subject:"\[OSM\-talk\] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license"


Hi,

Simon Ward wrote:

For my part, I don’t fully agree with the contributor terms, and I
suggest we start there because they are also what I’ve seen other people
voice their dissent about.


As I said, if you intend to further restrict possible future license 
changes via the contributor terms to something more narrow than free 
and open, you should be prepared to offer more license choices now, 
rather than just the yay or nay to ODbL.


The contributor terms are linked to the license change question and 
cannot be viewed in isolation.


I would also like to draw attention to the fact that OSMF members - 
among them, I believe, yourself - have approved the process, including 
the current version of the contributor terms, with a 89% majority in 
December last year. You weren't vocal on the contributor terms in the 
months before so I am somewhat surprised that you're starting to voice 
your disagreement half a year after the vote. Of course anyone can have 
second thoughts - but remember that any change to the contributor terms 
would require repeating that OSMF member vote.


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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

On 20 July 2010 16:55, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 The contributor terms are linked to the license change question and cannot
 be viewed in isolation.

Why not?

It seems like a fairly arbitrary decision to force them to be linked...

 I would also like to draw attention to the fact that OSMF members - among
 them, I believe, yourself - have approved the process, including the current
 version of the contributor terms, with a 89% majority in December last year.

I believe this is the point Steve keeps pointing out, there was no
direct consequences at the time, and people were assuming there is
still outs later if problems were discovered and up until that point
the emphasis was strongly on the new license, I don't recall much
being said about the new terms until recently, at which point people
were concluding that the new CTs were not going to be compatible with
data imports already in the system let alone new imports.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-20 Thread Simon Ward

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 08:55:17AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 I would also like to draw attention to the fact that OSMF members -
 among them, I believe, yourself - have approved the process,
 including the current version of the contributor terms, with a 89%
 majority in December last year. You weren't vocal on the contributor
 terms in the months before so I am somewhat surprised that you're
 starting to voice your disagreement half a year after the vote. Of
 course anyone can have second thoughts - but remember that any
 change to the contributor terms would require repeating that OSMF
 member vote.

I approved the process for the license change and somehow managed to
miss the contributor terms.  I wasn’t aware of them when I voted, my
mistake, although may be I could have been made more aware—someone else
appeared to think the CTs “snuck” in quietly too.

I took a look in the December archives for osmf-talk:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000670.html

On legal-talk some days before, I said I had already responded to the polls:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-December/003029.html

I’m quite surprised how much I have *not* changed my opinions.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license


John,

John Smith wrote:

The contributor terms are linked to the license change question and cannot
be viewed in isolation.


Why not?
It seems like a fairly arbitrary decision to force them to be linked...


Please read and understand:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-July/051997.html

Bye
Frederik

Note to those who may read this post in the list archive later: The list 
archive is known not to always retain article numbering. The above link 
should point to an article written by myself 9 hours ago. If it doesn't, 
 disregard it.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-20 Thread Peteris Krisjanis

Frederik,

I'm sorry, but idea that PD fans holds all license question hostage
and therefore CT is needed is stupidest thing I ever heard during my
entire life. PD guys need to understand that this project might
*never* submit to PD. As much as I like PD as concept, it is unreal to
implement it in global scale. If they don't like it - fine, they don't
contribute to OSM, but OSM can still use their data anyway.

Also creating license AND then creating CT which practically destroys
idea of license just because there part of community which disagrees
is stupid, plain and simple. You have to draw line somewhere. Make
your choice - is it SA/Attribution, or it is PD then. You can't have
both, period. Even more - having so much problem with this change, do
you really expect to change license *again* in the future? For what
cause?

All this CT farce comes from having unrealistic expectations about
future - and for that you are ready to loose quite significant amount
of data.

Cheers,
Peter.

p.s. I still want to hear official word from Steve or anyone about CT
Section 3, even if it is no. But please without PD crowd is mighty
crap

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-20 Thread SteveC

That's really for the LWG to answer...

On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
 2010/7/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
 
 Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my 
 phone)
 
 Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
 as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
 would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could
 agree with ODBL (as it still have SA and Attribution), but are uneasy
 about clarification of point 3 in CT.
 
 Already thanks for answer,
 cheers,
 Peter.
 

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

On 20 July 2010 18:17, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
 p.s. I still want to hear official word from Steve or anyone about CT
 Section 3, even if it is no. But please without PD crowd is mighty
 crap

Hmmm so it seems that Fredrick thinks it's ok to loose people as long
as they aren't from the pro-PD crowd...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license


Hi,

Peteris Krisjanis wrote:

I'm sorry, but idea that PD fans holds all license question hostage
and therefore CT is needed is stupidest thing I ever heard during my
entire life. 


Nobody said anything about holding anything hostage. There's lots of 
parties to this agreement and everyone has to give something away for 
this to work. This is about finding a way forward together, not against 
each other.


There are many people who have one problem or another with the license 
change. There are some who say I will say no if there is the danger of 
even one node being lost in the process!. There are some who say I 
will say no unless produced works are made share-alike!. There are some 
who say I will say no if there is any chance that the project ever goes 
PD even if the vast majority of contributors want it!. There are some 
who say I will say no if the PD option is not properly considered!


You might like to put all these people in one room and have them battle 
it out, and whoever wins is right and all the others are stupid. But 
this is not how things work; we're trying to build a consensus here 
where we get *all* these people to say: Ok, this new license is perhaps 
not 100% what I wanted but it is the right way forward.


This is not about one side winning and one side losing.


Also creating license AND then creating CT which practically destroys
idea of license just because there part of community which disagrees


I think you should read my message(s) again. Nobody said that the CT 
were created just because some people didn't like the license. (In 
fact I have yet to meet someone who says he *likes* the license - 
wouldn't we all be happy if we could spend our time with other things?)



Make your choice - is it SA/Attribution, or it is PD then. You can't have
both, period. 


First of all, this is not generally true because the idea of dual 
licensing does exist. We have chosen not to investigate this further at 
this time, and we are preparing to change to a license that is 
SA/Attribution for data. This move has my support. Still that does in no 
way mean that you should not create an environment were future license 
changes, if deemed necessary by a vast majority of the community, are 
less painful than what we have today.



Even more - having so much problem with this change, do
you really expect to change license *again* in the future?


Exactly. There is never going to be another license change like the one 
we are seeing now, where every contributor has to be asked individually. 
The only viable future path for license changes is via the CT.



All this CT farce comes from having unrealistic expectations about
future - and for that you are ready to loose quite significant amount
of data.


I think you are getting all worked up because you have misunderstood the 
situation. ODbL is a completely new license which has never been used on 
a grand scale. It would be utterly negligent to *not* have a safeguard 
in place that lets us move away from ODbL without having to go through 
all this again.



p.s. I still want to hear official word from Steve or anyone about CT
Section 3, even if it is no. But please without PD crowd is mighty
crap


You have used stupid twice in this post, and now crap. Please mind 
your language or find someone else to discuss your ideas with.


