thing, except ... > > ...except the context is different. With CC BY-SA you are giving everyone > the same rights. With the Contributor Terms the only one to have those > rights is the OSMF. > > But only with the condition that they give everyone else those rights when publishing the data (via cc-by-sa or odbl). There's a slight change to attribution in that redirection which is just a formalisation of the current practice of attribution to OSM, and a wiki page for large contributors. The only extra right you give OSMF here, over and above everyone else, is the license change part -- and that can only be initiated by OSMF, the rest has to go to a vote of the OSM contributors. With cc-by-sa you currently give this right to Creative Commons, who think we should be using CC0 for data anyway. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Matt Amos wrote: > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:25 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC wrote: > >> > >> On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: > >> > Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF > Chairman's > >> > position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own > >> > opinion. > >> > >> I'm not allowed to have opinions? > >> > >> > Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM > >> > data? > >> > >> The OSMF wont own the data and you know it. > >> > > The Contributor Terms contains the following clause: "You hereby grant > to > > OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, > > non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is > > restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the > > original medium or any other." > > > > That's pretty much as close as you can get to owning a piece of data. > > out of interest, would you prefer that it were worded like CC BY-SA? > > "[you] hereby grant[s] [OSMF] a worldwide, royalty-free, > non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable > copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below: > [list of rights covered by the Berne convention.] The above rights may > be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter > devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications > as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and > formats." > > as far as i can see the contributor terms definition says the same > thing, except ... ...except the context is different. With CC BY-SA you are giving everyone the same rights. With the Contributor Terms the only one to have those rights is the OSMF. > it's more concise. we strived for readability and > brevity in the contributor terms, given that it will be read by so > many people. do you think it would have been better to go for the > longer version as CC BY-SA does? > > just as CC BY-SA contains limitations on the exercise of those rights > (BY and SA), so does the contributor terms - initially only a release > under CC BY-SA and ODbL, subject to a vote of the OSMF membership and > "active contributors" if the need arises to change that to a different > "free and open" license. > > cheers, > > matt > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:25 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC wrote: >> >> On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: >> > Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's >> > position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own >> > opinion. >> >> I'm not allowed to have opinions? >> >> > Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM >> > data? >> >> The OSMF wont own the data and you know it. >> > The Contributor Terms contains the following clause: "You hereby grant to > OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, > non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is > restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the > original medium or any other." > > That's pretty much as close as you can get to owning a piece of data. out of interest, would you prefer that it were worded like CC BY-SA? "[you] hereby grant[s] [OSMF] a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below: [list of rights covered by the Berne convention.] The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats." as far as i can see the contributor terms definition says the same thing, except it's more concise. we strived for readability and brevity in the contributor terms, given that it will be read by so many people. do you think it would have been better to go for the longer version as CC BY-SA does? just as CC BY-SA contains limitations on the exercise of those rights (BY and SA), so does the contributor terms - initially only a release under CC BY-SA and ODbL, subject to a vote of the OSMF membership and "active contributors" if the need arises to change that to a different "free and open" license. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
Yours &c. Steve On Dec 5, 2009, at 20:25, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC wrote: On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: > Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's > position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own opinion. I'm not allowed to have opinions? > Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM data? The OSMF wont own the data and you know it. The Contributor Terms contains the following clause: "You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other." That's pretty much as close as you can get to owning a piece of data. If you didn't delete matts edits on the wiki or tried listening to him we could explain why you're wrong. Yours &c. Steve ___ 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] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: > > Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's > > position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own > opinion. > > I'm not allowed to have opinions? > > > Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM > data? > > The OSMF wont own the data and you know it. > > The Contributor Terms contains the following clause: "You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other." That's pretty much as close as you can get to owning a piece of data. > Yours &c. > > Steve > ___ > 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] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Kai Krueger wrote: > And even the licensing debate could be seen > as "support" even though that indeed has a little bit more of a > controlling element to it. But it is support in that the current license > is broken and inapplicable to geodata as has every lawyer they have > asked so far said (as far as I can tell). > The ODbL is also inapplicable to geodata. It even says so. "The individual items of the Contents contained in this Database may be covered by other rights, including copyright, patent, data protection, privacy, or personality rights, and this License does not cover any rights (other than Database Rights or in contract) in individual Contents contained in the Database." ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
