Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
Hi, Have there been many projects/companies which improved TIGER and released the results as PD? None that I know of; I suppose they have all spent a lot of money to be able to process and improve TIGER and they probably want to recoup that investment through proprietary licensing. Is it relevant to us? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:03:20PM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: None that I know of; I suppose they have all spent a lot of money to be able to process and improve TIGER and they probably want to recoup that investment through proprietary licensing. Is it relevant to us? Surely it's highly relevant to your assertion that we would build a strong community around OSM if it was PD? The fact that none has formed around an existing large body of geodata ripe for improvement doesn't help your case. Perhaps this is true for TIGER, but it seems to me that geonames.org is exactly the opposite: a public domain dataset (vmap0) has been embraced/extended into (in some cases) dozens or more languages per place name, and many many corrections to data. Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt Web Developer ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
Hi, Is it relevant to us? Surely it's highly relevant to your assertion that we would build a strong community around OSM if it was PD? I thought OJW was not talking about communities but about corporations. Which generally have a bad track record of working for free (perhaps because they have no 'spare time'?) The fact that none has formed around an existing large body of geodata ripe for improvement doesn't help your case. I suspect there will be many existing large bodies of geodata without a community, and as many with one, and the reasons behind that very diverse. Thankfully crschmidt has pointed out an example that doesn't help your case. As regards TIGER specifically, my belief is that no community has formed around that because what you get in PD is not the master database but just something compiled by the government, and they have promised periodic re-issues of updated information. Whatever changes your community makes, they will not be contained in the next government release, and you either have to fork off and ignore them, or forever try and try to filter out the new stuff from the next release and merge that with what you have. I think that if the data had been not published PD but actually disowned by the government (as in: this is what we have and we're not going to work with this any more) then the situation would have been wholly different. But that's pure speculation - as is the idea that no community has formed because it was PD rather than copyleft. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Ari Torhamo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: su, 2008-05-04 kello 15:40 +0200, Mike Collinson kirjoitti: At 01:33 PM 4/05/2008, Ari Torhamo wrote: la, 2008-05-03 kello 17:39 -0400, Ted Mielczarek kirjoitti: Why else are we contributing this data if not for people to *use* it? I suggest you go and present this breath taking argument to RMS, and we might soon get an updated, more free version of GPL. Ari The GPL works very well as it already allows folks to *use* software with no restriction on what they make with that use. Adding something new to GPL software source code is clearly different from using existing GPL software to do something new. That distinction is far from clear when using collations of facts like OSM data. So a different model is required. The PD argument is a very easy and elegant solution, but it makes some contributors very uncomfortable. The new license being worked on seeks to make a, hopefully, comprehensible distinction for factual data. OK, thanks for explaining this. I was actually just responding to sarcasm that I didn't like, but perhaps I could have been more educated doing it :-) (or perhaps it would be best that we weren't sarcastic to each other at all). For what it's worth, I wasn't being sarcastic, more like exasperated. I hate seeing licensing issues confound useful activities, whether they be software, music, art, or mapping. Seeing people wasting time having a discussion about whether they can legally use something instead of spending that time doing something useful makes me sad. I apologize if I came off as sarcastic, it can be difficult to infer tone over email! Regards, -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
Nathan, I'm 100% with you as regards PD; I also think that it would cause much less hassle, make OSM a better project and be morally superior along the way. However there are many people who think differently, and you may encounter some of them on legal-talk to which I'm CCing this, with full quoting: This mirrors my feelings exactly. When I found out about this project, I was really excited. I am writing a geotagging program that could greatly benefit from a worldwide feature set, and it seemed like OSM would be a great match. Now I'm not too sure. I live in the US, and have seen the benefits of (and perhaps come to take for granted) a significant body of Public Domain, free-as-in-WTFPL geographic datasets. There are people in OSM who say that the TIGER data may have been free, but it was also dead because there was no community taking care of it - OSM to the rescue, we add a community on top and our price is that we take the stuff out of PD and slap a few restrictions on, only of course to protect that community. You can probably better judge the bit about the community; for me, looking from the outside, it seems not entirely false. Obviously on the other side of the Atlantic, you have seen the opposite: an overbearing monopoly that wants to keep this data under lock and key. Now what has been done to remedy that situation? I read things like but aha! that pub's location might be a derivative work of a ShareAlike street! and it sounds an awful lot how the OS claims copyright in everything from the Soviet topo maps to random tourist brochures. Except instead of insisting on big fees for use, it seems some parts of the community instead insist on big freedoms resulting from use. That's my problem as well. We are not much