Also, I think that you have already been told - yesterday, by Andy Allan 
- that the License Working Group is quite busy and may take several 
weeks to respond. However I should not be surprised if the answer you 
receive from them will also tell you about the need to find solutions 
that the whole community can work with; if you discount this idea as 
crap beforehand then there might not be much sense in answering at all.


Bye
Frederik


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license


John,

John Smith wrote:

Hmmm so it seems that Fredrick thinks it's ok to loose people as long
as they aren't from the pro-PD crowd...


The idea is to try and lose the smallest number of people in the process 
while doing what is necessary. This requires that everyone is paid 
respect. Telling people that they are stupid and their ideas crap is not 
a good way to move forward.


Obviously, we'd lose the smallest number of people if we'd just abandon 
license change and continue with CC-BY-SA; however I am firmly with the 
LWG on that this endangers the project's success in several ways and 
should not be attempted.


I realize that there are others who believe that the lawyers advising 
OSMF are wrong, and that CC-BY-SA could indeed be used further. I have 
doubts about this and would like the proponents of that idea put forward 
concrete plans about how to implement CC-BY-SA in an internationally 
balanced way (so that e.g. users in the US do not have more rights than 
users in Europe or Australia), and also how to handle attribution. These 
things are currently broken with CC-BY-SA and if someone wants to retain 
that license he should demonstrate how they can be fixed.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-20 Thread Peteris Krisjanis


 I realize that there are others who believe that the lawyers advising OSMF
 are wrong, and that CC-BY-SA could indeed be used further. I have doubts
 about this and would like the proponents of that idea put forward concrete
 plans about how to implement CC-BY-SA in an internationally balanced way (so
 that e.g. users in the US do not have more rights than users in Europe or
 Australia), and also how to handle attribution. These things are currently
 broken with CC-BY-SA and if someone wants to retain that license he should
 demonstrate how they can be fixed.

Frederik, again you mix it all up. I said i'm fine with ODBL (and so
far everyone who rants about CT says nothing bad about ODBL). I truely
respect huge work putted into it. What I don't like is that CT section
3 practically strips all this good work away, with having vague
definition of new and open license. If this can be clarified with SA
and Attribution clauses, then everything is very very ok.

Cheers,
Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

On 20 July 2010 18:59, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
 Frederik, again you mix it all up. I said i'm fine with ODBL (and so
 far everyone who rants about CT says nothing bad about ODBL). I truely
 respect huge work putted into it. What I don't like is that CT section
 3 practically strips all this good work away, with having vague
 definition of new and open license. If this can be clarified with SA
 and Attribution clauses, then everything is very very ok.

I'm starting to wonder if this is intentional misdirection to keep
confusing the issue of a relicensing with whole sale update of
contributor terms.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license


Hi,

Peteris Krisjanis wrote:

What I don't like is that CT section 3 practically strips all this
good work away, with having vague definition of new and open
license.


Free and open. And personally, I think that's just about ok - OSM is 
about creating a free map of the world, not a share-alike map of the 
world. If any any future time OSM thinks that a non-share-alike license 
would be best - why should we, today, try to dictate our wish to them?


I don't share your sentiment that providing a license change path for 
the future actually throws away any good work. If the new license works 
well for everybody, there will be no reason to change it, and the good 
work will be with us forever.



If this can be clarified with SA and Attribution clauses, then everything is 
very very ok.


Not for me; I think it is beyond our mandate add this restriction. It is 
also far from clarifying, indeed it adds more problems. If you look at 
CC-BY-SA vs. ODbL, you see that while both are essentially share-alike, 
the SA provision extends to slightly different things with ODbL than 
with CC-BY-SA. Some things are share-alike under CC-BY-SA but not under 
ODbL, and vice versa. The same could happen with any future license; it 
might still be essentially a share-alike license but it might free 
some things from the share-alike requirement, or add others to it. If 
the CT now demanded the new license be share-alike, who would have the 
power to decide whether it is share-alike enough?


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license


John,

John Smith wrote:

I'm starting to wonder if this is intentional misdirection


I'm unwilling to continue the discussion on this level. Have a good time.

Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

On 20 July 2010 18:50, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 The idea is to try and lose the smallest number of people in the process
 while doing what is necessary. This requires that everyone is paid respect.
 Telling people that they are stupid and their ideas crap is not a good way
 to move forward.

I don't recall saying anyone was stupid, in fact I've tried to refrain
from bothering with the personal attacks, perhaps you are confusing me
with SteveC, that is unless someone is spoofing his email address, but
I'll leave that as an exercise for another day.

 Obviously, we'd lose the smallest number of people if we'd just abandon
 license change and continue with CC-BY-SA; however I am firmly with the LWG
 on that this endangers the project's success in several ways and should not
 be attempted.

On one hand you are avidly promoting things should be allowed to go to
PD, on the other hand you keep saying CC-by-SA isn't good enough and
frankly I can't see this logic, either you want PD and in which case
CC-by-SA may be for all intents and purposes offer just that, or you
want protection for the database, please take one stance and stop flip
flopping, you aren't doing yourself or anyone else any favours...

 I realize that there are others who believe that the lawyers advising OSMF
 are wrong, and that CC-BY-SA could indeed be used further. I have doubts

I didn't say they were wrong, I just question if the benefits really
do outweigh the drawbacks.

 Australia), and also how to handle attribution. These things are currently
 broken with CC-BY-SA and if someone wants to retain that license he should
 demonstrate how they can be fixed.

Why do you keep confusing ODBL with arguments against an ambiguous CT?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

On 20 July 2010 19:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 I'm unwilling to continue the discussion on this level. Have a good time.

Sounds like par of the course, you refuse to even think about being
more flexible for current contributors, at least you aren't throwing
personal insults yet.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-20 Thread Dave Stubbs

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:05 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 20 July 2010 18:59, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
 Frederik, again you mix it all up. I said i'm fine with ODBL (and so
 far everyone who rants about CT says nothing bad about ODBL). I truely
 respect huge work putted into it. What I don't like is that CT section
 3 practically strips all this good work away, with having vague
 definition of new and open license. If this can be clarified with SA
 and Attribution clauses, then everything is very very ok.

 I'm starting to wonder if this is intentional misdirection to keep
 confusing the issue of a relicensing with whole sale update of
 contributor terms.


