Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Anthony writes: On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Mike N writes: Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for the cases I'm aware of. The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people who violate it. You've got it exactly backwards. The whole point of having a free license is to waive the right to sue people who follow it. E, no. If you want to wave that right, then you put your work into the public domain. You seem to have missed who follow it. Oh, but wait, you're Anthony. You don't just celebrate Backwards Day, you're working on Backwards Century. Why the personal attack? I wasn't calling you backwards, I was just saying that you had gotten a fact backwards. The purpose of a free license is to give permissions, not to take permissions away. If you want to sue people for violating your copyright, you don't need a license at all. If you want to sue people for not violating your copyright, you need an EULA. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Mike Dupont writes: how can you take a cc-by-sa document edit it and publish it under pd? can I just make derived works in any license i want? Well, that's part of the problem here. How do we determine what is someone's work, and what is a derived work? If I take a way that someone has entered (poorly), and I move each and every node, and fix the speling on the name of the way, whose creative work is it? (one could easily argue that the other person was the one being creative whereas my work is merely a fact about the world, but I'm not going to make that argument here). Well from my view, it is a creative commons share alike document, and changing it means you are creating a derived work. It it was source code, and the map can be converted into one. It could be included in a program. Just look at the license of some flight simulators etc, then any significant change must adhere to the project license. I am very very sceptical of any practice of this PD licensing, who approved that? Was it ever thought through? I think that there are some serious problems with the consistency of the OSM if we allow for fragmented licensed data. Does anyone else see it this way? Guys, another question, what is the difference between wikipedia and osm? I mean CCSA works for WP, why cant it work here? I repeat my question about an independent review, I would ask you all to submit the CT and new license to the OSI, CC and software freedom law center for review, if there are real problems in the CCBYSA, dont you think they should fix them? Why are we being terrorized with this license drama for months, can we just use one that works and leave it up to license experts to resolve problems in them? thanks, mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Anthony writes: On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Mike N writes: Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for the cases I'm aware of. The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people who violate it. You've got it exactly backwards. The whole point of having a free license is to waive the right to sue people who follow it. E, no. If you want to wave that right, then you put your work into the public domain. Oh, but wait, you're Anthony. You don't just celebrate Backwards Day, you're working on Backwards Century. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Grant Slater writes: On 18 April 2011 05:05, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Copyright. DRM. DRM is a safe. The purpose of a safe is to slow you down. You purchase a safe in terms of the amount of time it will take to be cracked. Once it's cracked? Copyright. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Mike Dupont writes: how can you take a cc-by-sa document edit it and publish it under pd? can I just make derived works in any license i want? Well, that's part of the problem here. How do we determine what is someone's work, and what is a derived work? If I take a way that someone has entered (poorly), and I move each and every node, and fix the speling on the name of the way, whose creative work is it? (one could easily argue that the other person was the one being creative whereas my work is merely a fact about the world, but I'm not going to make that argument here). We don't really know the answer to that, which makes this whole license changing screw the community, we know better exercize a piss in a pot. Seriously, if I was Google (and I'm thinking of a specific person -- no, not Ed), I would look at the licensing confusion and disarray in the Open Street Map community, and say God damn, what a bunch of idiots. They have some good ideas, like VGI, Mapping Parties(tm), JOSM (nice to have a dedicated OSM editor, but what an unusable piece of crap it is) and a GeoBus(tm). Let's use those ideas, make our own map, and put the goddamn thing out in the public domain once it's good enough to kill off Navteq and TeleAtlas rather than have them just steal it. Oh, and we'll kill OSM too, which is too bad, but they had their chance. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes: What's not clear is how the ODbL+DbCL licence would help this situation. It would at least straightforwardly permit the publishing of map tiles without any attribution or share-alike requirement Disagree. (This has been gone over ad nauseam on legal-talk, I'm just pointing it out here for the record.) Sorry, I didn't mean to spread misinformation. Oh well, this was the one big advantage of ODbL as far as I could see :-(. So do the produced map tiles (a Produced Work under the ODbL, I think, or am I mistaken there to?) have to be distributed under the ODbL also - or can you use any distribution terms as long as it has attribution - or what? (I'd rather not *discuss* these legal niceties here on this list but if you could forward the official word on these matters it would help. It is a pity that it's not completely idiot-proof and obvious from the licence text itself.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
It's everyone else who we have to worry about. In the last couple of months, I've personally noticed a national railway company, a charity with a turnover of £100m, a vast firm of couriers, a magazine publisher, a book publisher, all infringing our requirements/requests for attribution and share-alike. (I've spotted these by chance: I don't go out there looking for this stuff.) Deliberate? In some cases, definitely. You wouldn't put an entirely fictitious credit to another organisation if you were just innocent of the niceties. TBH I actually feel flattered when an external organisation uses our maps. At Mottisfont and Dunbridge station, Hants, there's a map which I think could be an OSM map - reason being it shows a permissive path not on Ordnance Survey maps. On the other hand it could be just drawn by a 'local'. It would be *nice* for them to attribute, but I do think it is rather nice to see our maps being used in the real world in any case. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Ed Avis wrote: So do the produced map tiles (a Produced Work under the ODbL, I think, or am I mistaken there to?) have to be distributed under the ODbL also - or can you use any distribution terms as long as it has attribution - or what? ODbL 4.3 allows you to distribute Produced Works under any licence as long as you provide attribution. [...] if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6283046.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes: ODbL 4.3 allows you to distribute Produced Works under any licence as long as you provide attribution. [...] if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License So you must provide attribution, but you don't have to enforce that downstream users of the Produced Work have to keep the attribution. (That seems sensible enough to me personally.) Anyway, to get back to the original point, you mentioned some cases where the current licence is being infringed by various small businesses (not big map data vendors) who are using OSM tiles without attribution. But under ODbL this use would simply be permitted - they could, for example, download rendered map tiles from somebody else and then use them as they wished. Or is it your understanding that the attribution requirement under ODbL really is 'viral' and everybody who distributes a Produced Work, no matter how far down the chain, needs to attribute. (If so, that takes care of one of the concerns that 80n had with the new licence, that it doesn't guarantee contributors will be credited.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Ed Avis eda at waniasset.com writes: [...] if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License So you must provide attribution, but you don't have to enforce that downstream users of the Produced Work have to keep the attribution. (That seems sensible enough to me personally.) To answer my own question - I guess that 'reasonably calculated to make...' suggests you should include an attribution notice and ask downstream users to respect it - although it doesn't mandate any particular choice of licence. So we would still have the attribution requirement as now. To return again to the possible infringements of the OSM licence - in the cases where currently OSM tiles are being used without attribution, I can't see any reason why requiring or enforcing attribution would become easier under the ODbL rather than the current licence. I don't think we've had any infringer send us a letter from their legal department saying that copyright doesn't apply, so nyah nyah. Nor have we ever (AFAIK) sent a menacing notice from our own lawyers (employed by OSMF or by mappers). I think it's a human problem, not a legalese problem. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Ed Avis wrote: To answer my own question - I guess that 'reasonably calculated to make...' suggests you should include an attribution notice and ask downstream users to respect it - although it doesn't mandate any particular choice of licence. So we would still have the attribution requirement as now. That's also my understanding (but that one's been hashed out on talk-gb ad tediosum). To return again to the possible infringements of the OSM licence - in the cases where currently OSM tiles are being used without attribution, I can't see any reason why requiring or enforcing attribution would become easier under the ODbL rather than the current licence. Principally, the CTs (rather than ODbL per se) make it easier for OSMF to act, rather than the burden solely being on individual mappers. As a nice bonus, there are zillions of solicitors who are experienced in contract disputes, but comparatively few in copyright law. Of course, I wouldn't disagree that it's a human problem as well, but then I'm a PD supporter. ;) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6284258.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:22:22 -0700 (PDT) Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: To answer my own question - I guess that 'reasonably calculated to make...' suggests you should include an attribution notice and ask downstream users to respect it - although it doesn't mandate any particular choice of licence. So we would still have the attribution requirement as now. That's also my understanding (but that one's been hashed out on talk-gb ad tediosum). So the new licence is not clear to a majority of mappers concerning these points - derived works, produced works, need for attribution. So why are adopting something that we don't understand? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Apr 18, 2011 9:30 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 18 April 2011 05:05, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Frederik Ramm writes: No. To get access to (at least TeleAtlas's or Navteq's) data you will have to sign an agreement that binds you to much more than just plain copyright. Did you sign an agreement to use your personal navigation device? Almost certainly not. So what's to stop you from reverse-engineering the data files, and publishing them? Copyright. DRM. When has DRM ever stopped anyone from anything? Sans copyright protection, it only takes one person to crack the DRM and release the files for free on the Internet. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Am 17.04.2011 10:17, schrieb Ed Avis: andrzej zaborowski balrogg at gmail.com writes: I know a relatively big project that's currently using OSM data under CC-By-SA and may be in a nasty surprise when they find OSM is no longer suitable. Fortunately, there is an easy way to fix this: keep CC-BY-SA available as an option in addition to ODbL. That's precisely what's going to happen, with or without license change. The only difference being that the CC-By-SA version not being updated by official OSM anymore. No data will be lost to the world. Some data will be lost to the ODbL OSM should the change go through (and to me it looks like it will). But the ODbL will enable more users to use OSM data without so much legal hassle. The optimum in my opinion would be to go entirely PD/CC0 as it would enable maximum use of OSM data (as in our projects mission statement), and the protection would come from fast updates and large community workpower. So I accepted the new CT, and the new license by declaring my edits to be in the Public Domain, and I can only encourage you and everyone else to do the same, because that is the only sane way forward for the project, even if we have to remap parts of the world we can't take with us. I'm not taking that lightly, especially like it is in the case of Australia, but there are multiple ways for Australians out of this, including, but by no means limited to, a judicial process. (Have someone copy a small amount of user generated CC-By-SA-Map to PD Project and set a precedent in Court, I'm almost certain you'd get money from the OSMF legal fund to get that cleared.) -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
2011/4/18 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net: I should note that I find the bulk of your email to be reasonable and thoughtful, whether I agree with specific points or not. So it appears now that I'm picking on you by singling out one point from your reasonable email. Sorry. :-) [ ... ] (Have someone copy a small amount of user generated CC-By-SA-Map to PD Project and set a precedent in Court, I'm almost certain you'd get money from the OSMF legal fund to get that cleared.) That seems like a poor use of the limited OSMF funds. I'd rather see outreach, servers, bandwidth and other things before seeing our donations go to lawyers for a test case. Funding both sides (!) of a vigorous litigation, is likely to be a $200,000 bill at a rock-bottom bare minimum. It's likely to go to millions on each side. And the litigation must be vigorous and competent and complete, because one can not just agree to a settlement between friendly parties and expect that to carry weight as a precedent. I would hope that the OSM community would agree and not give serious consideration to funding a test case. Again, I apologize for focusing on this single point from your email. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 2011-04-17 23:54, Frederik Ramm skrev: No. To get access to (at least TeleAtlas's or Navteq's) data you will have to sign an agreement that binds you to much more than just plain copyright. You just have to get into a store and give them money to get access to the data, or at least parts of it. It's not in a raw form thou. The whole idea is to make the data possible for customers to buy in shops. / Balp -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2tGCoACgkQtbR3SXmySrcDigCfZbt/NnZRQ7e8Gq9S6ViMuX1r 4iIAoKL0gHwpddI5iplB/vLXgTundrOI =EZXi -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Grant Slater openstreetmap at firefishy.com writes: There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we (some?) in the community chose to ignore. This is a good reason to introduce a new licence but it's not a reason against keeping the old one as a dual-licensing option for those who do prefer it. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