better than other owners of geodata. They say: 1. Geodata is very valuable and takes a lot of work to collect and those who do all the work should be the owners of the data and dictate under what rules it may be used; 2. So we charge an arm and a leg for it And we say 1. Geodata is very valuable and takes a lot of work to collect and those who do all the work should be the owners of the data and dictate under what rules it may be used; 2. So we give it away free of charge but force everyone using our data to comply with our license. I would much more like to see an approach that says: Geodata should be free, and whenever I have used my GPS to measure the position of something, I have liberated it; nobody will ever have to do someone else's bidding to find out about this position. How is that better? I'm worried that if my users geotag their photos against OSM data, someone will come out of the woodwork insisting that the photos could be considered a derivative of their work, and I can either hire a lawyer versed in International IP law [implying that they wouldn't mind me ignoring what they really want done with their data, provided it looked like I could get away with it]. Or I could just play it safe and pass the virus to my (fleeing) users. It doesn't hurt the US Census Bureau when someone takes their public domain TIGER data and turns it into a proprietary product, or one with an arguably more restrictive (or more libre) licence. However, think of how much less useful the TIGER data would have been to both these evil corporations AND the open source community if data sets like that had to be used under a particular license instead of public domain (with attribution often requested). It's unfair somehow, isn't it - we take PD stuff, put it into OSM, make it more attractive to a point where nobody wants to use the original PD stuff any more - everyone is more or less forced to use our version that comes under our license. But then again that is exactly what Copyleft advocates say is the fate of every PD data set and the very reason that we are not PD... lest an evil commercial company just takes our data away, makes it more attractive and puts it under their license. (I find it morally questionable of us to do this but it is undoubtedly legal. Some Copyleft advocates even manage a smile when they tell me that I'm free to collect data under PD but of course they'll gobble it up under Share-Alike and not give anything back - You're asking for it.) I understand that some feel the cause would be hurt if their data could ALSO be used in proprietary datasets. Obviously I have a different opinion on this matter, as do several others. What bothers me is that those in favor of viral licenses are able to even trump those who would rather have their data in the public domain -- and this by the same sort of derivative work FUD that makes a free set of map data so important in the first place. True. I don't even think that there is a majority for Copyleft in this project, but it isn't pure numbers that count. There are a number of people who have said they
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
I really would like to see a license as simple as the following: For data users - 0. Open Street Map collects and creates public domain map data. 1. Attribution of Open Street Map is expected. We make it easy. 2. Contributing back or freely sharing modifications is strongly encouraged. For map editors - 1. Only add essentially uncopyrighted map data. 2. You are welcome join the list of contributors. I know you mean to move the issue forward, but what you are proposing isn't really a license, more like a guide. (A license can't contain vague statements like is expected and strongly encouraged or insist that you abide by the law e.g. only add) Furthermore, you must realize that attribution can come without being required by the license, e.g. through the media. In fact many wikipedians argue that attribution is more or less guaranteed in the age of search engines. Daniel J. Bernstein recently placed much of his software in the Public Domain, because he argued that even a simple attribution clause (BSD) can become an obstacle. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
Frederik Ramm wrote: That's my problem as well. We are not much better than other owners of geodata. They say: 1. Geodata is very valuable and takes a lot of work to collect and those who do all the work should be the owners of the data and dictate under what rules it may be used; 2. So we charge an arm and a leg for it And we say 1. Geodata is very valuable and takes a lot of work to collect and those who do all the work should be the owners of the data and dictate under what rules it may be used; 2. So we give it away free of charge but force everyone using our data to comply with our license. But you must at least recognise that we charge an arm and a leg for it is by no means the only restriction the other owners put on. They put on a whole load of restrictions on what you can use it for. We, on the other hand, make it free-as-in-price and don't put any restrictions on what you can use it for. I know it suits your argument to make this parallel, but I really don't think that it's very close, objectively. It's unfair somehow, isn't it - we take PD stuff, put it into OSM, make it more attractive to a point where nobody wants to use the original PD stuff any more - everyone is more or less forced to use our version that comes under our license. Hang on... aren't you there admitting that Share Alike communities work better than PD communities? After all, if PD communities worked better, why is there not a thriving PD project working on the TIGER data? (I find it morally questionable of us to do this but it is undoubtedly legal. Some Copyleft advocates even manage a smile when they tell me that I'm free to collect data under PD but of course they'll gobble it up under Share-Alike and not give anything back - You're asking for it.) Er, but you are, aren't you? That's _precisely_ what you want to allow people to do with your data. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