2009/12/6 Matthew Luehrmann : > Who controls OSM? I really am not sure. My current understanding is that > OSMF controls OSM, but calls it "supporting": "The OpenStreetMap Foundation > is an international non-profit organisation supporting but not controlling > the project." > > Maybe a better question that will get a less ambiguous answer, and really > shows who is in control of OSM, is: Who owns the www.openstreetmap.org domain > name. > Steve Coast registered it when he started the project. Some in the OSM community didn't like him having it only in his own name so Steve handed the domain to the democratically elected OSMF. Should everyone be giving the login to GoDaddy and a set of the server room keys? / Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
Matthew Luehrmann wrote: > Who controls OSM? I really am not sure. My current understanding is that > OSMF controls OSM, but calls it "supporting": "The OpenStreetMap Foundation > is an international non-profit organisation supporting but not controlling > the project." > > Maybe a better question that will get a less ambiguous answer, and really > shows who is in control of OSM, is: Who owns the www.openstreetmap.org domain > name. As far as I know, OSMF owns the domain www.openstreetmap.org, as does it own the servers on which OSM runs. But how does that not fit the definition of "Support". OSMF runs all the infrastructure and provides the technical support to run OSM and make it possible and therefore support it. It does not however interfere with any tagging, decide what to map or what not to map, decide what gets rendered on the map or any other of those types of aspects that you might consider control OSM. It also does not own other domains like openstreetmap.de or all the other servers that are part of OSM, such as the t...@h, trapi or XAPI server or any of the servers hosting the national sites. It does not own copyright on the data (otherwise there wouldn't be a need for a licensing debate). So altogether, if OSMF died or got taken over, OpenStreetMap would still survive and continue, even though it would hurt it considerably. So I think that fits quite nicely into the idea of "supporting the community" rather than controlling it. And even the licensing debate could be seen as "support" even though that indeed has a little bit more of a controlling element to it. But it is support in that the current license is broken and inapplicable to geodata as has every lawyer they have asked so far said (as far as I can tell). They then went and spent an enormous amount of time discussing the issue with various copyright lawyers, with OSM community members and anyone else who wanted to discuss it and help with the progress and make sure that the views of the entire community get heard in the legal process. And now that they have come up with a proposal that is as close as possible in spirit to the old license that everyone has agreed to, they first present it for a vote to OSMF members and if they agree that it is good enough present it for a vote to all members. Kai > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Dec 5, 2009, at 17:17, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, you wrote: >> Don't you mean "rather than admit I was wrong or talk about it >> where I >> brought it up, much better to try and stir the pot on another list"? > > i have not made personal comments about any one > i suggest you don't either > I'll take that as a yes > > > ___ > 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] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
Who controls OSM? I really am not sure. My current understanding is that OSMF controls OSM, but calls it "supporting": "The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international non-profit organisation supporting but not controlling the project." Maybe a better question that will get a less ambiguous answer, and really shows who is in control of OSM, is: Who owns the www.openstreetmap.org domain name. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
2009/12/6 Ulf Lamping : > Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb: >> So you think that the OSMF is forcing people to do things, and controlling >> instead of supporting? > > Does: "Say yes to the new license or we'll delete your data" sound more > like supporting or controlling to you? I had the unfortunate experience to be involved with a project that did something similar, it set the project's momentum back a lot and with Google breathing down OSM's neck this would be the perfect oportunity to give them all the human resources they could ever wish for, at which point people will question if there is any point to OSM any more since so much data might vanish and well I can't see that being a good outcome. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb: > So you think that the OSMF is forcing people to do things, and controlling > instead of supporting? Does: "Say yes to the new license or we'll delete your data" sound more like supporting or controlling to you? > If that's the case, I urge you *again* to enter the OSMF, spend some time in > the working groups, and stand for election as OSMF chairman, you you can set > the right course again. > > >> If that is true, I have no motivation to participate in the OSMF. > > ... but, instead of that, you'll just shout and cry how bad is the OSMF > instead of working to change it and end SteveC's Evil Reign(tm). Awesome. What I've done is to hightlight that in the current case the OSMF is doing a bad job IMHO. You must admit that Steve gave a very bad example in the wiki page example. > Reading all these logic-less arguments makes me feel like feeding the trolls. With your logic, I have to become a member of the CSU party here in Bavaria, when I think their doing something wrong. I don't tend to do that as well. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, you wrote: > Don't you mean "rather than admit I was wrong or talk about it where I > brought it up, much better to try and stir the pot on another list"? i have not made personal comments about any one i suggest you don't either ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