andrzej zaborowski balrogg at gmail.com writes: I know a relatively big project that's currently using OSM data under CC-By-SA and may be in a nasty surprise when they find OSM is no longer suitable. Fortunately, there is an easy way to fix this: keep CC-BY-SA available as an option in addition to ODbL. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
uation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of examples by now. It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some proprietary giant's database. Would you prefer to wait? Or even: If you were a member of the OSMF board entrusted with our data's safe keeping, would you prefer to wait? And then, when users complain, you'd say: Oh well, lawyers told me back in 2008 that this would happen but I figured I'd rather not upset the apple cart? I would not have a problem with that. OSM will still be there and the world will have better data on average. And free data cannot be exploited commercially, unless improved. But the thieve won't have the community behind it to maintain the stolen data and OSM would. Please stop creating free data, if at the same time you restrict it's free-ness. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
So we need to change then ? Tell them to reconsiderate there legal model. OSM gives, they receive ! I am perfectly happy with someone deciding NOT to use what we have to offer !!! If this is what you have been complaining about then you have half missed the point. There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we (some?) in the community chose to ignore. Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: If this is what you have been complaining about then you have half missed the point. There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we (some?) in the community chose to ignore. So we need to change then ? Tell them to reconsiderate there legal model. OSM gives, they receive ! I am perfectly happy with someone deciding NOT to use what we have to offer !!! On the one hand you suggest that one should stop creating free data, if at the same time you restrict it's free-ness. On the other hand you oppose removing existing restrictions of the free-ness of our data that actually prevent people from using that supposedly free data. Is there any consistent motivation underlying your arguments beyond not wanting to change anything? Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
80n wrote: There is zero chance that any large organisation would try to use OSM's CC-BY-SA licensed map data and think that they would get away with it. I agree with you here FSVO large. I doubt we have to worry about Google, Tele Atlas or Navteq consistently and deliberately using OSM data under the current licence. For them, it's not about the law one way or another: it's about reputation risk. No matter if we have CC-favoured community norms on top of a PD waiver, ODbL+CT, or CC-BY-SA, for these three companies, being seen to do the wrong thing in their key market would be a sufficient disincentive. Plus, of course, TA/NT sure as hell aren't going to use OSM and therefore undermine their sole selling point - to get good data, you have to pay professionals. So Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq are, in my view, largely irrelevant to the licence discussion. It's everyone else who we have to worry about. In the last couple of months, I've personally noticed a national railway company, a charity with a turnover of £100m, a vast firm of couriers, a magazine publisher, a book publisher, all infringing our requirements/requests for attribution and share-alike. (I've spotted these by chance: I don't go out there looking for this stuff.) Deliberate? In some cases, definitely. You wouldn't put an entirely fictitious credit to another organisation if you were just innocent of the niceties. No, Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq aren't infringing OSM's licence. Everyone else is, though. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6281529.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Richard Fairhurst wrote: It's everyone else who we have to worry about. In the last couple of months, I've personally noticed a national railway company, a charity with a turnover of £100m, a vast firm of couriers, a magazine publisher, a book publisher, all infringing our requirements/requests for attribution and share-alike. (I've spotted these by chance: I don't go out there looking for this stuff.) Deliberate? In some cases, definitely. You wouldn't put an entirely fictitious credit to another organisation if you were just innocent of the niceties. With the value of the data going up, no doubt, more and more companies will try to infringe the (spirit of the) license. That would be the case even with the strongest license. Take a look for example at the GPL. It has been upheld in several court cases in a variety of jurisdictions and a variety of settings. In contrast, I am not aware of a single court case, where the GPL was deamed unenforceable. So that is kind of the strongest a license can be. Nevertheless one regularly reads about cases where companies large and small deliberately infringe on the GPL. Presumably as they hope that no one will notice or bother to sue them. So the question is possibly less how many people / companies try to infringe on the license (that probably more reflects the value of the data then the strength of the license), but how do they react once confronted with the infringement, once one threatens legal action and ultimately how the case would be decided in front of court, should it ever get that far. Even though so far there haven't been any significant large scale infringement's, if OSM continues to grow and thrive, eventually there will very likely be one, independent of what license OSM is using. At the moment beyond how people/companies react to confrontation with infringement appears unknown for both CC-BY-SA as well as ODbL, although one can hope and expect that ODbL is more enforceable given that it was designed specifically for databases. Btw. Given that there have been several cases of infringement of the license by now, some of which OSMF has been involved in dealing with, what would be the case where there was the most trouble in trying to enforce it and what was their line of argument in their defense? Richard Fairhurst wrote: No, Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq aren't infringing OSM's licence. Everyone else is, though. Well, indirectly Google has infringed on OSM's license through one of their subsidiary data providers (e.g. in Colombia) and I have heard of several alleged other cases, although by the sounds of it, there was not enough evidence to pursue it further. Given the experience with large scale companies infringing on GPL code, it wouldn't surprise me if eventually even Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq would attempt it. However, that would likely take a lot longer. Alone the fact that they would have to admit that OSM has better data then them, is likely a deterrent for quite a while. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6281681.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes: For them, it's not about the law one way or another: it's about reputation risk. Yes, and the fact that if they did try to claim they could copy the OSM map data, then their own maps would equally well be copyable. Which would be great for us, and bad for them. So Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq are, in my view, largely irrelevant to the licence discussion. (except in so far as we may be able to influence them to contribute to OSM or to free their own maps - which unfortunately doesn't appear to be much) It's everyone else who we have to worry about. In the last couple of months, I've personally noticed a national railway company, a charity with a turnover of £100m, a vast firm of couriers, a magazine publisher, a book publisher, all infringing our requirements/requests for attribution and share-alike. What's not clear is how the ODbL+DbCL licence would help this situation. It would at least straightforwardly permit the publishing of map tiles without any attribution or share-alike requirement, so we wouldn't have the work of trying to track down and contact such infringers. That is a bit of an odd reason to switch to it, though, if the supposed purpose is to stop people misusing the data. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Ed, Ed Avis wrote: Yes, and the fact that if they did try to claim they could copy the OSM map data, then their own maps would equally well be copyable. No. To get access to (at least TeleAtlas's or Navteq's) data you will have to sign an agreement that binds you to much more than just plain copyright. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Ed Avis wrote: What's not clear is how the ODbL+DbCL licence would help this situation. It would at least straightforwardly permit the publishing of map tiles without any attribution or share-alike requirement Disagree. (This has been gone over ad nauseam on legal-talk, I'm just pointing it out here for the record.) Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6281939.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I doubt we have to worry about Google, Tele Atlas or Navteq consistently and deliberately using OSM data under the current licence. For them, it's not about the law one way or another: it's about reputation risk. No matter if we have CC-favoured community norms on top of a PD waiver, ODbL+CT, or CC-BY-SA, for these three companies, being seen to do the wrong thing in their key market would be a sufficient disincentive. Google seemed to have no problem with the reputation risk of violating the copyrights of thousands of book authors. It's everyone else who we have to worry about. Worry about? What exactly is there to worry about? In the last couple of months, I've personally noticed a national railway company, a charity with a turnover of £100m, a vast firm of couriers, a magazine publisher, a book publisher, all infringing our requirements/requests for attribution and share-alike. (I've spotted these by chance: I don't go out there looking for this stuff.) Deliberate? In some cases, definitely. You wouldn't put an entirely fictitious credit to another organisation if you were just innocent of the niceties. Would a different license change this? If so, why? No, Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq aren't infringing OSM's licence. Everyone else is, though. Are they infringing the license, or are they following it in a way that wasn't intended? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Ed, Ed Avis wrote: Yes, and the fact that if they did try to claim they could copy the OSM map data, then their own maps would equally well be copyable. No. To get access to (at least TeleAtlas's or Navteq's) data you will have to sign an agreement that binds you to much more than just plain copyright. If the data were public domain, it'd only take a single anonymous individual to get the data and upload it to Bittorrent, though. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Frederik Ramm writes: No. To get access to (at least TeleAtlas's or Navteq's) data you will have to sign an agreement that binds you to much more than just plain copyright. Did you sign an agreement to use your personal navigation device? Almost certainly not. So what's to stop you from reverse-engineering the data files, and publishing them? Copyright. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:29:29 +0100 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: This licence change now gives every mapper the means of undermining the map through withholding of their own data, once freely given and now very likely a foundation of data created by other mappers, also in good faith. I understand that many mappers feel they _can't_ relicense some or all of their work, and that's a really tough situation. But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part of. Please consider the corollary to this Why does the ODbL faction not start with a fork of ODbL compliant data? Why do they need to force a split of the existing CC-by-SA data? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Mike N writes: Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for the cases I'm aware of. The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people who violate it. We have a license which allows us to do that now. Is anybody suing the copyright infringers? No, they are not. They're not even sending demand letters. Has anybody even BOTHERED to register their copyright (a low-cost and essential first step for protecting your copyright)? Not that I know of. Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all. Thus, the only question that people should be pondering is: How much damage to the map are people willing to accept in exchange for no benefit at all? People speak of consensus, but there is no consensus, because there are a number of people who object to the license change (and this is no secret to anyone). So, can we please stop talking about consensus, and start talking about ramming the license change down the throats of people who love the map and aren't willing to walk away from it? Because clearly, the people who don't care about how badly the map will be damaged without their contributions, have already left. Changing the license is butt-stupid. Always has been, always will be. It's never too late to give up on a butt-stupid idea, and it's never early enough. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Frederik Ramm writes: We're not sacrificing countries. We saw that we have built our project on (legal) sand, Nonsense. Your choice of what to tag and how to tag it is a creative choice. You own that expression of the idea of a map. There is no reason for you to wait to sue somebody for infringing your copyright. If you aren't willing to do it now, why should we believe that you're going to do it once the license has changed. If you aren't willing to sue somebody once the license has changed, then why in God's name do you want a different license? Changing the license is very expensive and brings with it zero practical benefit. Or, to misquote Charlie Sheen, Duh, Losing! Let me say this again: anybody who defends the license change should be able to name an infringer whom they aren't suing because the license stops them, and should be able to outline their plan for suing the infringer. The plan should include the infringed portion of the work and the funding source for the legal team. On the bright side, the sooner we stop trying to change the license, the less OSM will be damaged, and the sooner we can heal the community. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 17:09 -0700, Kai Krueger wrote: Dermot McNally wrote: FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can see as an outsider. No, the vote part really isn't that difficult. Wikipedia managed to hold a vote on their licensing change. I never followed the wikipedia change, but did they create a new untested licence? Did they ask users to agree to the licence over a 12 month period? How many changes/revisions did their licence undergo between being announced and finally being accepted? Im fairly sure the answers to these questions is significantly different to the answers in the OSM licence change situation. David Dermot McNally wrote: But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part of. Until there is a clear vote of the community to determine what they want it is impossible to say which side of the debate is true to the community. At the moment, we simply don't know. And so it is unhelpful to accuse long time OSM enthusiasts as not being true to the community because they disagree with your opinion. Many of them have the community just as much at hart as the proponents. They just disagree or are unsure on the effects this change will have on it. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6278003.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: I never followed the wikipedia change, but did they create a new untested licence? Did they ask users to agree to the licence over a 12 month period? How many changes/revisions did their licence undergo between being announced and finally being accepted? And I think they included the people who made the original license in the review and discussion which I feel is missing here. What does creative commons say about these new licenses and terms, have they been asked to review the newest batch? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Dermot McNally writes: But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part of. In every schism, it's not clear who is splitting from whom. Don't presume an answer without first asking the question. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 07:00, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: Why does the ODbL faction not start with a fork of ODbL compliant data? Why do they need to force a split of the existing CC-by-SA data? A lot of the differences of opinion on this matter are finding expression in the words people choose to use to describe the different points of view. I found your use of faction interesting enough to check some dictionary definitions of the word. Here's one I found particularly apt: 1. a group of people forming a minority within a larger body, esp a dissentious group So let's see which point of view ends up mainstream and which belongs to a dissenting minority. So far, as I look at the volume of map data, as I look at the vast majority of the people who have built and maintained the map and the infrastructure on which it runs, what I see is people who, sometimes with misgivings, are throwing their weight behind the licence change. Among such people I see unity of purpose. Opposition to the change seems to stem from a number of disparate of often contradictory reasons, none of which I personally find compelling. What I can not with any seriousness regard the opposition I have seen as is the mainstream. It is on the anti-change side that I see not one faction, but several. Others may not (yet) share my view, and should observe the rate at which the remaining community votes yes and no. Nothing in this process will remove the freedom from anybody to continue to use the data already mapped exactly as they always have, nor to continue maintaining a data set under those terms. But if The Community should be seen to support the licence change, I will see it as irresponsible for individual mappers to take their ball and go home just because they can. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 08:28, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: In every schism, it's not clear who is splitting from whom. Don't presume an answer without first asking the question. Actually, I have thought widely on this. My slightly earlier email this morning outlines my thought on what defines the mainstream in this difficult issue. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:11:11 +0200 Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, David Murn wrote: Out of interest Grant, what other large-scale open source projects have changed their licence the way that OSM has? In fact, changed their licence full-stop..? Wikipedia went from GFDL to CC-BY-SA. Wikipedia went from GFDL to a GFDL/CC-BY-SA dual license - with the help of the FSF. If OSMF wanted to go from CC-BY-SA to a CC-BY-SA/ODbL dual license, that would greatly simplify things. Yes, that would make great sense, but I would like to see some more expert opinions, expecially the people who build this entire open source thing to begin with. Did anyone ever contact Eben about this new license? The gpl was the basis for the creative commons, and you are saying it is not good enough, so I think you should be able to convince him as a lawyer about this. If this new thing is really needed, then it should be easy to convince the experts about it. Here are two points I would like to see : 1. a porting of the new terms to other languages and jurisdictions. 2. a review and blessing of the new contract by the software freedom law center, the open source institute and the creative commons There is not even a porting of the new terms and license and contract to other jurisdictions, or translations. At least creative commons has tried to port itself to other places You are asking people to agree to some contract that is not translated into their language and may not be applicable in their jurisdiction, they might even be minors, I find this needs to be looked at carefully. Lets get the license and contract submitted to license-rev...@opensource.org, and to cc-commun...@lists.ibiblio.org, for even a discussion outside this little circle, even an opinion from Lawrence *Lessig* or Eben Moglen softwarefreedom.org, would greatly interest me. It should be possible to get bessings from legal experts and license experts in the world of open source and free software. It should be possible to get this contract reviewed and approved by OSI as well. I personally will wait and see what people who I trust and respect have to say about this topic who are not involved and not partial, some type of neutral and calm review of the entire situation. This entire discussion has gotten very emotional and personal, lets get some neutral third party expert opinions. mike So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing? I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to legal-talk. I am quite prepared to start writing emails (phrased neutrally) requesting an opinion if these people have not been asked before. If then the opinion is that the new licence has merit, we then need work on how the contract provisions fit in with other legal codes not just those derived from either the Westminster or Napoleonic codes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:34:20 +1000 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 20:10 +0100, Grant Slater wrote: I am sure there are going to be a few cases where difficult decisions are going to have to be made. We will not have been the only open source project to have had to make these sorts of decisions. Out of interest Grant, what other large-scale open source projects have changed their licence the way that OSM has? In fact, changed their licence full-stop..? David OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors retaining their own copyright. http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and interestingly this assessment of how LibreOffice is going http://webmink.com/2011/02/11/is-libreoffice-open-by-rule/ We can also note how the new fork is handling their compound licensing issue. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 08:31, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing? I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to legal-talk. I am quite prepared to start writing emails (phrased neutrally) requesting an opinion if these people have not been asked before. If then the opinion is that the new licence has merit, we then need work on how the contract provisions fit in with other legal codes not just those derived from either the Westminster or Napoleonic codes. How long have you been in this discussion, Elizabeth? Quite a while, according to my recollection. Given that you seem to now see a requirement for this kind of validation, I find it strange that you wouldn't have sought it at a much earlier stage than this. Normally abject opposition should come after, not before, neutral appraisal of the proposal, shouldn't it? Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 17:37, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors retaining their own copyright. http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and interestingly this assessment of how LibreOffice is going http://webmink.com/2011/02/11/is-libreoffice-open-by-rule/ We can also note how the new fork is handling their compound licensing issue. What's more interesting is Oracle's move to wash their hands of direct control over OpenOffice... http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/15/oracle_letting_openoffice_go/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 17:42, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: wouldn't have sought it at a much earlier stage than this. Normally abject opposition should come after, not before, neutral appraisal of the proposal, shouldn't it? There has been so many issues with the new license, the new contributor terms and the way the whole thing as been handled that it's hard to know where to start pulling at threads, pull the wrong one and the whole jumper will fall to bits... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
John Smith wrote: On 16 April 2011 17:37, Elizabeth Dodded...@billiau.net wrote: OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors retaining their own copyright. http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and interestingly this assessment of how LibreOffice is going http://webmink.com/2011/02/11/is-libreoffice-open-by-rule/ We can also note how the new fork is handling their compound licensing issue. What's more interesting is Oracle's move to wash their hands of direct control over OpenOffice... http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/15/oracle_letting_openoffice_go/ Probably pertinent how current this move is ... I think that the fact that the main development team simply moved over to LibreOffice was something Oracle had not anticipated, but is exactly what open source is about? Unlike OO, OSM has a number of 'competitors' providing the same data, so a split is less likely to happen, but I do wonder if it isn't about time to readdress the area of merging data from different sources? Rather than throwing everything in the one pot and mangling it, creating a more open data interface so that third parties can supply feeds in much the same way as we use a range of background tiles at the moment. I am thinking directly here about paralleling the current OS data with OSM data. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: if it isn't about time to readdress the area of merging data from different sources? Rather than throwing everything in the one pot and mangling it, creating a more open data interface so that third parties can supply feeds in much the same way as we use a range of background tiles at the moment. I am thinking directly here about paralleling the current OS data with OSM data. That is a great idea. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:42:00 +0100 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 April 2011 08:31, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing? I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to legal-talk. I am quite prepared to start writing emails (phrased neutrally) requesting an opinion if these people have not been asked before. If then the opinion is that the new licence has merit, we then need work on how the contract provisions fit in with other legal codes not just those derived from either the Westminster or Napoleonic codes. How long have you been in this discussion, Elizabeth? Quite a while, according to my recollection. Given that you seem to now see a requirement for this kind of validation, I find it strange that you wouldn't have sought it at a much earlier stage than this. Normally abject opposition should come after, not before, neutral appraisal of the proposal, shouldn't it? Dermot So as you have forgotten the beginning, Australian mappers have a number of difficulties with the proposed new licence and contributor terms. That is, a majority of Australian mappers. We have estimated our exposure in our continent to the risk of data loss as very high (i forget the proportion, someone will give you the information if you want confirmation). Where I stand, I do not see a minority against the new licence. It may well be parallax error at my end, or it may be the same at your end. However, I am unable to sign up to the contributor terms. I cannot sign over my work because some of it is in breach of those terms. I am not withdrawing my stuff because I wish to vandalise the map. I have used a number of sources which are CC-by-SA, and that prohibits me from signing. Certainly we should consider Mike's idea, and not hide behind our existing ideas. Will you be writing the emails to the people Mike mentioned? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, so my own 'need' for OSM has been somewhat diluted since I have an open alternative. I was looking at mirroring my own copy of OSM, but the OS data gives me the facilities I need with less hassle. Doesn't OS require attribution if you use their data? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 04/16/2011 02:05 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: On 16 April 2011 01:29, Dermot McNallyderm...