On May 6, 2008, at 9:44 AM, Nathan Vander Wilt wrote: [blah, blah, blah] I hope that I did make my concerns clear without offending anyone too greatly. Regardless, it would probably be more helpful to say what I hope could be done to address my concerns, instead of just more-or- less complaining. I really would like to see a license as simple as the following: For data users - 0. Open Street Map collects and creates public domain map data. 1. Attribution of Open Street Map is expected. We make it easy. 2. Contributing back or freely sharing modifications is strongly encouraged. For map editors - 1. Only add essentially uncopyrighted map data. 2. You are welcome join the list of contributors. This is pretty much how the Public Domain Data Licence with Community Norms works, right? (See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License#Criticism ) Set up community norms to say BY-SA and it seems like a perfect fit for the data and (hopefully) most contributors' wishes. I see a lot of benefits to this, certainly over the current license, but even over the proposed set of new licenses: - Easy for contributors large and small to understand. - Much easier to check existing datasets for compatibility. - Doesn't change much for data users in the open source community. - Enables commercial use by small companies who want to do the right thing, but can't just ignore grey areas that leave them or their customers liable. - It wouldn't change much as far as abuse by large corporations, as I'm sure their lawyers are earning more than our lawyers anyway. It actually seems like a clearer license with more indemnity could encourage a bigger company that is still somewhat concerned with it's PR credibility to use the data as intended. Wouldn't the resulting publicity do much more for OSM than a viral license? Right now the current and proposed licenses only seems to hurt small businesses, who can afford neither proprietary data nor the liabilities of the remaining grey areas. (I hope that precluding any sort of commercial use of the data is not the intent of most contributors.) If the data is in the public domain, sure some bad guys might abuse it, but please don't disregard the benefit that companies willing to follow the spirit of the community norms could bring to the project. thanks, -natevw ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
Ari Torhamo wrote: OK, thanks for explaining this. I was actually just responding to sarcasm that I didn't like, but perhaps I could have been more educated doing it :-) (or perhaps it would be best that we weren't sarcastic to each other at all). Sarcasm can be a major problem on lists where a lot of the users do not have English as a first language! It often produces unnecessary discussions EXPLAINING the 'nuances' so many internationally spread lists do tend to clamp down on it ;) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
Hi, I don't understand why some users want their work in PD. You don't have to understand, just accept that some want it. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
lol... He doesn't need to understand, but he would like to understand... which is an admirable thing...;-) Lucas De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] en nombre de Frederik Ramm Enviado el: lun 05/05/2008 1:00 Para: Vincent MEURISSE CC: talk@openstreetmap.org Asunto: Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain Hi, I don't understand why some users want their work in PD. You don't have to understand, just accept that some want it. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
la, 2008-05-03 kello 17:39 -0400, Ted Mielczarek kirjoitti: For me, it seems ironic that a project spawned from licensing issues over map data has found itself in a situation where licensing issues are still a problem, Yeah, what an irony. Those who started the project must have thought that there would never be any licencing issues... [...] Why else are we contributing this data if not for people to *use* it? I suggest you go and present this breath taking argument to RMS, and we might soon get an updated, more free version of GPL. Ari ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
At 01:33 PM 4/05/2008, Ari Torhamo wrote: la, 2008-05-03 kello 17:39 -0400, Ted Mielczarek kirjoitti: Why else are we contributing this data if not for people to *use* it? I suggest you go and present this breath taking argument to RMS, and we might soon get an updated, more free version of GPL. Ari The GPL works very well as it already allows folks to *use* software with no restriction on what they make with that use. Adding something new to GPL software source code is clearly different from using existing GPL software to do something new. That distinction is far from clear when using collations of facts like OSM data. So a different model is required. The PD argument is a very easy and elegant solution, but it makes some contributors very uncomfortable. The new license being worked on seeks to make a, hopefully, comprehensible distinction for factual data. Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
su, 2008-05-04 kello 15:40 +0200, Mike Collinson kirjoitti: At 01:33 PM 4/05/2008, Ari Torhamo wrote: la, 2008-05-03 kello 17:39 -0400, Ted Mielczarek kirjoitti: Why else are we contributing this data if not for people to *use* it? I suggest you go and present this breath taking argument to RMS, and we might soon get an updated, more free version of GPL. Ari The GPL works very well as it already allows folks to *use* software with no restriction on what they make with that use. Adding something new to GPL software source code is clearly different from using existing GPL software to do something new. That distinction is far from clear when using collations of facts like OSM data. So a different model is required. The PD argument is a very easy and elegant solution, but it makes some contributors very uncomfortable. The new license being worked on seeks to make a, hopefully, comprehensible distinction for factual data. OK, thanks for explaining this. I was actually just responding to sarcasm that I didn't like, but perhaps I could have been more educated doing it :-) (or perhaps it would be best that we weren't sarcastic to each other at all). Ari ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