El Domingo, 6 de Diciembre de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió: > May I remind the OSMF that from the Wiki page[1]: > > "The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international non-profit > organisation supporting but not controlling the project." > > However, the currently planned action in the license change (especially > in the way it is currently planned to be done) is IMHO "controlling the > project" and nothing else. So you think that the OSMF is forcing people to do things, and controlling instead of supporting? If that's the case, I urge you *again* to enter the OSMF, spend some time in the working groups, and stand for election as OSMF chairman, you you can set the right course again. > If that is true, I have no motivation to participate in the OSMF. ... but, instead of that, you'll just shout and cry how bad is the OSMF instead of working to change it and end SteveC's Evil Reign(tm). Awesome. Reading all these logic-less arguments makes me feel like feeding the trolls. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega http://ivan.sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC & freenode 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] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Dec 5, 2009, at 5:03 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote: >> On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Liz wrote: >>> SteveC marked the NO page as in dispute. No, he didn't mark the YES page >>> as in dispute. >>> If there was no dispute there would be no need for a vote. >> >> I answered this on osmf-talk, why're you bringing it up over here? > > Because there are a large number of people on this list who are not on osmf- > talk. Don't you mean "rather than admit I was wrong or talk about it where I brought it up, much better to try and stir the pot on another list"? Yours &c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
Iván Sánchez Ortega schrieb: > El Domingo, 6 de Diciembre de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió: >> Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's >> position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own >> opinion. >> >> Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM >> data? > > May I remind everyone, the OSMF elects a chairman once every year. If you're > so displeased with SteveC's administration, stand up for the election at the > next AGM. May I remind the OSMF that from the Wiki page[1]: "The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international non-profit organisation supporting but not controlling the project." If that is true, I have no motivation to participate in the OSMF. However, the currently planned action in the license change (especially in the way it is currently planned to be done) is IMHO "controlling the project" and nothing else. Regards, ULFL [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, SteveC wrote: > On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Liz wrote: > > SteveC marked the NO page as in dispute. No, he didn't mark the YES page > > as in dispute. > > If there was no dispute there would be no need for a vote. > > I answered this on osmf-talk, why're you bringing it up over here? Because there are a large number of people on this list who are not on osmf- talk. > > There was a dispute, I marked it as such... big deal. I could have done a > lot worse. > > Yours &c. > > Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
2009/12/5 Liz : > I find the graffiti on the NO page very disturbing. It is intended as a > statement page by those who differ, and those who want to put positive > comments on the new licence should use their own page. > So the REPLY: 's are graffiti? If a statement is untrue or factually incorrect can it not be challenged? For the ODbL yes page then: Saying yes to ODbL will make the UK warm in winter, Malta bigger and bring rains to western Australia. ;-) / Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Liz wrote: >> > > SteveC marked the NO page as in dispute. No, he didn't mark the YES page as > in > dispute. > If there was no dispute there would be no need for a vote. I answered this on osmf-talk, why're you bringing it up over here? There was a dispute, I marked it as such... big deal. I could have done a lot worse. Yours &c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: > Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's > position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own opinion. I'm not allowed to have opinions? > Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM data? The OSMF wont own the data and you know it. Yours &c. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
2009/12/5 Ulf Lamping : > Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's > position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own opinion. > > Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM data? > Are we an organization made up of passionate human mappers, not corporate marketing droids. Steve is a great guy. Buy him a good beer in a pub and he'll be a pussycat. / Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Ulf Lamping wrote: > Hi! > > Just reading: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Ye >s > > > Where user Steve added: > > --- > What about the 'no' page? > > It's mainly full of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) and is marked as > inaccurate. There are discussion on those problems on the Why You Should > Vote No talk page. > > Please be aware that any open source project has a wide range of > opinions, and you will find some of the more bizarre and extreme on the > 'No' page. That doesn't represent a consensus but the disruptive work of > a few disaffected people getting hot headed. > > -- This unsigned comment was added by User:Steve 21:34, 5 December 2009 > --- > > > Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's > position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own > opinion. > > Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM > data? > > Regards, ULFL > SteveC marked the NO page as in dispute. No, he didn't mark the YES page as in dispute. If there was no dispute there would be no need for a vote. I find the graffiti on the NO page very disturbing. It is intended as a statement page by those who differ, and those who want to put positive comments on the new licence should use their own page. Liz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
El Domingo, 6 de Diciembre de 2009, Ulf Lamping escribió: > Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's > position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own > opinion. > > Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM > data? May I remind everyone, the OSMF elects a chairman once every year. If you're so displeased with SteveC's administration, stand up for the election at the next AGM. Cheers, -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega http://ivan.sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net IRC: ivansanchez @ OFTC & freenode signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
Hi! Just reading: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes Where user Steve added: --- What about the 'no' page? It's mainly full of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) and is marked as inaccurate. There are discussion on those problems on the Why You Should Vote No talk page. Please be aware that any open source project has a wide range of opinions, and you will find some of the more bizarre and extreme on the 'No' page. That doesn't represent a consensus but the disruptive work of a few disaffected people getting hot headed. -- This unsigned comment was added by User:Steve 21:34, 5 December 2009 --- Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own opinion. Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM data? Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