@gmail.com wrote: This licence change now gives every mapper the means of undermining the map through withholding of their own data, once freely given and now very likely a foundation of data created by other mappers, also in good faith. I understand that many mappers feel they _can't_ relicense some or all of their work, and that's a really tough situation. But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part of. At this point it's only known that there's an unspecified non-zero part of the community which wants OSM to switch license. Not everyone needs to be true to that part of the community just like not everyone needs to be true to the part that wants OSM data in Public Domain or the part that drinks coffee with milk etc. Let us try and separate the issue of license change from the issue of the CT for a moment. Let us assume that there was no immediate license change planned; that OSMF intended to continue using CC-BY-SA for now; and that they only sought CT agreement from mappers, in order to make a potential future license change easier. The CT contain this clause whereby it becomes impossible to do what Dermot writes above - if 2/3 of mappers agree to use another free and open license, then that is the new license and everyone's data is changed to that new license. I think that *that* is the major change here, and I have outlined in the past that I believe that you cannot be a part of a crowdsourced mapping effort if you consider your contribution to be only rented out to the project. If you want to participate in OSM, where all the time others will build upon your work, then you cannot sensibly say but if you decide to change your license later I might choose to take away my contribution. If you contribute to OSM, you pour a glass of water into an ocean. You cannot wrap that in plastic and label it yours. I made a comparison with voluntary work in real-life communities; if you have spent a lot of time and love helping to build a nice playground for the village school but later the whole school decides to adopt some pedadogic direction of which you don't approve and you put your kid elsewhere, you cannot tear town the playground. It wouldn't be right (and it would be very unlikely to make you happy). Now if someone says I'm willing to sign the CT on the condition that before OSMF switches to ODbL, they execute the exact license change procedure outlined in the CT, with asking 2/3 of active mappers etc., then this is something I can understand and respect. I do however have the impression that there are some people for whom calling for a public vote is just another means to delay and hopefully derail the process, and secretly they never intended to continue supporting the project after a license change anyway. These people are dishonest, they should simply click disagree and leave. I have no sympathy or patience for people who are unwilling to make the kind of committment requested by the CT. If you want full control over your data then make your own little OSM just for yourself. I have a suggestion, one which we could implement in true crowdsourced spirit and without any OSMF involvement. We simply draw up a document that is basically a modified version of the current contributor terms, which says I am willing to make the following contract with OSMF on the additional condition of OSMF holding the 2/3 vote as described below before they change from ODbL to CC-BY-SA. We then devise some sort of sufficiently legally binding way for people to sign this document. Everyone who thinks that the CT are ok in principle but who would like a proper vote first, signs this document instead of the real CT. Then one of three things will happen: * The number of people who sign this is close to zero. This would then mean that those calling for a vote are unwilling to sign the CT anyway, and whichever way the vote goes it would not change the fact that they're leaving - in that case, why bother to hold a vote. * The number of people who sign this is so small that their edits practically don't make a difference and OSMF might decide to go ahead and ignore these people, and treat them like they had said no. * The number of people who sign this is significant, in which case OSMF would be very tempted to actually hold the vote before switching ot ODbL - something they are perfectly within their right to do, even if everyone else has signed the standard CT -, and everybody would be happy. Of course all this would have to be watertight enough to not allow someone to back out if the vote result is pro ODbL. There's of course a drawback to this, and that is that while you sign the CT with conditions
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 04/16/2011 10:29 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: We simply draw up a document that is basically a modified version of the current contributor terms, which says I am willing to make the following contract with OSMF on the additional condition of OSMF holding the 2/3 vote as described below before they change from ODbL to CC-BY-SA. Oops. That should have rad from CC-BY-SA to ODbL. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 04/16/2011 01:29 AM, Dermot McNally wrote: FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution. Turns out this stuff is complicated. With hindsight, the proper way of doing this would have been to setup the LWG some time around 2007, have LWG reach out to the community in the wides possible manner, make sure people understand the problems, maybe even have national groups in some countries, devise possible solutions, and seek community involvement in every step. Apart from the fact that this would have required more manpower an patience than might be available from the volunteers involved in OSM, this attempt at including everyone would probably have been in vain since OSM grows so fast. Assume that some time in mid-2008 a vote of all registered users has resulted in a 95% we must drop CC-BY-SA vote; then in mid-2009 you would already have had two new users for every one who had taken part in that vote, new users who have not been consulted and who have not been part of the process. And so on! One would then have to say to these people what you are saying now: I'm not the first person to say so on the lists, but it seems to bear repeating - the process has not been a secret, the key details of what problem the change attempts to solve have been documented for a long time now and absolutely anybody with a thirst for knowledge on the matter has had many resources at his or her disposal. But, just as today, this would be unlikely to make them happy. In our concrete case, When I first became aware of the documentation and read it, I certainly felt consulted, and very soon after it became possible to indicate approval, it was clear to me both that the promoters of the change wished me to do so (at that point I felt asked) and how I might go about doing so. The situation you describe is now something like 1.5 years in the past... there will ALWAYS be people who feel they were not consulted, and if the process takes years rather than months, they will (at least for the foreseeable future) ALWAYS be the majority. I'm very glad we have at least made CT agreement mandatory for new users now which sort of softens the issue. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
John Smith wrote: On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, so my own 'need' for OSM has been somewhat diluted since I have an open alternative. I was looking at mirroring my own copy of OSM, but the OS data gives me the facilities I need with less hassle. Doesn't OS require attribution if you use their data? Same as adding a link to OSM where that is the source ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 19:04, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: John Smith wrote: On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, so my own 'need' for OSM has been somewhat diluted since I have an open alternative. I was looking at mirroring my own copy of OSM, but the OS data gives me the facilities I need with less hassle. Doesn't OS require attribution if you use their data? Same as adding a link to OSM where that is the source ... So your original suggestion that the OS recognises your suggestion about things should be public domain is patently false. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
John Smith wrote: On 16 April 2011 19:04, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: John Smith wrote: On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, so my own 'need' for OSM has been somewhat diluted since I have an open alternative. I was looking at mirroring my own copy of OSM, but the OS data gives me the facilities I need with less hassle. Doesn't OS require attribution if you use their data? Same as adding a link to OSM where that is the source ... So your original suggestion that the OS recognises your suggestion about things should be public domain is patently false. No I said 'free access to this sort of data'. But I don't see that having the courtesy to recognise where data can from should be any sort of a problem. 'Requiring it' just acknowledges that some people do not extend that common courtesy. I find no restrictions on what I need to do with the data. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 19:49, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: No I said 'free access to this sort of data'. But I don't see that having the courtesy to recognise where data can from should be any sort of a problem. 'Requiring it' just acknowledges that some people do not extend that common courtesy. I find no restrictions on what I need to do with the data. Just because attribution is not restriction for you, doesn't mean others feel the same way, OS (along with many other data producers) require it, yet the PD proponents don't want any such strings. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for that. I have been beaten into submission. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be No, but in the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing I'll eventually say Yes), but the important part of my question was everyone else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked? FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution. Turns out this stuff is complicated. No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued. Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a small fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put the cart before the horse. Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@ into a field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I'll go unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept button. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 22:10, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued. Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a small fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put the cart before the horse. Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@ into a field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I'll go unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept button. Many of those that you deem as trolls are in the same position as you, no one can get straight answers to some fairly simple questions, and it seems things are being pushed ahead regardless so what are people supposed to do other than leave if they disagree, like you have chosen to do. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Ian, On 04/16/2011 02:10 PM, Ian Dees wrote: Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn't look like I will. You asked when the community of OpenStreetMap was asked about the license change. ... No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued. I think, historically, the decision making process was not 1. decide that we need a new license, 2. let's go look for one, but rather a little-step-by-little-step process. The question is, who is the community of OpenStreetMap. Anyone committed enough to come to the first State of the Map conference in Manchester (2007) was certainly involved as this is where we held a panel discussion on the license. But even if a vote had been held at that conference, could it still be considered binding today? Anyone reading either the talk list, or the osm-announce list, or any of the Australian, German, Spanish, French, German, Czech, Dutch, or Colombian mailing lists or some of the forums, will have been aware of Pieren's poll (http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w) which, even though not an official vote, gave people the option to formally express an opinion and be counted. Of course you could have sent an email to everyone, to catch those who do not read the lists. But then, to be honest, if someone doesn't have any background to the discussion and is asked, out of the blue, whether they support a license change - would that really help? Would they not have to be presented with the causes for and against - and who would have the authority to decide *what* they are presented with? And if they are isolationist enough to not even read the low-volume announce list, do we really have to assume they are interested? You write information presented clearly and thoughtfully, but if you read the histoy of the why you shold vote yes and why you should vote no pages on the Wiki, it should become clear that it certainly not an easy task to present information clearly and thoughtfully and without bias. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never thought it would come to actually deleting data. I always thought that that was OBVIOUSLY so insane that *somebody* would have killed the idea of relicensing. The trouble is, is that, just as no one person is responsible for creating the idea, no one person has the ability to kill it. Maybe SteveC, but he's convinced that Google is going to steal our data. As if our data had any value once separated from the community that keeps it alive. -russ Ian Dees writes: Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for that. I have been beaten into submission. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be No, but in the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing I'll eventually say Yes), but the important part of my question was everyone else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked? FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution. Turns out this stuff is complicated. No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued. Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a small fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put the cart before the horse. Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@ into a field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I'll go unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept button. Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn#39;t look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for that. I have been beaten into submission.brbrdiv class=gmail_quoteOn Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally span dir=ltrlt;a href=mailto:derm...@gmail.com;derm...@gmail.com/agt;/span wrote:br blockquote class=gmail_quote style=margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;div class=imOn 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees lt;a href=mailto:ian.d...@gmail.com;ian.d...@gmail.com/agt; wrote:br br gt; Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be quot;Noquot;, but inbr gt; the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing I#39;llbr gt; eventually say quot;Yesquot;), but the important part of my question was everyonebr gt; else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked?br br /divFWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, butbr it#39;s basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I canbr see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consultedbr about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complainedbr throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution.br Turns out this stuff is complicated./blockquotedivbr/divdivNo, it#39;s not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued./div divbr/divdivInstead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a small fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put the cart before the horse./div divbr/divdivAnyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@ into a field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I#39;ll go unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept button./div /div ___ talk mailing list