I'm starting to wonder if this whole mailing list is part of an
extraterrestrial plan to take over the world. If you think about it
carefully the only reason anyone would go over the same exact point
280 times a day is if they were under some form of mind control. Of
course I may be getting the wrong end of the stick. It's entirely
possible to aliens have put a bunch of people under mind control, and
those people in a desperate bid to free themselves have gone into
overdrive mode in an attempt to overload the alien probes. In which
case, given the advanced state of ET technology, it's quite possible
this thread, and others like it, will need to go on forever. At least
it's giving the rest of us fair warning of the coming apocalypse
though. And at least I'm not sharing batty ideas with the entire
planet for no apparent constructive reason. Oh... shit.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-20 Thread Tobias Knerr

On 20.07.2010 11:12, John Smith wrote:
 On one hand you are avidly promoting things should be allowed to go to
 PD, on the other hand you keep saying CC-by-SA isn't good enough and
 frankly I can't see this logic, either you want PD and in which case
 CC-by-SA may be for all intents and purposes offer just that, or you
 want protection for the database, please take one stance and stop flip
 flopping, you aren't doing yourself or anyone else any favours...

A broken CC-by-SA can be seen as combining the disadvantages of PD
(allows malicious users to use the data in undesirable ways) with those
of working SA (limits what benevolent users can do with the data).

It's entirely consistent to believe that CC-by-SA is therefore worse
than both PD and working SA. Holding this opinion is compatible with
both prefering PD over working SA and prefering working SA over PD.

Tobias Knerr

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-20 Thread Cartinus

On Tuesday 20 July 2010 09:10:29 John Smith wrote:
I believe this is the point Steve keeps pointing out, there was no
direct consequences at the time, and people were assuming there is
still outs later if problems were discovered and up until that point
the emphasis was strongly on the new license, I don't recall much
being said about the new terms until recently, at which point people
were concluding that the new CTs were not going to be compatible with
data imports already in the system let alone new imports.

If you are trying to win an argument, please stay with the facts. Don't put
all this spin on it.

The OSMF vote started december 5th.

On december 6th PeterIto and 80n discussed exactly this point on the wiki.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No#OSM.27s_Contributor_Terms_are_not_compatible_with_ODbL

This was in response of this very same subject being discussed on the mailing
lists a few days before that.

That was one of two reasons I voted against the licence change process. The
other reason was there was nothing in the implementation plan to consult the
contributors before the gun against their head final voting that should
start shortly.

In the license change proposal the CT's are explained before the ODbL itself.
The ODbL is then followed in that document by a provisional implementation
plan, that provides no reasonable outs after the OSMF vote.

If people really didn't now about the CT's and thought there were reasonable
outs later in the process, then they were not paying attention.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now even though I think the whole process is broken: Can we please move
forward as fast as possible. This endless messing around with the license is
doing far more damage than any data loss or contributor loss due to the
license change will ever do.

--
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-20 Thread Anthony

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 I realize that there are others who believe that the lawyers advising OSMF
 are wrong, and that CC-BY-SA could indeed be used further. I have doubts
 about this and would like the proponents of that idea put forward concrete
 plans about how to implement CC-BY-SA in an internationally balanced way (so
 that e.g. users in the US do not have more rights than users in Europe or
 Australia), and also how to handle attribution. These things are currently
 broken with CC-BY-SA and if someone wants to retain that license he should
 demonstrate how they can be fixed.


Wasn't it you who said that the only way to get consistent treatment over
OSM internationally is to make it PD?  If it wasn't you then I hope you'll
think about it and realize that it's true.  ODBL is not internationally
balanced.  Users in the US still have more rights than users in Europe or
Australia.

By the way, I have no idea if the lawyers advising OSMF are wrong.  I
haven't had a chance to interview them.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-20 Thread andrzej zaborowski

Hi,

On 20 July 2010 01:32, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 The proposed license change makes two concessions to the PD advocates. One
 is that you get a (symbolic) chance of officially declaring your
 contribution PD. This does not have legal relevance, as you cannot extract
 PD data from an ODbL protected database without triggering ODbL's
 share-alike, but at least the PD faction can make their voices heard. The
 other is that the contributor agreement does not completely rule out moving
 to PD at a later time, if a large enough majority of OSM contributors should
 favour that.

 These two concessions are really minor and are a long way from actually
 making anything in OSM PD. They are certainly not a victory for the PD
 faction, but they are a token of respect towards them, and they will make
 many a PD advocate accept the new license. These concessions are about
 building consensus, they are the result of people sitting around a (virtual)
 table and trying to find a way forward together that can be carried by
 everyone.

Letting some mappers choose to only release their data under ODbL does
not have to eliminate the other mappers' ability to choose PD and make
their voice heard.  So I think there's a way to retain the first
concession and make the I can only license my edits under a
share-alike license that I have read and want to be contacted if you
need my data under any other license people happy too.

The second concession seems a little more than many mappers can be
asked.  It reminds me very much of the Facebook / Myspace / whatever
terms of service where the company wants to have the copyright of
everything you create and has about 15 excuses in their FAQ to justify
that (we need to protect the body of our users' creations and need the
ability to sue people who misuse it)

Cheers

(FWIW I pledge that if I can have a no-CT account (ODbL only), I will
register a second account to make a percentage of my edits in PD,
especially those modifying objects created by others)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-20 Thread Stefan de Konink


On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, andrzej zaborowski wrote:


(FWIW I pledge that if I can have a no-CT account (ODbL only), I will
register a second account to make a percentage of my edits in PD,
especially those modifying objects created by others)


Best idea I read so far :)


Stefan

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-20 Thread andrzej zaborowski

On 20 July 2010 11:07, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 If any
 any future time OSM thinks that a non-share-alike license would be best -
 why should we, today, try to dictate our wish to them?

Because each of us is an author of a little chunk of data and want to
have a say in how that chunk is released? (For example as a
share-alike fan I want my own personal mapping to influence those who
derive from it to release more data so we can all benefit)

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-20 Thread Kai Krueger



Frederik Ramm wrote:
 
 The proposed license change makes two concessions to the PD advocates. 
 One is that you get a (symbolic) chance of officially declaring your 
 contribution PD. This does not have legal relevance, as you cannot 
 extract PD data from an ODbL protected database without triggering 
 ODbL's share-alike, but at least the PD faction can make their voices 
 heard. The other is that the contributor agreement does not completely 
 rule out moving to PD at a later time, if a large enough majority of OSM 
 contributors should favour that.
 
 These two concessions are really minor and are a long way from actually 
 making anything in OSM PD.
 

Unfortunately I don't think the CT one is minor in anyway. What it appears
to be doing is trade off a potential, move to PD, that currently is
completely uncertain if it will or will not ever gain acceptance, with a
definite large loss of data now. At least in Australia and the UK
(http://www.maps.webhop.net/osm_opendata/ gives a rough (over) estimate of
the scale of Data effected in the UK from OS OpenData that is CC-BY
compatibly licensed), but looking at the
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog many other countries are
(potentially) effected on a large scale too.

Also the combination of a  SA license ODbL and the potential PD element in
the CT appear to have constructed a situation, where OSM becomes
incompatible in one way or another with everything including itself. It is
not possible to mutually exchange data with PD sources, as ODbL prevents
giving back. However, it is also not possible to incorporate any datasources
such as e.g. OSM that are compatible with ODbL, as the CT prevent that as it
may move to PD.  Therefore to me it appears as if OSM is thus moving itself
into isolation and with respect to the point of sharing data has chosen the
worst of both PD and SA worlds.