I don't understand why some users want their work in PD. The goal of osm is to have a map of the world freely available for anyone. But with PD someone (eg google) can take all the work of osm, correct and complete it, and copyright it in a way that osm cannot reuse the modification. So the copyrighted map will be better than the free one. The license cc by-sa is a good protection against that as it will always allow osm to use derivate work of the original map. On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 4:36 AM, Bruce Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 17:01 +0100, Andy Allan wrote: And where all the data entered by the PD guys was done without looking at the non-PD stuff as a reference? Like a PD pub which was positioned at the corner of two CC-BY-SA streets, whose coordinates, therefore is (arguably) non-PD? Or PD rivers that went down the middle of a CC-BY-SA cycle-map-contours-background-in-potlatch valley? The sooner we're united behind one licence the better. Otherwise things will just be like the Tories not wanting to say what they'd do better. Politics thrown in for a laugh. -- Bruce Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
Vincent MEURISSE wrote: I don't understand why some users want their work in PD. The goal of osm is to have a map of the world freely available for anyone. But with PD someone (eg google) can take all the work of osm, correct and complete it, and copyright it in a way that osm cannot reuse the modification. So the copyrighted map will be better than the free one. I know this debate. It is carried out by BSD'lers versus GPL'ers constantly and depending on what your respective definition of freedom is, each side can be right. There is just no universal answer what constitutes free use. As a PD'ler I can tell you that I just want to avoid that we have to display a 1000 names of contributors in a corner of our map, that I would like to be able to overlay data on an OSM map without having to worry whether I am allowed to do that, etc. The license cc by-sa is a good protection against that as it will always allow osm to use derivate work of the original map. If you have ever looked at our legal list, you will have noticed that it is basically impossible to follow that license, that we don't even get it right ourselves. Nobody can tell you what will constitute a derivative work and what not. If you ask for permissive uses and the only answer you will get from the organization that produces the data ask a lawyer, we can't/won't tell you, then that license is clearly not right. spaetz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
Hi, And where all the data entered by the PD guys was done without looking at the non-PD stuff as a reference? Exactly, it's all in the meta data ,-) caveat=user had proprietary map in top drawer of desk while mapping that Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 6:36 AM, Vincent MEURISSE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand why some users want their work in PD. The goal of osm is to have a map of the world freely available for anyone. But with PD someone (eg google) can take all the work of osm, correct and complete it, and copyright it in a way that osm cannot reuse the modification. So the copyrighted map will be better than the free one. And while they're taking the data, correcting and completing it, we'll be continuing to update and improve our copy, so what have they gained? Imagine if Wikipedia was public domain, and you made the same argument there. Certainly one could take a complete copy of Wikipedia, try to correct all errors, and publish it as your own work, but I doubt you could ever truly create something better than the mass of Wikipedia users. For me, it seems ironic that a project spawned from licensing issues over map data has found itself in a situation where licensing issues are still a problem, and hopefully the license update will resolve these and make using OSM data easier. Why else are we contributing this data if not for people to *use* it? -Ted ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, While I have the PD-user template on my user page and would encourage like-minded folks to do the same, I feel it is mostly a political statement than of real practical benefit. +1 Some time in the far future I will create a clean mirror of OSM that contains only data never touched by people who don't do PD. And where all the data entered by the PD guys was done without looking at the non-PD stuff as a reference? Like a PD pub which was positioned at the corner of two CC-BY-SA streets, whose coordinates, therefore is (arguably) non-PD? Or PD rivers that went down the middle of a CC-BY-SA cycle-map-contours-background-in-potlatch valley? Good luck with that :-P Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 17:01 +0100, Andy Allan wrote: And where all the data entered by the PD guys was done without looking at the non-PD stuff as a reference? Like a PD pub which was positioned at the corner of two CC-BY-SA streets, whose coordinates, therefore is (arguably) non-PD? Or PD rivers that went down the middle of a CC-BY-SA cycle-map-contours-background-in-potlatch valley? The sooner we're united behind one licence the better. Otherwise things will just be like the Tories not wanting to say what they'd do better. Politics thrown in for a laugh. -- Bruce Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Users whose contributions are in the public domain
Sorry about reposting but the original title Meaning of Users whose contributions are in the public domain was split somehow. I think just Meaning of is far too large a problem. -Jukka- Hi, I concluded that I'd rather see my contributions in public domain and added the PD-user template to show that. I wonder what does it mean in practice. Is it now possible for me or anybody else to extract all features I have created and which have never been touched by other users? How about ways created originally by me but edited later by others? How should I work in the future to guarantee that my edits will be free? Should I do all new work in some other environment and store it there before donating it to OSM or what? I am now only speaking about creating totally new features, not editing anything done by others. -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