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
My thinking on this is very similar. I have no particular objection to the new licence and contributor terms - I don't really care which licence my contributions are governed by. I am very surprised at the apparent tolerance to loss of data from the map for the sake of transferring to a more robust licence. I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely) doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new licence or contributor terms - From what I can tell from a few wiki pages, it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be resolved before forcing people to re-licence. It is because it is not clear whether we will have to delete all data from these sources that I have not accepted the new licence yet - My view is that if we have to delete that data, then we should not bother re-licensing. I am concerned that if I accept the new licence/contributor terms that I will be seen to be supporting deleting this data, which I do not. I think this is the same issue as Ian's question about how we will decide if the change is right or not. If these issues have been resolved, and there is a mechanism for deciding what level of data loss is acceptable, then I will happily re-licence my own data, but I am looking for some reassurance before I do so. Regards Graham. On 16 April 2011 16:20, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never thought it would come to actually deleting data. I always thought that that was OBVIOUSLY so insane that *somebody* would have killed the idea of relicensing. The trouble is, is that, just as no one person is responsible for creating the idea, no one person has the ability to kill it. Maybe SteveC, but he's convinced that Google is going to steal our data. As if our data had any value once separated from the community that keeps it alive. -russ Ian Dees writes: Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for that. I have been beaten into submission. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be No, but in the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing I'll eventually say Yes), but the important part of my question was everyone else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked? FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution. Turns out this stuff is complicated. No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued. Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a small fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put the cart before the horse. Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@into a field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I'll go unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept button. Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn#39;t look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for that. I have been beaten into submission.brbrdiv class=gmail_quoteOn Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally span dir=ltrlt;a href=mailto:derm...@gmail.com;derm...@gmail.com/agt;/span wrote:br blockquote class=gmail_quote style=margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;div class=imOn 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees lt;a href=mailto:ian.d...@gmail.com;ian.d...@gmail.com/agt; wrote:br br gt; Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be quot;Noquot;, but inbr gt; the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing I#39;llbr gt; eventually say quot;Yesquot;), but the
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 04/16/2011 05:40 PM, Graham Jones wrote: I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely) doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new licence or contributor terms - From what I can tell from a few wiki pages, it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be resolved before forcing people to re-licence. Isn't it funny how, just over a year ago, we couldn't care less about anything the Ordnace Survey did, and suddenly we are a project that must choose their license according to what is compatible with OS? If these issues have been resolved, and there is a mechanism for deciding what level of data loss is acceptable, then I will happily re-licence my own data, but I am looking for some reassurance before I do so. I say to you the same I said to Ian - even if OSMF would publish what mechanism they plan to use (and I'm pretty sure they don't have one yet), then that mechanism would not become part of the contract and it could be changed at any later time, say, after majorities in the OSMF board have changed after the next election or something. I'm sorry but I think you can either trust people to do the right thing or not trust them, but nobody will give you a written statement (or if they do it won't be worth much). Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 04/16/2011 04:13 PM, Ian Dees wrote: But, as you said, that poll was unofficial, only included 500 people, and if I remember correctly had some very confusing options at first. My guess is that more than 10.000 people have been informed of the poll (via the lists I mentioned). The fact that only 500 decided to state their opinion can hardly be counted against the poll. Why do we need official? This sounds an awful lot like what happened, but instead of offering a Yes/No at the end we only have the option of Yes I agree to the new license/No, and I realize I can't edit the map anymore. We seem to have skipped the crucial middle step. I'm pretty sure that we would have a ton of people complain that Yes/No is not ok, they also want to be able to say Yes but only if X, No unless Y, or something. And what would the question have been? Yes I agree to the new license / no I accept that anyone can rip off our data because it is unprotected, maybe? For example, in my student government groups if someone wanted to change the constitution or institute a new by-law they first had to come together with other people of a similar persuasion, come up with a document that enumerated the changes, then present it to the general assembly to be decided on with a vote. From my point of view OSMF and LWG have come up with a proposal for change and are immediately implementing it without querying anyone else. I understand all of that. However, in many of these situations you have working status quo, and then someone wants to make a change, and they have to answer the question why make the change at all, what improvements does it bring, what's the reward? We have a situation where those who have spent time with it, and talked to lawyers and all, are positively sure that we do not have a working status quo. Doing nothing is not an option. In licensing terms, this house is on fire. Day after day we're violating our own license and making promises that we cannot keep. Anyone who is *interested* in the matter can, and has, involve themselves in the process, read about reasons, participate in discussion, and so on. Anyone who is not interested has a right to be not interested, but they should not expect to be served the explanation on a silver platter, much less be asked: Do you think the house is on fire yes/no? - their input would not be helpful at all. And this basic concept carries on further; in this issue everyone can have a say but it is not a democracy where the voice of someone who is totally un-informed counts as much as anyone else's. You have to get involved to be heard. And I don't think this is necessarily bad. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely) doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new licence or contributor terms - From what I can tell from a few wiki pages, it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be resolved before forcing people to re-licence. Isn't it funny how, just over a year ago, we couldn't care less about anything the Ordnace Survey did, and suddenly we are a project that must choose their license according to what is compatible with OS? Probably because OS OpenData has been used fairly significantly by many folk in the UK since released. Without any sort of public indication otherwise from the LWG, it was difficult to believe that a new licence chosen wouldn't be compatible with data which appears to only require attribution. Not that I agree with it, but OS StreetView has been used to map out entire towns in the UK ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes: much less be asked: Do you think the house is on fire yes/no? Please point to some real flames. In all the time the licence discussions have been happening, nobody has mentioned *one* *single* *case* where the licence of the map isn't respected and we are not in a position to enforce it, but with the extra legalese in the ODbL we would be. Since the situation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of examples by now. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We have a situation where those who have spent time with it, and talked to lawyers and all, are positively sure that we do not have a working status quo. Doing nothing is not an option. And yet we've been doing nothing for several years now. If the picture was anything like as bad as you paint then we would have been forced into action a long long time ago. Show us the evidence please. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 17:00, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Isn't it funny how, just over a year ago, we couldn't care less about anything the Ordnace Survey did, and suddenly we are a project that must choose their license according to what is compatible with OS? ... I say to you the same I said to Ian - even if OSMF would publish what mechanism they plan to use (and I'm pretty sure they don't have one yet), then that mechanism would not become part of the contract and it could be changed at any later time, say, after majorities in the OSMF board have changed after the next election or something. No-one expects the OSMF/LWG to have all the answers worked out in advance but surely someone can answer questions about what their intentions are. Such as is it the LWG's intention to make the license/ct's compatible with OS Opendata? If it isn't then all those people currently tracing thousands of roads a week in the UK might as well take a break and get some fresh air. After so many years, someone must surely have given at least a bit of thought to how removing incompatible/un-relicensed contributions might be handled? What's wrong with starting a thread with those ideas and letting other people give their input? I am quite prepared to trust people who I feel are being honest about their intentions but the lack of information just gives the impression that something underhand is in the works. I can imagine it would be easy for those people who believe cc-by-sa doesn't apply to map data to justify re-adding any deleted contributions on the basis that most of it is effectively pd. I just think that would be a really bad idea as far as maintaining any kind of community trust goes. Kevin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
2011/4/16 Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com: ... all those people currently tracing thousands of roads a week in the UK might as well take a break and get some fresh air. fresh air is not the worst ingredient to OSMapping. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 04/16/2011 07:47 PM, Kevin Peat wrote: Such as is it the LWG's intention to make the license/ct's compatible with OS Opendata? If it isn't then all those people currently tracing thousands of roads a week in the UK might as well take a break and get some fresh air. If people are indeed doing that then I would *definitely* suggest the fresh air option, no matter what we intend to do license-wise; see recent imports discussion on talk-gb (Adding a further 250,000 roads quickly using a Bot). After so many years, someone must surely have given at least a bit of thought to how removing incompatible/un-relicensed contributions might be handled? Yes, certainly. As a non-LWG-member but avid reader of legal talk, and someone who can add two and two together, I can say the following with some certainty: * Data that has been created/modified only by people who agree to the license change will be kept unchanged. If someone should later complain nonetheless (e.g. I have created and not relicensed A road and B road, and this pub which is at the intersection is definitely a derived work, I demand it must be removed) then such data might be removed. * A mechanism will be devised to determine the splitting and merging of ways and take that into account, i.e. if a way has been created by someone who doesn't agree, but later split in two by someone else, then methods will be found to make sure the partial way newly created by the split will not count as created/modified only by people who agree. * Data that has been created/modified only by people who do not agree to the license change will not be kept in the new data base. If other data depends on this then that other data must be modified accordingly (e.g. a node might have to be removed from a way). * There will be some mechanism to remind us that something is missing. It is totally unclear what form this will take; it might be a separate database that says whithin this rectangle, 10 streets have been removed (without saying what they are and where they were so as not to infringe the copyright of whoever did not relicense those streets), or it might be a note tag on a route relation saying as part of the license change, 5 members of this route had to be removed or so. * There will be mechanism that show us these things *long before* the license change actually happens so that we have a chance to go there and resurvey the area, manually deleting the not-relicensed objects in that area. (In fact this is already starting to happen in some places in Germany, where the work of known objectors is being replaced by new data - premature action, I think, because people can still change their minds.) * Data that has been created/modified by some people who do agree and others wo don't will have to be scrutinized. Some decisions can perhaps be made in an automated or semi-automated process; for example, assume that someone has removed the created_by tags of 100.000 nodes in one go - this is certainly not an act that warrants any copyright, so if that person is the only one in the history of the object to have not agreed then that will simply be ignored. Other cases will probably be more complex, and it is very likely that we will want to involve the community, i.e. there will be ways to flag objects with an unclear licensing status, there will be general guidelines issued by OSMF, and mappers will then be asked to decide for themselves wheter something can be copied or not (just like mappers today need to decide whether a source can be used or not). There will be likely some form of mechanism for recording such decisions, e.g. mapper name decided on date that this object can be relicensed in spite of its unclear licensing status for the following reason: ... * It is likely that data from people who have explicitly said no I don't relicense will be treated differently from those who simply don't say anything. I could imagine - pure speculation on my part though! - a scene like this: The community in city X comes together and discusses prolific mapper Y, who hasn't been to the pub meet for the last year and hasn't made a decision regarding the license change. They don't know what happened to him but some mappers remember that he always said that he doesn't give a damn for intellectual property rights and he would prefer OSM to be PD. The mappers then decide to continue using his data in the relicensed database even though they don't have an explicit OK, knowing that if mapper Y should show up and say no they would have to remove his data later. This is a gamble that OSMF will certainly not make centrally but it might be possible locally. * In general, just because an object has once in its history been touched by someone who doesn't agree to the new license doesn't mean it cannot be kept; just the information added in that one step cannot be kept. When it comes not to individual mappers who