So with respect to concessions to the PD crowd, I think this is
unacceptable, as it destroys a large part of what OSM is today. Therefore I
would much rather see as a consession a strengthening of the first point,
i.e. the I consider my data to PD actually mean something and that one can
somehow extract clean PD data (however you end up technically and legally
defining clean) indeed as PD data. I also don't see a legal reason why it
couldn't mean something. Apart from the definition of clean, you as a
contributor give the the data in an unencumbered way to OSMF, so it could
decide to also publish it as PD without wrapping it into the ODbL. This
would then allow for the potential of a much more organic PD fork off of
OSM. Now I really wouldn't wont to see a fork and we should all try and
prevent that, but as you say, there are many competing views on licensing
currently in the project and one has to compromise to achieve a community so
giving the PD crowd an easy way to split off may turn out to be the least
problematic option. However, I do think the onus of forking has to be on the
people wanting to change the nature of the license, not those who want to
keep it. 

However, I am not sure that the term in the CT was originally meant as a way
to switch to PD or change the nature of the license in any other way. At
least that was not the way it was originally marketed during the OSMF
vote. Instead, the argument was that despite all the diligence put into the
new ODbL and therefore all the likelihood of it being better than CC-BY-SA,
it is unfortunately a yet unproven license and so god forbid, it may turn
out to have fatal flaws that can't be fixed with the upgrade clause to an
ODbL 1.1. That's why we need an extra backup in the CT, as indeed a second
switch of license as we have now can be for all intents and purposes be said
to be impossible.

That line of argument is imho very reasonable and one therefore well worth
having, but somehow we also need to find a way to make it more compatible
with more free and open licenses such as the rather liberally licensed
Ordanance Survey data, or the Australian CC-BY.  This brings us back to the
originally question of this topic. Will (or can) adding a Attribution
Clause in the CT make the construct of ODbL and CT compatible with more
free and open licenses  such as CC-BY and thus allow us to retain more data?
With that, the original intent of a backup for should ODbL turn out to fail
would still be met, yet it would endanger the project currently less.

I am not sure a SA clause would help here, as moving to a different SA
license would still make it incompatible, so you would still not be able to
agree to the CT for a SA licensed source, but I would hope that situation
looks a little more promising for attribution only licenses. Now the LWG has
repeatedly said it is looking into the compatibility to CC-BY, so hopefully
some of these considerations will be taken into account and we will soon
have a clearer picture how they are intending to solve this issue. 


Frederik Ramm wrote:
 
 If NearMap imagery is so important

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license


Hi,

Kai Krueger wrote:

However, it is also not possible to incorporate any datasources
such as e.g. OSM that are compatible with ODbL, as the CT prevent that as it
may move to PD.


I think we have already agreed on having to have exceptions for large 
imports, i.e. there will be some data in OSM for which the CT are not 
valid. This will be required whatever wording you choose for the license 
upgrade path because some data donors do not want to sign up to the unknown.



So with respect to concessions to the PD crowd, I think this is
unacceptable, as it destroys a large part of what OSM is today.


If at any time a large part of what OSM is today is imported data 
please let me know as I'd like to quit then. OSM is about people and 
community, not about megabytes!



Therefore I
would much rather see as a consession a strengthening of the first point,
i.e. the I consider my data to PD actually mean something and that one can
somehow extract clean PD data (however you end up technically and legally
defining clean) indeed as PD data.


That would be most welcome.


However, I am not sure that the term in the CT was originally meant as a way
to switch to PD or change the nature of the license in any other way.


I think it was meant to basically keep your options open should ODbL 
turn out to be bad, or should the environment (or the project) change in 
a way that ODbL was deemed no longer suitable. Any requirement we put in 
the CT is very likely to stick with us forever so it case to be very 
thoroughly evaluated. 10 years from now, OSM will still be bound by what 
we put in there (if OSM still exists then).



That line of argument is imho very reasonable and one therefore well worth
having, but somehow we also need to find a way to make it more compatible
with more free and open licenses such as the rather liberally licensed
Ordanance Survey data, or the Australian CC-BY. 


Would not trying to become compatible with a license that *we* think 
doesn't work for OSM incur all sorts of trouble?



This brings us back to the
originally question of this topic. Will (or can) adding a Attribution
Clause in the CT make the construct of ODbL and CT compatible with more
free and open licenses  such as CC-BY and thus allow us to retain more data?


The original question of this topic, as mentioned in the subject, was 
not adding an attribution clause in the CT, but adding a share-alike 
clause, which is a whole different ball game.



I am not sure a SA clause would help here, as moving to a different SA
license would still make it incompatible, so you would still not be able to
agree to the CT for a SA licensed source, but I would hope that situation
looks a little more promising for attribution only licenses. 


I think adding something about attribution, if properly marketed towards 
what you call the PD crowd, could be acceptable.


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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-20 Thread Dirk-Lüder Kreie

Am 20.07.2010 22:06, schrieb andrzej zaborowski:
 On 20 July 2010 11:07, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 If any
 any future time OSM thinks that a non-share-alike license would be best -
 why should we, today, try to dictate our wish to them?
 
 Because each of us is an author of a little chunk of data and want to
 have a say in how that chunk is released? (For example as a
 share-alike fan I want my own personal mapping to influence those who
 derive from it to release more data so we can all benefit)

Well you'll get a say with or without the SA-Clause in the CT, provided
you stay interested enough to keep actively mapping to be eligible to
vote on future changes to another free and open license.

I fail to see your problem. There will always be the safeguard of active
member vote plus the limit of free and open, which, both combined
provide a nice safeguard against evil stuff.

-- 
Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie
Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-20 Thread Dirk-Lüder Kreie

Am 19.07.2010 16:26, schrieb Peteris Krisjanis:
 Ok, Frederik, I understand (but don't accept) your arguments here, but
 to push discussion in more practical way: what to do with data
 providers like Nearmap? How to convince them?

Easy. Keep on mapping and be the bigger fish in a couple years.

-- 
Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie
Bremen - 53.0901°N 8.7868°E

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

Hi again!

I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of
ODBL).

Is it doable? Yes, No? If no, why?

Cheers,
Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

On 19 July 2010 20:05, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi again!

 I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
 wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
 at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
 license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of
 ODBL).

To be compatible with cc-by, so we can at least keep existing cc-by
data, it would need need attribution+share alike, not just share
alike...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license


Hi,

Peteris Krisjanis wrote:

I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of
ODBL).


-1

I have heard people complain about many things but not about that 
section not enforcing SA for eternity. I don't think it would help the 
situation in anyway; it would only further alienate those who don't like 
SA. What's on the table right now is a delicate balance between 
different interests. Trying to take something away now will upset the 
balance.


And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM 
contributors want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them 
from it? In one or two years, two thirds of active contributors will 
be a greater number of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell 
them what to do? We're the minority ;)


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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
 want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
 or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number
 of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're
 the minority ;)

I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
have been in vein exactly?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license


John,

John Smith wrote:

I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
employing such hard line tactics, 


I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead 
with what is on the table now.



you are literally risking an out
right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
have been in vein exactly?


I am not suggesting to reject ODbL. I am suggesting to accept the 
Contributor Terms exactly as they have been produced by the time and 
effort you mention.


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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
 Hi,

 Peteris Krisjanis wrote:

 I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
 wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
 at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
 license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of
 ODBL).

 -1

 I have heard people complain about many things but not about that section
 not enforcing SA for eternity. I don't think it would help the situation in
 anyway; it would only further alienate those who don't like SA. What's on
 the table right now is a delicate balance between different interests.
 Trying to take something away now will upset the balance.

 And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
 want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
 or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number
 of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're
 the minority ;)

That would indicate that PD lovin, SA hatin guys will try to stuffin
committee method to push OSM in right direction? :)

Harsh joke of course, but I really fail to see how after two very cut
and clear SA licenses like CC-BY-SA and ODBL OSM suddenly will adapt
non-SA license (in fact we have very short list for it here, because
most data licenses are SA). And if I compare theoretical case in
future with non-SA crowd, who suddenly got majority, and everyone
wants PD (which practically non-SA means) with practical benefits with
NOT loosing OSM data when doing conversation from CC to ODBL, I guess
I have quite clear winner. Even more - why do you need such terms when
you have ODBL, which have very painfully long history of creation?
What is practical goal here? We will change license for OSM data every
5 years now?

It would only further alienate those who don't like SA.

Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA? So far I have
only heard it from business people. And so far CC-by-SA and ODBL
*both* are SA licenses and there is no indicator that it will change
any other way soon. So it is already SA, why we can't clarify that
next license (IF there ever be one) will be SA too? It won't change.

In fact, all CT/CA situation is very strange - I really fail to see
why we need them. More I listen, more I doubt their benefits for OSM
as project and society. Let's adapt ODBL, change to it and be done.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
 John,

 John Smith wrote:

 I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
 employing such hard line tactics,

 I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead
 with what is on the table now.

 you are literally risking an out
 right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
 have been in vein exactly?

 I am not suggesting to reject ODbL. I am suggesting to accept the
 Contributor Terms exactly as they have been produced by the time and effort
 you mention.


Sorry, but as far as I remember CT suddenly appeared on the table.
Before that there was just ODBL. I still haven't heard strong argument
why CT are needed. CT practically says Ups, we didn't get ODBL as we
wanted this time, here, sign over your rights, we will try to force
another one later. Maybe it's not original intent meant by creators,
but it really feels/sounds/looks like one.

Cheers,
Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

On 19 July 2010 23:38, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead
 with what is on the table now.

Which many people cannot legally agree to, even if we do agree with
the ODBL. It seems to be a mad dash to force people down this path,
and I'm sure there will be plenty of data issues over looked, so much
for the 'whiter than white' approach to copyright, this whole issue
sticks of hypocrisy.

To re-iterate, anyone that has vectorised anything from Nearmap
imagery cannot agree to the new CTs because you would be in breach of
Nearmap terms for the exact reason you point out, the data could be
relicensed under a non-SA license.

 I am not suggesting to reject ODbL. I am suggesting to accept the
 Contributor Terms exactly as they have been produced by the time and effort
 you mention.

As I've written several times, I can't agree to the new CT so as a
direct result I can't agree to ODBL, along with many other people in
Australia.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread Richard Fairhurst


Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
 Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Users_whose_contributions_are_in_the_public_domain

(I reply merely to inform rather than to prolong the debate, as sticking my
head into a grinder is already seeming like an appealing alternative to
reading more of this stuff.)

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Suggestion-to-add-SA-clause-to-CT-section-3-describing-free-and-open-license-tp5311401p5312082.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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license


Hi,

Peteris Krisjanis wrote:

That would indicate that PD lovin, SA hatin guys will try to stuffin
committee method to push OSM in right direction? :)


The Contributor Terms have been carefully crafted to make sure that 
anyone who wants to push OSM in what they perceive is the right 
direction will have to have a large majority.



Harsh joke of course, but I really fail to see how after two very cut
and clear SA licenses like CC-BY-SA and ODBL OSM suddenly will adapt
non-SA license


I don't think it is likely either, but this coming license change is the 
first time we ever actually ask our mappers what they think about PD, so 
we have very little evidence to support any claim about this.



and everyone
wants PD (which practically non-SA means) 


No, there is, for example a large group of attribution licenses in between.


Even more - why do you need such terms when
you have ODBL, which have very painfully long history of creation?
What is practical goal here? We will change license for OSM data every
5 years now?


The LWG has come out clearly *for* having the contributor terms in spite 
of the problems they may cause in some ways, precisely because nobody 
has ever implemented ODbL on a grand scale and it is quite possible that 
doing so will uncover problems unthought of. A license change clause 
makes sure we can react if required.



It would only further alienate those who don't like SA.

Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA? 


Oh yes, just read these lists. Only two days ago someone suggested that 
all PD advocates make it a condition of their acceptance of ODbL that 
everyone else also accepts PD for the objects touched by PD advocates. A 
convoluted idea which I disliked, but which proves that there are indeed 
PD advocates whom we have to win over and who won't just go along with 
ODbL because they don't care. Some fight for a free as in PD cause 
much like others fight for free as in share-alike.



So far I have
only heard it from business people. 


Then where have you been the last years? There's not a day where you 
don't have somebody on the lists saying I wish it were PD that would be 
so much easier for everyone.


It is an often-repeated story that businesspeople were licking their 
lips for us to go PD and then rip us off. I think that's scaremongering 
(easy enough to use our stuff and give nothing back even today!). Au 
contraire, some businesses, especially smaller ones, actually derive 
protection from a share-alike license because it makes sure they cannot 
easily be marginalised by the big fish.


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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread Stephen Hope

On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
 want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
 or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number
 of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're
 the minority ;)

We're the minority with the data at present.  Future users can do what
they like with stuff they add.  But if they want to change what I've
added, I feel like I should have a say.

Personally, anything I add can be PD for all I care.  But if I've
based it on a BY_SA source, that source has a legitimate right to be
concerned what happens to it in the future. From what I can tell, what
we are saying to them in rough terms is:

1) We're currently BY-SA
2) We're planning to change to ODBL, which is BY-SA compatible.  If
you don't like the change, you can yank your data out now.
3) Oh, and any time in the future, we can change the licence again,
and you can't take your data out that time if you don't like the new
terms.

Or in other words, - Trust us.  We promise not to be evil (except of
course it won't be us, because as you said, we'll be in the minority
then).  Why should they?

Stephen

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread Andy Allan

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi again!

 I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
 wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
 at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
 license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of
 ODBL).

Hi Peter,

The OSMF (i.e. the LWG) isn't likely to give you an answer in the
timeframe you expect - they meet once a week and have a huge
(growing?) amount of things to deal with. Even on a good day it might
take 2-3 weeks for them to get you a response, and if it involves
legal advice maybe even longer.

I'm not trying to discourage you, just hoping that you realise these
things can take a while, and hoping that you have the patience to
wait!

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
..


Ok, Frederik, I understand (but don't accept) your arguments here, but
to push discussion in more practical way: what to do with data
providers like Nearmap? How to convince them?

Does OSMF have clear plans to convince such data providers to
subscribe to planned CT regime? Is there communication going on?

Cheers,
Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010/7/19 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com:
 On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi again!

 I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer
 wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little -
 at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another
 license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of
 ODBL).

 Hi Peter,

 The OSMF (i.e. the LWG) isn't likely to give you an answer in the
 timeframe you expect - they meet once a week and have a huge
 (growing?) amount of things to deal with. Even on a good day it might
 take 2-3 weeks for them to get you a response, and if it involves
 legal advice maybe even longer.

 I'm not trying to discourage you, just hoping that you realise these
 things can take a while, and hoping that you have the patience to
 wait!


Andy, I don't have problem to wait - I and probably lot of other
mappers just want to hear straight and honest answer.

Cheers,
Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

On 20 July 2010 00:26, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
 Ok, Frederik, I understand (but don't accept) your arguments here, but
 to push discussion in more practical way: what to do with data
 providers like Nearmap? How to convince them?

You also have both the Australian and New Zealand (no doubt others
too) that released under cc-by, cc-by isn't compatible with the new
CTs, how much time and effort is going to be spent trying to convince
all these entities to agree to the new CTs exactly?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
 or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number
 of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're
 the minority ;)

I love the stats that get thrown about within OSM, if I remember
correctly about this time last year people were spouting about how
they expected the number of users to be around a million accounts by
now, instead we only have about 100k more, although the real number of
accounts that have actually been used to make edits is closer to about
70k in total...

As for numbers of active users, it's a little more difficult to figure
out since the graphs on the wiki stats page only shows it as a
percentage, however I highly doubt this to keep increasing
exponentially, just like the number of user accounts didn't keep
increasing exponentially and this was a completely unreal expectation.
Unless there is a massive publicity campaign to keep the number of
active editors increasing, I expect the percentage of active editors
to keep declining although at some point it will plateau as well.

If you want realistic expectations take a look at wikipedia, active
editors has been decreasing, and not just as a percentage, last I
heard, and the barrier to entry into wikipedia is a lot lower,
although the kinds of things that can be mapped is potentially a lot
higher, the majority of people mostly care about the road networks
most of the time and these tend to be the easiest things to map.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread Elena of Valhalla

On 7/19/10, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
 [...]
 Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA? So far I have
 only heard it from business people.

I do.

I used be in the SA camp, until I realized that SA is probably hurting
people who are doing creative stuff and would like to mix OSM data
with works under different SA/copyleft licenses like the GPL.

The new license is probably better for business people, who can afford
a lawyer that is able to tell them what they are able to do with OSM
data, but I'm afraid that most creative hobbists will be left with
data that may or may not be used, and is better left alone.

Of course there is still big value in plain printed maps and in
routing data under any free license, and this is why I'm still
contributing to the project;  I would just be happier with a BSD/CC-BY
like permissive license, or failing that PD

-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''

homepage: http://www.trueelena.org
email: elena.valha...@gmail.com

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license


On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:

 On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
 want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
 or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number
 of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're
 the minority ;)
 
 I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
 employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
 right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
 have been in vein exactly?

I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right 
rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under the 
plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my experience 
off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in person, those 20 
or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd prefer all this 
discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the license.

Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010/7/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com:

 On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:

 On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
 want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
 or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number
 of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're
 the minority ;)

 I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
 employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
 right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
 have been in vein exactly?

 I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right 
 rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under 
 the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my 
 experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in 
 person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd 
 prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the 
 license.

Steve, can you instead of flaming back give me stright answer what do
you think about suggestion I mentioned in the first post of this
thread?

Already thanks for answer,
Cheers,
Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread 80n

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:


 On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:

  On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
  And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM
 contributors
  want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In
 one
  or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater
 number
  of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do?
 We're
  the minority ;)
 
  I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
  employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
  right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
  have been in vein exactly?

 I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right
 rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under
 the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my
 experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in
 person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd
 prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the
 license.

 So why are you afraid of putting it to a vote?

Why have you felt the need to coerce 30,000 newbies by not giving them a
choice?  Not, even linking to the license that they are being asked to agree
to?

My experience off list is clearly different to yours.

80n






 Steve

 stevecoast.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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

Come on that wasn't a flame - now any reasonable point is a flame?

Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my 
phone)

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:30 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:

 2010/7/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
 
 On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
 
 On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
 want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
 or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number
 of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're
 the minority ;)
 
 I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
 employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
 right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
 have been in vein exactly?
 
 I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right 
 rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under 
 the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my 
 experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in 
 person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd 
 prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the 
 license.
 
 Steve, can you instead of flaming back give me stright answer what do
 you think about suggestion I mentioned in the first post of this
 thread?
 
 Already thanks for answer,
 Cheers,
 Peter.
 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

We did have a vote, remember? You just disagree with the outcome an the remit 
the OSMF has.

Steve

stevecoast.com

On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:31 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
 
 On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
 
  On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
  And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors
  want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one
  or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number
  of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're
  the minority ;)
 
  I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
  employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
  right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
  have been in vein exactly?
 
 I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right 
 rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under 
 the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my 
 experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in 
 person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd 
 prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the 
 license.
 
 So why are you afraid of putting it to a vote?
 
 Why have you felt the need to coerce 30,000 newbies by not giving them a 
 choice?  Not, even linking to the license that they are being asked to agree 
 to?
 
 My experience off list is clearly different to yours.
 
 80n
 
 
 
 
  
 Steve
 
 stevecoast.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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010/7/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com:

 Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my 
 phone)

Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could
agree with ODBL (as it still have SA and Attribution), but are uneasy
about clarification of point 3 in CT.

Already thanks for answer,
cheers,
Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread Stefan de Konink


On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:


We did have a vote, remember? You just disagree with the outcome an the remit 
the OSMF has.


Your mentioned vote didn't have /any/ statistical relevance, not even a 
vote under the top contributors. But actually in The Netherlands we did :) 
With again surprising results.



Stefan

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread Graham Jones

It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we
voted the right way.

I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level
the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I could not see
what the problem was - ODBL looked so much like CC-BY-SA for data that it
did not seem like an issue.   I can't even remember if I took much notice of
the contributor terms

I heard the arguments from a number of people warning of loss of data but
made the judgement that individual contributors are unlikely to object to
the change, and that the proposers of the new licence must have assured
themselves that contributions based on large datasets such as nearmap must
be compatible.   It sounds to me that that judgement may have been flawed,
so I should have taken more care.

The way I look at it is that if we will really have to remove large parts of
the map of Australia (never mind other parts of the world - I don't think I
have seen confirmation that the UK Ordnance Survey OpenData is compatible
yet?) then moving to a new licence would be the wrong thing to do.  I just
do not see the existing situation as being broken enough to be worth the
pain - this debate has used up a huge amount of people's time and effort
which could have been used on something more constructive.

This probably brings us back to where this long email debate started - just
how much data do we expect to lose, and what would we consider acceptable?
 My personal tolerance of loss of data is extremely small (maybe 1%).
Once you start to talk about losing of the order 10% or more of a country, I
have a lot of sympathy with the contributors in that area talking about
forking the project.

Regards


Graham.


On 19 July 2010 19:47, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:

 We did have a vote, remember? You just disagree with the outcome an the
 remit the OSMF has.

 Steve

 stevecoast.com

 On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:31 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC  st...@asklater.com
 st...@asklater.com wrote:


 On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote:

  On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm  frede...@remote.org
 frede...@remote.org wrote:
  And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM
 contributors
  want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In
 one
  or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater
 number
  of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do?
 We're
  the minority ;)
 
  I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
  employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
  right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
  have been in vein exactly?

 I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right
 rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under
 the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my
 experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in
 person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd
 prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the
 license.

 So why are you afraid of putting it to a vote?

 Why have you felt the need to coerce 30,000 newbies by not giving them a
 choice?  Not, even linking to the license that they are being asked to agree
 to?

 My experience off list is clearly different to yours.

 80n






 Steve

  http://stevecoast.comstevecoast.com
 ___
 talk mailing list
  talk@openstreetmap.orgtalk@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



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




-- 
Dr. Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK
email: grahamjones...@gmail.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license


Hi,

Peteris Krisjanis wrote:

Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could
agree with ODBL (as it still have SA and Attribution), but are uneasy
about clarification of point 3 in CT.


1. Who are these big data contributors?

2. Is it clear that they have issues with the CT or are you only guessing?

3. Is it clear that these issues will vanish by what you propose or are 
you only guessing?


4. Is their contribution so important to OSM that OSM will let them 
decide what licenses are acceptable for us?


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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread Anthony

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@googlemail.com
 wrote:

 It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we
 voted the right way.

 I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level
 the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I could not see
 what the problem was - ODBL looked so much like CC-BY-SA for data that it
 did not seem like an issue.   I can't even remember if I took much notice of
 the contributor terms


IIRC, the contributor terms changed significantly *after* the vote took
place.


 This probably brings us back to where this long email debate started - just
 how much data do we expect to lose, and what would we consider acceptable?
  My personal tolerance of loss of data is extremely small (maybe 1%).
 Once you start to talk about losing of the order 10% or more of a country, I
 have a lot of sympathy with the contributors in that area talking about
 forking the project.


The only way I can imagine the data loss being less than 10% is if the
contributions of inactive users are forcibly relicensed without their
consent (*).  Hasn't at least 10% of the map been touched by users who are
no longer contributing?  Should I run the numbers on that one, or can
someone else run them for me?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread andrzej zaborowski

On 19 July 2010 22:06, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 4. Is their contribution so important to OSM that OSM will let them decide
 what licenses are acceptable for us?

It's similar to the compiler warnings, sometimes you don't want to
change your code just because the compiler can't understand it and you
have to turn them off but often they point out an actualy issue in the
code, which is more likely the case here.

Maybe contributors should have a choice of whether they want to allow
the OSMF to publish their contributions under CC0, a free and open
license decided by active contributors, ODbL 1+ or ODbL 1.0.  Other
mappers need to be contacted if you want to use their data under
license X.  That way OSM-derived data could be re-imported using
accounts set up with the ODbL-only CT.

It's an issue for many programmers in oss to allow their code used
under licenses they don't know yet, it's the same for mappers.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread Michael Barabanov

Frederik (and Steve, and LWG),

Rather than receiving questions back, some actual answers to direct
questions about adding SA-like requirement to CT would be nice.

Regarding the questions: taking NearMap as an example (copied from another
thread, see there for more details):

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote:

 On 19 July 2010 13:48, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.comwrote:

 Would specifying that the new license must be not just open/free but
 specifically an SA-like license in contributor agreement solve this
 particular issue?  ODBL looks like SA in spirit.  Further changing of
 licenses could be a separate discussion, when/if there's a new need


 I believe that as long as the licence must be share-alike (for a given
 definition of share-alike), that should work, yes.  Seems to me also that
 would address the concerns of a number of other contributors to the
 discussion, but I don't pretend to have followed in the exhaustive detail to
 know if the LWP had a good reason not to write it that way from the start :)

 Cheers
 b

 --
 Ben Last
 Development Manager (HyperWeb)
 NearMap Pty Ltd


NearMap looks quite important for Australia.

Michael.

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 Hi,


 Peteris Krisjanis wrote:

 Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
 as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
 would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could
 agree with ODBL (as it still have SA and Attribution), but are uneasy
 about clarification of point 3 in CT.


 1. Who are these big data contributors?

 2. Is it clear that they have issues with the CT or are you only guessing?

 3. Is it clear that these issues will vanish by what you propose or are you
 only guessing?

 4. Is their contribution so important to OSM that OSM will let them decide
 what licenses are acceptable for us?


 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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:05:58PM +0200, SteveC wrote:
 wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by
  employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out
  right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will
  have been in vein exactly?
 
 I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right 
 rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under 
 the plan,

That is just a part of the problem:  The only question that is being
asked is if we agree to the ODbL. We also need to take into account at
least:

  * Do you agree to license your data under the DbCL?
  * Do you agree to the contributor terms?

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread Ulf Möller


Am 19.07.2010 22:31, schrieb Anthony:


IIRC, the contributor terms changed significantly *after* the vote took
place.


http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsdiff=326oldid=204


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:55:42PM +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
 Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause
 as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It
 would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could
 agree with ODBL (as it still have SA and Attribution), but are uneasy
 about clarification of point 3 in CT.

+1

Or remove the relicensing ability totally.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:31:42PM +0100, Graham Jones wrote:
 It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we
 voted the right way.
 
 I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level
 the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I could not see
 what the problem was - ODBL looked so much like CC-BY-SA for data that it
 did not seem like an issue.   I can't even remember if I took much notice of
 the contributor terms

I certainly voted based on the license only and not on the contributor
terms, with which I later recalled disagreeing too on one of these
mailing ilsts.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread Anthony

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote:

 Am 19.07.2010 22:31, schrieb Anthony:


  IIRC, the contributor terms changed significantly *after* the vote took
 place.



 http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsdiff=326oldid=204


Yeah, that's as I recall it.  and any party that receives Your Contents
was removed, and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database.
Both of which are huge changes.  Well, one of which is a huge change, and
the other of which was a huge question which was left up in the air.  (And
both of which I recall asking about at the time of the vote.)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread Ulf Möller


Am 19.07.2010 22:42, schrieb Michael Barabanov:


NearMap looks quite important for Australia.


The LWG has stated that specific contributor terms will be considered on 
a case by case basis for external data sources. If NearMap are happy 
with the ODbL but not with the Contributor Terms then maybe that should 
be done here.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license


Hi,

Michael Barabanov wrote:
Rather than receiving questions back, some actual answers to direct 
questions about adding SA-like requirement to CT would be nice.


Well I have already said that I am against it, and I have given the 
reasons. We have a large PD community in OSM - exactly how large is 
unclear. The whole relicensing process has never even considered letting 
the user base decide to switch to a PD, or attribution-only license; it 
was clear from day one that we'd be looking for share-alike. That is a 
thorn in the side of many PD advocates (not the fact that OSM is not 
going PD, but the fact that OSMF hasn't even bothered to find out what 
contributors want), and there are enough for them to make a fuss, if not 
derail the license change process altogether.


The proposed license change makes two concessions to the PD advocates. 
One is that you get a (symbolic) chance of officially declaring your 
contribution PD. This does not have legal relevance, as you cannot 
extract PD data from an ODbL protected database without triggering 
ODbL's share-alike, but at least the PD faction can make their voices 
heard. The other is that the contributor agreement does not completely 
rule out moving to PD at a later time, if a large enough majority of OSM 
contributors should favour that.


These two concessions are really minor and are a long way from actually 
making anything in OSM PD. They are certainly not a victory for the PD 
faction, but they are a token of respect towards them, and they will 
make many a PD advocate accept the new license. These concessions are 
about building consensus, they are the result of people sitting around a 
(virtual) table and trying to find a way forward together that can be 
carried by everyone.


If you now want to remove even that smallest bit of respect towards a 
large number of contributors, you risk upsetting the delicate balance 
that has been found. Faced with cementing SA forever, PD advocates will 
demand a proper vote (do you (a) want to go PD, (b) go ODbL, (c) not go 
anywhere) instead of the current version.


I strongly advise anyone not to re-open that can of worms.

If NearMap imagery is so important for OSM in Australia - and there are 
countries which have been mapped very well without aerial imagery of 
note - then let's make an exception for NearMap, let's include their 
data without them signing the CT. This would mean that if at any later 
time the license is changed, NearMap would have to be asked specifically 
if they like that license. I assume that this is something we will have 
to do for some other sources as well.


No reason to drop or modify the CT for everybody because of that.

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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread Simon Biber

Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote:

 The LWG has stated that specific contributor terms will be considered on a 
 case 
by case basis for external data sources. If NearMap are happy with the ODbL 
but 
not with the Contributor Terms then maybe that should be done here.

So can these specific contributor terms be available for anyone who  wants to 
contribute in Australia? At a guess, perhaps 90% of active  mappers in 
Australia 
have used NearMap as one of their sources and are  therefore unable to agree to 
the current contributor terms.



  


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 01:32:53AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 If NearMap imagery is so important for OSM in Australia - and there
 are countries which have been mapped very well without aerial
 imagery of note - then let's make an exception for NearMap, let's
 include their data without them signing the CT. This would mean that
 if at any later time the license is changed, NearMap would have to
 be asked specifically if they like that license. I assume that this
 is something we will have to do for some other sources as well.
 
 No reason to drop or modify the CT for everybody because of that.

Not because of NearMap, no way would I just give in to some organisation
who feels they can’t fit with our terms.

However, I think the concerns are entirely reasonable, and if we say we
are going to license our data under the ODbL + DbCL we should stick to
it.

Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new
licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike
licenses?

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread Liz

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
 Sorry, but as far as I remember CT suddenly appeared on the table.
 Before that there was just ODBL.

SteveC has already told me that either my memory was faulty or I wasn't paying 
attention for stating exactly that.


Couldn't be bothered to look for the details, because I'm sure my memory is 
excellent.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread Liz

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
  From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email
 and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone
 else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on
 with the license.

quash all discussion, move it out of sight, and proceed?



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license


Hi,

Simon Ward wrote:

Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new
licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike
licenses?


I'm not saying it is bad, I'm just saying that nobody has ever made an 
effort to find out what spirit most of the contributors would prefer; 
the fact alone that they are willing to participate in a SA project does 
not say anything.


So either get a proper backing for whatever spirit you want to cement 
for all eternity - i.e. write to all contributors, explain to them what 
PD, BY, BY-SA is and what the problems and advantages of each are, and 
ask them what license they would like the project to be under, then 
start relicensing the project under whatever was favoured by the 
majority. (I think that an attribution-only ODbL variant has already 
been launched or is at least in the making.)


Or, if you'd rather not do that now but go ahead with ODbL as proposed, 
at least do not rule out that option forever. (And it is safe to assume 
that any license change outside the corridor given by the CT is ruled 
out forever because it would mean repeating what we have now.)


By at least theoretically allowing upgrades to any free and open 
licenses, and not just share-alike licenses, you effectively silence 
opposition from the PD people who would otherwise demand that a licence 
change to PD *now* would at least have to be investigated (which it 
hasn't been).


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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license

2010-07-19 Thread Ben Last

On 20 July 2010 08:10, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:

 Not because of NearMap, no way would I just give in to some organisation
 who feels they can’t fit with our terms.


I'm not assuming that Simon was necessarily directing that at us, but I
think it's worth saying here that NearMap are specifically *not,* in any
way, trying to dictate or attempt to control the OSM process. This is a
community effort, and it is not our place to be seen to be influencing it.
 We're just keen to make it clear that the *Share-Alike* part of the licence
is key to us allowing our PhotoMaps to be used as the source of OSM data.
 That's not an arbitrary choice we make; it's important to the way we
operate our business (our aims and our business model are publically
available).

Cheers
Ben

-- 
Ben Last
Development Manager (HyperWeb)
NearMap Pty Ltd
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license


On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:20 AM, Liz wrote:

 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote:
 From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email
 and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone
 else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on
 with the license.
 
 quash all discussion, move it out of sight, and proceed?

Yes, quash all the discussion on 4 public mailing lists, don't have any public 
phone calls, don't have any consultation periods or working groups that anyone 
can join, don't have public minutes, don't convince large legal firms to donate 
time and effort. Keep the license all to ourselves rather than support it being 
hosted externally by OKFN.

Yes, we've really clamped down on all that discussion so we can proceed!

Tell me Liz, have you contributed anything positive to this entire process, 
ever, in any way?

Steve

stevecoast.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license