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Ed, On 04/16/2011 06:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote: Since the situation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of examples by now. It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some proprietary giant's database. Would you prefer to wait? Or even: If you were a member of the OSMF board entrusted with our data's safe keeping, would you prefer to wait? And then, when users complain, you'd say: Oh well, lawyers told me back in 2008 that this would happen but I figured I'd rather not upset the apple cart? Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Frederik Ramm writes: It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some proprietary giant's database. Worry about the license less and map more. The more we map, the more value there is in participating in the community as a peer rather than a parasite. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 19:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If people are indeed doing that then I would *definitely* suggest the fresh air option, no matter what we intend to do license-wise; see recent imports discussion on talk-gb (Adding a further 250,000 roads quickly using a Bot). Over 2 ways were added in Britain in the last month (per ITO) and I would think a fair proportion of these must be coming from the OS data. ... Most of what I wrote here hasn't been formally said by anyone in OSMF, but OSMF haven't fully thought this through either, and the above is simply the logical course to take given all the conditions and plans that *have* been discussed. Thanks for your thoughtful answer. It is certainly a lot more detailed than anything I have read before. My first impression is how can a process with so many grey areas possibly result in a cleanly licensed dataset? Kevin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 16 April 2011 10:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 04/16/2011 02:05 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: At this point it's only known that there's an unspecified non-zero part of the community which wants OSM to switch license. Not everyone needs to be true to that part of the community just like not everyone needs to be true to the part that wants OSM data in Public Domain or the part that drinks coffee with milk etc. Let us try and separate the issue of license change from the issue of the CT for a moment. Let us assume that there was no immediate license change planned; that OSMF intended to continue using CC-BY-SA for now; and that they only sought CT agreement from mappers, in order to make a potential future license change easier. The CT contain this clause whereby it becomes impossible to do what Dermot writes above - if 2/3 of mappers agree to use another free and open license, then that is the new license and everyone's data is changed to that new license. I think that *that* is the major change here, Yes. and I have outlined in the past that I believe that you cannot be a part of a crowdsourced mapping effort if you consider your contribution to be only rented out to the project. If you want to participate in OSM, where all the time others will build upon your work, then you cannot sensibly say but if you decide to change your license later I might choose to take away my contribution. If you contribute to OSM, you pour a glass of water into an ocean. You cannot wrap that in plastic and label it yours. I made a comparison with voluntary work in real-life communities; if you have spent a lot of time and love helping to build a nice playground for the village school but later the whole school decides to adopt some pedadogic direction of which you don't approve and you put your kid elsewhere, you cannot tear town the playground. It wouldn't be right (and it would be very unlikely to make you happy). Now if someone says I'm willing to sign the CT on the condition that before OSMF switches to ODbL, they execute the exact license change procedure outlined in the CT, with asking 2/3 of active mappers etc., then this is something I can understand and respect. I do however have the impression that there are some people for whom calling for a public vote is just another means to delay and hopefully derail the process, and secretly they never intended to continue supporting the project after a license change anyway. That's possible but unlikely. There are some reasons why the vote would have been rather useless (which have been outlined in this thread) but they're not really obvious and that's why perhaps it's hard to realise. I have a suggestion, one which we could implement in true crowdsourced spirit and without any OSMF involvement. We simply draw up a document that is basically a modified version of the current contributor terms, which says I am willing to make the following contract with OSMF on the additional condition of OSMF holding the 2/3 vote as described below before they change from ODbL to CC-BY-SA. We then devise some sort of sufficiently legally binding way for people to sign this document. Everyone who thinks that the CT are ok in principle but who would like a proper vote first, signs this document instead of the real CT. But now you're talking about the license switch from CC-By-SA to ODbL only and taking for granted that the switch from linux model to FSF model is obviously good for the project. Here are some reasons why people might oppose that switch in the first place, and not because they find it fun to troll mailing lists, but because they want the project to succeed. I'm personally quite ambivalent of ODbL and CC-By-SA because the issues that decide which license would be better for us, are so complex. * The cost of switching is too high -- the community split, the banning of a part of current mappers from mapping, the loss of data that is already in our database. It's simply quite late for the switch with the little benefit that it brings. * Under the new CTs (some versions of the document anyway... still seems to be in flux), you may not be able to use (in OSM) data that has been built on top of our OSM data by others. For some of us this means a failure of the share alike clause. It's probably similar in case of the FSF-hosted projects and mozilla/apache projects, but for the majority of projects I know as free/open it would mean a failure. * Other potential or real issues in the CTs, which is a contract written by non-lawyers. Mistakes have been found in both the CT and the ODbL texts (and obviously in CC-By-SA text before that) after they started to be in use. * People in the status quo fork group are convinced that the current model with no CTs and the CC-By-SA is good enough. Taking the village school playground example, it's not like they are saying the current way of teaching is the only
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
So hard to know which message to reply to in this very long chain. I'll try to pick out the main points in response to my message: *Ordnance Survey Open Data*: As far as I am aware our current licence etc is compatible with the OS licence, so by changing ours, we are making a conscious decision to move to a licence which *may* not be compatible with OS's. I understood from last time I asked about this that we were getting some legal advice on it, but I have not seen a response. As someone (Kevin I think) said, there are large chunks of the UK that appear to have been traced from this data, so deleting it would be quite a backwards step, and I would not support a course of action that would mean deleting that data. [The minor point about 'us' not being interested in what OS did a year ago is not true for me - I, like several OSM people contributed to the government consultation that resulted in the release of the data] *Process*: In my day job, if I want to implement a project I have to go through a process with decision gates between stages - concept, development, implementation etc. In this process it feels like we are at the gate between the development and implementation stages, but it is not at all clear to me how we will make the decision that the damage to the dataset is worth the benefit of the new licence. [I accept that it may not be 'we' the whole community that makes the final decision - it may be the LWG or the OSMF board, I don't know]. It feels to me that the 'accept' button is my last hold on the process. It is not that I do not trust whoever is going to make the decision, but I do not know who will make the decision, or what principles they will use to make it. If I knew this (especially the tolerance to data loss), I would be happy to accept. I am disappointed that we have got to this stage without having such things specified. I get the impression that most people responding to these queries are not members of the LWG or OSMF board (my apologies if I am wrong) - a response from people who are actually running the process, rather than well meaning people who are not directly involved would be appreciated. Regards Graham. On 16 April 2011 19:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 04/16/2011 07:47 PM, Kevin Peat wrote: Such as is it the LWG's intention to make the license/ct's compatible with OS Opendata? If it isn't then all those people currently tracing thousands of roads a week in the UK might as well take a break and get some fresh air. If people are indeed doing that then I would *definitely* suggest the fresh air option, no matter what we intend to do license-wise; see recent imports discussion on talk-gb (Adding a further 250,000 roads quickly using a Bot). After so many years, someone must surely have given at least a bit of thought to how removing incompatible/un-relicensed contributions might be handled? Yes, certainly. As a non-LWG-member but avid reader of legal talk, and someone who can add two and two together, I can say the following with some certainty: * Data that has been created/modified only by people who agree to the license change will be kept unchanged. If someone should later complain nonetheless (e.g. I have created and not relicensed A road and B road, and this pub which is at the intersection is definitely a derived work, I demand it must be removed) then such data might be removed. * A mechanism will be devised to determine the splitting and merging of ways and take that into account, i.e. if a way has been created by someone who doesn't agree, but later split in two by someone else, then methods will be found to make sure the partial way newly created by the split will not count as created/modified only by people who agree. * Data that has been created/modified only by people who do not agree to the license change will not be kept in the new data base. If other data depends on this then that other data must be modified accordingly (e.g. a node might have to be removed from a way). * There will be some mechanism to remind us that something is missing. It is totally unclear what form this will take; it might be a separate database that says whithin this rectangle, 10 streets have been removed (without saying what they are and where they were so as not to infringe the copyright of whoever did not relicense those streets), or it might be a note tag on a route relation saying as part of the license change, 5 members of this route had to be removed or so. * There will be mechanism that show us these things *long before* the license change actually happens so that we have a chance to go there and resurvey the area, manually deleting the not-relicensed objects in that area. (In fact this is already starting to happen in some places in Germany, where the work of known objectors is being replaced by new data - premature action, I think, because people can still change their
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Frederik, do you mean to say that after all these years of the project you haven't seen a single example of any company - large or small - taking the OSM data and being legally untouchable? Might it not be possible, given that there are many firms with more than capable legal departments, who are more than capable of taking advantage of such a loophole, that there is slightly more to it than the simple mantra of 'our licence does not apply'? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Sorry my last message was a bit intemperate. What I should have asked was this: if you still believe that some big firm can 'rip off' the OSM map data with impunity, despite the fact that this conspicuously has not happened (the opposite in fact - our licence is universally respected among large map data players) - then what, exactly, would persuade you that this isn't a realistic possibility? In other words, is your belief falsifiable in any way? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Kevin Peat kevin at kevinpeat.com writes: My first impression is how can a process with so many grey areas possibly result in a cleanly licensed dataset? I doubt that it can. This is one additional reason to continue offering the old licence as a dual-licence option. Those users of the map who are a bit legally paranoid and want to be certain that no contributor can complain, can continue to use CC-BY-SA. (There is of course the problem of plagiarized data, as now.) Those who are a bit more adventurous and don't mind the grey areas relating to object history and what derives from what, can make use of the new things the ODbL provides, such as the ability to make map tiles and distribute them under whatever licence you want without having to give attribution. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Ed Avis wrote: Might it not be possible, given that there are many firms with more than capable legal departments, who are more than capable of taking advantage of such a loophole, that there is slightly more to it than the simple mantra of 'our licence does not apply'? Yes, there is more to it: Our data isn't consistently better than that of any of the big map providers. In addition, the risk is still rather high that a license change would happen soon after such an incident, and the dataset under the old license would quickly become outdated. So any reasonably intelligent evil company™ would wait until there is more data up for grabs, and until it has become so hard for us to change our license that we cannot even do so in order to defend against obvious abuse. Or, of course, our license and/or concerns about bad publicity are actually sufficient to protect our data. But the lack of incidents until now doesn't really tell us whether that's the case. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 04/16/2011 09:21 PM, Kevin Peat wrote: Thanks for your thoughtful answer. It is certainly a lot more detailed than anything I have read before. My first impression is how can a process with so many grey areas possibly result in a cleanly licensed dataset? I assume that decisions will only be made globally where things are crystal clear, or where lawyers have been consulted beforehand (e.g. in my created_by does not count as creative enough to warrant copyright example). Regarding all other cases: In OSM we must *always* rely on our community when it comes to the question of whether our dataset is cleanly licensed or not. The laws of probability dictate that a certain amount of our data will always be not-cleanly-licensed, today as well as at any time in the future. Today, users can use a copyrighted map to enter data even though we tell them not to, and the license change will not make that go away. When, in the course of the license change, community members are asked to judge if a certain object meets the criteria for inclusion, they can lie, or err, just as they can with respect to their sources today. We can take measures to reduce that risk, we can educate them, we can advise caution, but we can never eliminate the risk. Because we cannot avoid the occasional mistake in licensing, we have to be responsive if someone claims that their rights have been violated; we have to investigate, respect their rights, and delete the infringing data if the claim is legitimate. This has happened a number of times in the past and will certainly continue to happen. I don't expect the license change to change the size or amount of such problems, but if they arise they can be fixed. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 04/16/2011 10:35 PM, Ed Avis wrote: what, exactly, would persuade you that this isn't a realistic possibility? I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either obvious (i.e. we can easily prove that they did it), or maybe they even admit it. Then I would like someone who has contributed data in that area to sue them, and I would like the lawsuit to have an outcome that hurts the big player (e.g. either that they have to pay a lot of money or that they have to release all their data or all their customers who used that data have to release whatever they built on top or something). And preferably I would like all this to take place in a non-European country with a reasonably well developed rule of law, e.g. the USA. If that happened, then I would be convinced that our data was indeed well protected by CC-BY-SA. It would still not be great (because it takes an individual to sue, and OSMF can't) but it would be sufficient. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes: I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either obvious (i.e. we can easily prove that they did it), or maybe they even admit it. Then I would like someone who has contributed data in that area to sue them, and I would like the lawsuit to have an outcome that hurts the big player Hmm... so the fact that such grabbing of data has never occurred does not count as evidence for you. This is problematic, since in general things only go to court if the legal status is questionable. If it's reasonably certain, the side that's in the wrong will back down long before then. For example, I don't think the GNU GPL has ever gone to court. There are however plenty of test cases involving copying of maps and map data, including in the United States. As I understand it these broadly support copyrightability of maps, although the case law for something like a phone directory is quite different. Anyway, we've been over that before. -- Ed Avis e...@wanisset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16/04/11 22:37, Ed Avis wrote: Hmm... so the fact that such grabbing of data has never occurred does not count as evidence for you. This is problematic, since in general things only go to court if the legal status is questionable. If it's reasonably certain, the side that's in the wrong will back down long before then. For example, I don't think the GNU GPL has ever gone to court. Then you think wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl#The_GPL_in_court Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 23:37, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes: I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either obvious (i.e. we can easily prove that they did it), or maybe they even admit it. Then I would like someone who has contributed data in that area to sue them, and I would like the lawsuit to have an outcome that hurts the big player Hmm... so the fact that such grabbing of data has never occurred does not count as evidence for you. This is problematic, since in general things only go to court if the legal status is questionable. If it's reasonably certain, the side that's in the wrong will back down long before then. For example, I don't think the GNU GPL has ever gone to court. Yes it has. Harald Welte's gpl-violations.org has hundreds of cases resolved successfully either in court or outside, including some very big software and hardware companies. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Ed, On 04/16/2011 06:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote: Since the situation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of examples by now. It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some proprietary giant's database. Would you prefer to wait? Or even: If you were a member of the OSMF board entrusted with our data's safe keeping, would you prefer to wait? And then, when users complain, you'd say: Oh well, lawyers told me back in 2008 that this would happen but I figured I'd rather not upset the apple cart? Show us just one example then please. We've been waiting for this predicted catastrophe for several years now. It hasn't happened. The only thing that has happened so far is that the license change process has been so protracted that it has damaged OSM much more than any imagined threat could possibly have done. Wake up Frederik. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either obvious (i.e. we can easily prove that they did it), or maybe they even admit it. We've waited five years for this to happen. CC-BY-SA licensed data is clearly not very attractive to these people. Perhaps the quality of the data is not good enough for them? Or perhaps they realise that it would be a net loss for them to infringe copyright. Then I would like someone who has contributed data in that area to sue them, and I would like the lawsuit to have an outcome that hurts the big player (e.g. either that they have to pay a lot of money or that they have to release all their data or all their customers who used that data have to release whatever they built on top or something). So far any copyright infringer has backed down gracefully rather than risk it. If the took legal advice then they were presumably advised that it was wasn't a good bet. Do you think that Google haven't considered the possibilty of incorporating OSM data into their MapMaker database? Why do you think they haven't? Perhaps our data is not good enough for them? Or perhaps, legally, they don't think they have the right? There is zero chance that any large organisation would try to use OSM's CC-BY-SA licensed map data and think that they would get away with it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Frederik Ramm writes: On 04/16/2011 10:35 PM, Ed Avis wrote: what, exactly, would persuade you that this isn't a realistic possibility? I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, I suggest that that hasn't happened because it won't happen because they're in the same boat as we are, and it isn't sensible to start drilling holes in OSM's side of the board. Or as Ed suggests, maybe their big legal department knows something you don't know? To misquote Jesse Vincent (of Best Practical and thus RT fame): Shut The Fuck Up and Make Some Maps. http://www.flickr.com/photos/mn_francis/917796606/ -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
80n writes: The only thing that has happened so far is that the license change process has been so protracted that it has damaged OSM much more than any imagined threat could possibly have done. Here, here! If anybody is SO bored that fiddling with the license seems like fun, come edit with me: Wayne, Livingston, Tioga, and Orleans counties in New York State (bad TIGER digi). Armchair mapping FTW, license fiddling FTL. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 23:36, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either obvious (i.e. we can easily prove that they did it), or maybe they even admit it. We've waited five years for this to happen. CC-BY-SA licensed data is clearly not very attractive to these people. Perhaps the quality of the data is not good enough for them? Or perhaps they realise that it would be a net loss for them to infringe copyright. If this is what you have been complaining about then you have half missed the point. There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we (some?) in the community chose to ignore. Good read and background: Facilitating Collaboration On Geospatial Data Using Social and Legal Norms - http://www.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4/30/58/1134/DatabaseLicensing_110207.pdf Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:02:16 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We have a situation where those who have spent time with it, and talked to lawyers and all, are positively sure that we do not have a working status quo. Doing nothing is not an option. In licensing terms, this house is on fire. Day after day we're violating our own license and making promises that we cannot keep. Can you swap the flowery language for facts? Please give examples. I assure you, that my government has chosen CC licences for the release of its own data, and that they can spend far more on lawyers than OSMF ever will. I cannot believe that the house is on fire. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:20:27 -0400 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never thought it would come to actually deleting data. I always thought that that was OBVIOUSLY so insane that *somebody* would have killed the idea of relicensing. The trouble is, is that, just as no one person is responsible for creating the idea, no one person has the ability to kill it. Maybe SteveC, but he's convinced that Google is going to steal our data. As if our data had any value once separated from the community that keeps it alive. -russ One of my questions, waiting a very long time for an answer, is What are the instructions of the OSMF Board to the Licensing Working Group A corporate structure sets up committees. The Board gives the committee a set of instructions. The committees are answerable to the Board. Now was the instruction find out if we need a new licence, and if so look around for one or was it find a way to put the OSM data under this new licence. From there it will be quite evident exactly which group of persons made this decision. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:50:03 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: If this is what you have been complaining about then you have half missed the point. There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we (some?) in the community chose to ignore. Thanks for that Grant. Those people have a right to do so, and they are free to do so. I'm glad you are not forcing people to use OSM. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Russ Nelson wrote: Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all. I wonder why you believe that the only way a license change can possibly help OSM is by allowing us to sue more users of our data. Personally, I don't want to sue anyone. However, I want to unambiguously have the right to publish an OSM based map that doesn't provide attribution for every single mapper. I also consider improved compatibility with other licenses for produced works a welcome benefit. And I'm almost certain that the legal and social environment in which we operate will change during the next decades, so it would be nice to be able to react to them by modifying the terms under which we publish our maps; preferably without losing orders of magnitudes more data than we might now. Some also think that the shift of share-alike from works onto data makes sense, and I think that they have good arguments for that position. Clearly, there are a lot of advantages provided by the CT+ODbL that have nothing at all to do with legal action against our users. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:00 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/16/2011 05:40 PM, Graham Jones wrote: ... it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be resolved before forcing people to re-licence. Isn't it funny how, just over a year ago, we couldn't care less about anything the Ordnace Survey did, and suddenly we are a project that must choose their license according to what is compatible with OS? If OS used some obscure licence and someone suggested changing to it, then youd get people asking the same thing. The thing is, these services arent using obscure licences, theyre using a very common one. Becoming incompatible with CC-BY-SA doesnt just mean that you lose one source, or two sources, it means that you lose compatibility with hundreds. I say to you the same I said to Ian - even if OSMF would publish what mechanism they plan to use (and I'm pretty sure they don't have one yet), then that mechanism would not become part of the contract and it could be changed at any later time, say, after majorities in the OSMF board have changed after the next election or something. Silly me. Silly me for thinking that we here at OSM believed in the meaning of the O in OSM. Incase the OSMF board has forgotten, the O means Open, it doesnt mean you can pick and choose what they choose to allow the community to see. Wouldnt this have been a good thing to start planning, like, when it was first realised that it was needed? We've been complaining about these issues for years, and people like yourself have been telling dissenters to shut the hell up. Now that the time has come, the 'foundation' is only just realising the issues that the rest of us raised years ago and are now chasing their tails trying to setup these mechanisms in the space of a day or two rather than a year or two. I'm sorry but I think you can either trust people to do the right thing or not trust them, but nobody will give you a written statement (or if they do it won't be worth much). Isnt that a problem with contract law? OSMF could give you a written statement, which might be suitably legally compatible in 2 or 3 countries, but not in the rest of the world. Compare this to the current situation where the current licence is accepted around the world, with 2 or 3 exceptions. Wouldnt it be easier to resovle the issues in those couple of countries where they exist, than to find a contract which has to be worded properly (if thats even possible) to comply with every user's nation's laws. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 17 April 2011 01:22, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Personally, I don't want to sue anyone. However, I want to unambiguously have the right to publish an OSM based map that doesn't provide attribution for every single mapper. I also consider improved compatibility with other licenses for produced works a welcome benefit. And I'm almost certain that the legal and social environment in which we operate will change during the next decades, so it would be nice to be able to react to them by modifying the terms under which we publish our maps; preferably without losing orders of magnitudes more data than we might now. Some also think that the shift of share-alike from works onto data makes sense, and I think that they have good arguments for that position. It probably makes sense (although both things may be desired sometimes). But while the new license might allow new users to take advantage of OSM it'll also take it away from some existing users because ODbL is not compatible with CC-By-SA in either direction. I know a relatively big project that's currently using OSM data under CC-By-SA and may be in a nasty surprise when they find OSM is no longer suitable. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Mike N writes: Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for the cases I'm aware of. The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people who violate it. You've got it exactly backwards. The whole point of having a free license is to waive the right to sue people who follow it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The CT contain this clause whereby it becomes impossible to do what Dermot writes above - if 2/3 of mappers agree to use another free and open license, then that is the new license and everyone's data is changed to that new license. That's not what the CT says. The CT says that OSMF can use one or more of the following licences. If 2/3 of mappers agree to use another free and open license, then OSMF can use that other license. Or OSMF can choose not to use that other license. Or OSMF can use that other license *and* one or more of the explicitly listed licenses. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:36 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either obvious (i.e. we can easily prove that they did it), or maybe they even admit it. We've waited five years for this to happen. CC-BY-SA licensed data is clearly not very attractive to these people. Perhaps the quality of the data is not good enough for them? Or perhaps they realise that it would be a net loss for them to infringe copyright. Navteq would be in a lose-lose situation: 1) They lose the case, and have to release their data under CC-BY-SA. 2) They win the case, by successfully arguing that all data (including theirs) is public domain. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Tobias Knerr writes: Russ Nelson wrote: Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all. I wonder why you believe that the only way a license change can possibly help OSM is by allowing us to sue more users of our data. A license is a threat to sue plus a list of reasons why you won't that threat out. Personally, I don't want to sue anyone. Then you should put the public domain notice into your Wiki page, so that everyone knows that you won't sue them under any circumstances. I'm not asking you to do anything that I haven't already done. However, I want to unambiguously have the right to publish an OSM based map that doesn't provide attribution for every single mapper. Then let's add a permission to the CC-By-SA which says We won't sue if you only attribute the project. I also consider improved compatibility with other licenses for produced works a welcome benefit. Then let's add permissions to the CC-By-SA which say We won't sue if you combine this work with other licenses. Here are the characteristics of those license which we deem acceptable. And I'm almost certain that the legal and social environment in which we operate will change during the next decades, so it would be nice to be able to react to them by modifying the terms under which we publish our maps; preferably without losing orders of magnitudes more data than we might now. Then let's add permissions to the CC-By-SA which say I also grant the OSMF permission to grant further permissions. Some also think that the shift of share-alike from works onto data makes sense, and I think that they have good arguments for that position. Clearly, there are a lot of advantages provided by the CT+ODbL that have nothing at all to do with legal action against our users. None of these are arguments for the CT+ODbL. They are arguments for granting extra permissions to current licensees. The REAL purpose of the CT+ODbL is to be a bigger stick with which we can beat up OSM users. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Tobias Knerr writes: Russ Nelson wrote: Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all. I wonder why you believe that the only way a license change can possibly help OSM is by allowing us to sue more users of our data. A license is a threat to sue plus a list of reasons why you won't that threat out. Where are you getting this from? The verb license or grant licence means to give permission. The noun license (American English) or licence (British English) refers to that permission as well as to the document recording that permission. A license is a permission, not a threat. Personally, I don't want to sue anyone. Then you should put the public domain notice into your Wiki page, so that everyone knows that you won't sue them under any circumstances. I'm not asking you to do anything that I haven't already done. Even if you don't personally want to sue anyone, licensing under CC-BY-SA still be better than PD in that it can help avoid you yourself getting sued. Personally, I don't want to sue anyone. But I'd certainly be willing to threaten to countersue someone who threatened to sue me. Sort of a mutual assured destruction strategy of lawsuit avoidance. CC-BY-SA is the closest popular license to putting up a notice which says I won't sue you, as long as you don't sue me or anyone else. That's much better IMO than a notice which says I won't sue you no matter what. CC-SA (i.e. Sharealike 1.0, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/) was even better in that regard. But unfortunately, it never caught on. However, I want to unambiguously have the right to publish an OSM based map that doesn't provide attribution for every single mapper. Then let's add a permission to the CC-By-SA which says We won't sue if you only attribute the project. I'm not sure what this whole attribute the project stuff is about, as CC-BY-SA 3.0 already contains provisions allowing you to only attribute the project. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 17 April 2011 01:53, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 23:36 +0100, 80n wrote: Do you think that Google haven't considered the possibilty of incorporating OSM data into their MapMaker database? Why do you think they haven't? Perhaps our data is not good enough for them? Or perhaps, legally, they don't think they have the right? I think the 'not good' enough argument pretty much hits the nail on the head. As great as our data may be, any commercial entity probably has access to similar data, which they can probably get with some sort of quality assurance guarantee. If google wants maps of a city/town/state, they just goto the government of the area and get it. They know its complete, they know its accurate, they know if theres a problem with the data that theres only one source to contact. That's not true everywhere, for example all of the places where google enabled Map Maker. It also must have not been true in Columbia where the google map data supplier used OSM and Google had no concerns with completness or quality guarantees. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:13 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 01:53, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 23:36 +0100, 80n wrote: Do you think that Google haven't considered the possibilty of incorporating OSM data into their MapMaker database? Why do you think they haven't? Perhaps our data is not good enough for them? Or perhaps, legally, they don't think they have the right? I think the 'not good' enough argument pretty much hits the nail on the head. As great as our data may be, any commercial entity probably has access to similar data, which they can probably get with some sort of quality assurance guarantee. If google wants maps of a city/town/state, they just goto the government of the area and get it. They know its complete, they know its accurate, they know if theres a problem with the data that theres only one source to contact. That's not true everywhere, for example all of the places where google enabled Map Maker. I'm not sure that it's true anywhere. What government provides no-cost data which is useful for routing? I think the best explanation for why Google hasn't blatantly and openly (*) assimilated all of OSM's data, is that they aren't sure they can do so legally. Sure, OSM is incomplete and contains errors, but lots of the public domain government data that Google has assimilated is incomplete and contains errors. (*) I'm not sure they aren't using OSM to extent some extent, such as to find possible errors to flag for manual review, without publicizing it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Do you expect any positive outcome from this, or is it for moral reasons that you choose this course of action? There are regions in OSM where a visible no vote will lead to your data being re-surveyed and replaced by other contributors rather quickly. I can only hope that this is not the case in your area because otherwise what you plan to do will yield the worst possible outcome - others duplicating the efforts you have put in (instead of using their time for something more productive), and you being miffed because your contributions have been removed before you had the chance to redecide. I hope to delay the process as long as possible in the interest of another plan being implemented. My two hopes are (1) remaining with the current license until CC4 fixes things. (2) an ODbL fork instead of a CC one. My data won't be resurveyed, but that doesn't change my view anyway. Please note I ultimately plan to stay with the project under the new terms! There are regions in OSM where a visible no vote will lead to your data being re-surveyed and replaced by other contributors rather quickly. I can only hope that this is not the case in your area because otherwise what you plan to do will yield the worst possible outcome - others duplicating the efforts you have put in (instead of using their time for something more productive), and you being miffed because your contributions have been removed before you had the chance to redecide. My contributions aren't as numerous as his http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?NE2, but if removed they would set my area back a half-decade. How so, if it has only taken you three years ;)? It's much more lossy to go backwards, since my edits are intertwined with others. You know as well as I do that reverting is a messy process, and will lose more than I originally put in. I said a half-decade because I was thinking TIGER started in 2006, so I stand corrected on that. If NEII's (and others) are removed, we can add the United States to Australia as 'countries the OSMF is willing to sacrifice.' It's a hard language to use. Avoiding saying difficult things doesn't mean they're not happening. Actions speak too. We don't want to lose any contributors, and we don't want to lose any data either. I don't want to compare OSM to a hill of mindless ants each of whom just execute their genetic programming; I believe that OSM works precisely because we're all individuals and contribute our own ideas, our style, our quirks. Every contributor is uniqe and (with very, very little exceptions) every contributor adds something valuable to OSM. Still, in the grand scheme of things, no single contributor is irreplaceable. Rip something out (and shed a couple tears about the love that went into it and is now lost to OSM) - it will grow back in time, and bring with it new people, a new community rallied to the cause. You are perfectly correct here overall, but I see one caveat. The *magnitude* of the time it will take OSM to 'grow back' is rather significant in my case. (i.e. the US). The community here has just barely gotten off the ground, and I fear the damage caused by mass deletion will be enough to kill it. I see a rather strong parallel to the US nuclear industry: it had just about recovered from TMI but is now set back further decades because of Fukushima. We're not sacrificing countries. We saw that we have built our project on (legal) sand, and we're moving to rectify the situation. The patient may lose some tissue about this but he will live, and after the wounds have healed, will be healthier than before. I'm talking all flowery because this is the talk list. If you want hard facts, go to legal-talk. I read legal-talk occasionally, and have not been convinced that the illness is more dangerous than the medicine. Regards, Alex ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The revert script used to remove Anthony's edits (which were traced from Google) was a basic revert script which only used API methods. There were also mistakes made like reverting the items anthony had deleted only after most of the cleanup/improvement work had already been done. Live an learn. Except that you haven't learned. By reinstating edits which I had created and then later deleted, you have failed to remove all my contributions (and created a bigger mess). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk