Re: [OSM-talk] ODbl concerns

[Adam Franco]

Robert, I applaud the Victoria government for using and collaborating on
OSM data! As others have shared I think direct government involvement with
and contributions to OSM are a great strategic direction.

Here in the USA our federal government is required by law to put all of its
publications in the public domain, which unfortunately disallows direct
contributions to OSM (though this public domain data is of course cleared
for inclusion in OSM by non-government contributors). In light of this
legal requirement, the OpenStreetMap-US foundation has partnered with US
Government agencies on the Public Domain Map project
. This project
utilizes modified versions of the OSM tool-chain (database, schemas,
editors, etc) to allow government staff and volunteers to create and
validate map data in the public domain, making it possible to incorporate
in US Government works and be readied for downstream inclusion in OSM.

I wouldn't want to suggest that Public Domain Map is the best option if
national laws allow direct contributions to ODBl datasets, but did want to
mention it as I feel that Public Domain Map is a clever work-around to our
local legal situation that brings our government as close as it can to
preparing data for OSM without violating its own licencing rules.

On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 8:13 PM Robert C Potter (DTP) via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi OSM,
>
> Representing the state transport authority (Department of Transport and
> Planning) we have made the strategic decision to use OSM as our
> foundational mapping data source.  We are confident that this is a decision
> will be of value to both ourselves improving the management of the networks
> (road, Train, Bus, tram) and adding significantly to the citizens of the
> state.
>
> Our intended use of OSM is built on an extract being done then validating
> that extract for the gazetted/official place and road names. The resultant
> validated dataset will be shared that via our Opendata portal.  Our state
> government has a strong commitment to sharing all data openly.  We are
> currently developing that process and should be in production by the end of
> the year.
>
> Alas, there has been concern from our distribution partners with the ODbl
> license requirement to "Share alike".  You know these companies; Google,
> Here, Tomtom and Apple.
>
> The information we would share, and all shared as ODbl;
>
>- Disruptions
>- Heavy vehicles
>- Bicycles routes
>- Public transport routes and timetables
>
> I am wondering how we, can continue engage with these partners and use and
> improve OSM.
>
>
>
> If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Robert Potter
>
> *Helping people use the power of location to make better decisions*
>
> Manager, Spatial Data Strategy
> Department of Transport and Planning
>
> 1 Spring Street
>
> MELBOURNE 3000
>
>
> *M *0402 484 739
>
> *F* 03 9935 4111
> *E *robert.pot...@roads.vic.gov.au
> *W dtp.vic.gov.au *
>
>
> I acknowledge the Traditional Aboriginal Owners of Country throughout
> Victoria and pay my respect to Elders past and present and emerging and to
> the ongoing living culture of Aboriginal people.
>
> DISCLAIMER
>
> The following conditions apply to this communication and any attachments:
> VicRoads reserves all of its copyright; the information is intended for the
> addressees only and may be confidential and/or privileged - it must not be
> passed on by any other recipients; any expressed opinions are those of the
> sender and not necessarily VicRoads; VicRoads accepts no liability for any
> consequences arising from the recipient's use of this means of
> communication and/or the information contained in and/or attached to this
> communication. If this communication has been received in error, please
> contact the person who sent this communication and delete all copies.
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbl concerns

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Jul 3, 2023, 18:08 by marc_m...@mailo.com:

> Le 03.07.23 à 16:10, Cj Malone a écrit :
>
>> On Mon, 2023-07-03 at 00:05 +, Robert C Potter (DTP) via talk
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Google, Tomtom and Apple.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe it's not their preferred license, but they already use odbl data.
>>
>
> for Tomtom and Appel, of course they use it, including osm.
>
> but any reference about "google using ODBl" ?
>
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:OpenStreetMap_data_used_by_Google_Maps.png
Use for overlay public transport data.

public transport company in Warsaw uses OSM, published
timetable/route feed with required attribution, Google attributed OSM
and Warszawski Transport Publiczny as data source___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbl concerns

[Cj Malone]

On Mon, 2023-07-03 at 18:03 +0200, Marc_marc wrote:
> Le 03.07.23 à 16:10, Cj Malone a écrit :
> > On Mon, 2023-07-03 at 00:05 +, Robert C Potter (DTP) via talk
> > wrote:
> > > Google, Tomtom and Apple.
> > 
> > Maybe it's not their preferred license, but they already use odbl
> > data.
> 
> for Tomtom and Appel, of course they use it, including osm.
> 
> but any reference about "google using ODBl" ?

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2021-October/087049.html


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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbl concerns

[Hartmut Holzgraefe]

On 03.07.23 18:03, Marc_marc wrote:

but any reference about "google using ODBl" ?


via their Niantec subsidiary for Pocemon Go?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbl concerns

[Marc_marc]

Le 03.07.23 à 16:10, Cj Malone a écrit :

On Mon, 2023-07-03 at 00:05 +, Robert C Potter (DTP) via talk
wrote:

Google, Tomtom and Apple.


Maybe it's not their preferred license, but they already use odbl data.


for Tomtom and Appel, of course they use it, including osm.

but any reference about "google using ODBl" ?




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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbl concerns

[Cj Malone]

On Mon, 2023-07-03 at 00:05 +, Robert C Potter (DTP) via talk
wrote:
> Google, Tomtom and Apple.

Maybe it's not their preferred license, but they already use odbl data.

CJ



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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbl concerns

[Andrew Harvey]

Hi Robert,

To preface, I'm not a lawyer and your should seek your own independent
legal advice, but as I understand:

1. the department has made a decision to adopt OSM as your data source,
accepting the terms this data is licensed under
2. you will adapt, modify, enhance, correct or extend OSM data with your
gazetted place and road names, which likely creates a Derivative Database
under the ODbL, we'll call this DTP Validated OSM
3. where you make this DTP Validated OSM data available to others, like
your distribution partners or the public via your open data portal, it must
continue to be licensed under the ODbL.
4. The implication for your distribution partners would likely be if they
want to further adapt, enhance, correct or extend your DTP Validated OSM
data, and they then use that adapted data publicly, they must continue to
license their adaptations under the ODbL, ie. the license is viral.
5. There is nothing here preventing these distribution partners using your
DTP Validated OSM data, or making further changes or adaptations to it. If
they don't accept the terms then they don't need to use your data.

One alternative, if you create your data independently of OSM may be to
publish it with only references to OSM, e.g. to OSM object IDs or with
location references eg. OpenLR. If created independently you may be able to
license as you wish.

You could in parallel still publish a full osm derived version of the data
under ODbL for convenience for those who accept the ODbL terms.

On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 at 10:13, Robert C Potter (DTP) via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi OSM,
>
> Representing the state transport authority (Department of Transport and
> Planning) we have made the strategic decision to use OSM as our
> foundational mapping data source.  We are confident that this is a decision
> will be of value to both ourselves improving the management of the networks
> (road, Train, Bus, tram) and adding significantly to the citizens of the
> state.
>
> Our intended use of OSM is built on an extract being done then validating
> that extract for the gazetted/official place and road names. The resultant
> validated dataset will be shared that via our Opendata portal.  Our state
> government has a strong commitment to sharing all data openly.  We are
> currently developing that process and should be in production by the end of
> the year.
>
> Alas, there has been concern from our distribution partners with the ODbl
> license requirement to "Share alike".  You know these companies; Google,
> Here, Tomtom and Apple.
>
> The information we would share, and all shared as ODbl;
>
>- Disruptions
>- Heavy vehicles
>- Bicycles routes
>- Public transport routes and timetables
>
> I am wondering how we, can continue engage with these partners and use and
> improve OSM.
>
>
>
> If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Robert Potter
>
> *Helping people use the power of location to make better decisions*
>
> Manager, Spatial Data Strategy
> Department of Transport and Planning
>
> 1 Spring Street
>
> MELBOURNE 3000
>
>
> *M *0402 484 739
>
> *F* 03 9935 4111
> *E *robert.pot...@roads.vic.gov.au
> *W dtp.vic.gov.au *
>
>
> I acknowledge the Traditional Aboriginal Owners of Country throughout
> Victoria and pay my respect to Elders past and present and emerging and to
> the ongoing living culture of Aboriginal people.
>
> DISCLAIMER
>
> The following conditions apply to this communication and any attachments:
> VicRoads reserves all of its copyright; the information is intended for the
> addressees only and may be confidential and/or privileged - it must not be
> passed on by any other recipients; any expressed opinions are those of the
> sender and not necessarily VicRoads; VicRoads accepts no liability for any
> consequences arising from the recipient's use of this means of
> communication and/or the information contained in and/or attached to this
> communication. If this communication has been received in error, please
> contact the person who sent this communication and delete all copies.
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbl concerns

[Greg Troxel]

"Robert C Potter (DTP) via talk"  writes:

> Our intended use of OSM is built on an extract being done then
> validating that extract for the gazetted/official place and road
> names. The resultant validated dataset will be shared that via our
> Opendata portal.  Our state government has a strong commitment to
> sharing all data openly.  We are currently developing that process and
> should be in production by the end of the year.
>
> Alas, there has been concern from our distribution partners with the
> ODbl license requirement to "Share alike".  You know these companies;
> Google, Here, Tomtom and Apple.
>
> The information we would share, and all shared as ODbl;
>
>   *   Disruptions
>   *   Heavy vehicles
>   *   Bicycles routes
>   *   Public transport routes and timetables
>
> I am wondering how we, can continue engage with these partners and use
> and improve OSM.

With individual mapper hat on:

First, thank you for taking the time to understand OSM's license and for
respecting it.

I think you basically have to choose between:

  Use OSM.  Publish data under the ODbL.  Realize that some companies,
  perhaps because their business models involve creating non-free
  derived works of free data, will not want to use this data.  Decide
  that this is their problem, not your problem, because you made the
  data available under reasonable terms.  You can likely, for fairly
  small expense, pay for custom development of OSM-world mapping
  applications to add suport for your new data.

  Don't use OSM data at all.  Publish data as public domain.  Realize
  that some companies will process this data and use it commercially,
  perhaps with invasive ads, while not allowing those who obtain the
  data to have rights to copy/modify/share.  Consider the ethical issues
  surrounding the relationship of your citizens with this distribution
  arrangement, after reviewing your legal requirements about how to act.

My bias is probably clear; I believe governments have a duty to their
citizens, not to big companies.

If you mean, "is there any way that data derived from OSM can be used in
a (legitimate) proprietary manner by these companies?", then I think the
answer is no, there isn't.

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

[OSM-talk] ODbl concerns

[Robert C Potter (DTP) via talk]

Hi OSM,

Representing the state transport authority (Department of Transport and 
Planning) we have made the strategic decision to use OSM as our foundational 
mapping data source.  We are confident that this is a decision will be of value 
to both ourselves improving the management of the networks (road, Train, Bus, 
tram) and adding significantly to the citizens of the state.

Our intended use of OSM is built on an extract being done then validating that 
extract for the gazetted/official place and road names. The resultant validated 
dataset will be shared that via our Opendata portal.  Our state government has 
a strong commitment to sharing all data openly.  We are currently developing 
that process and should be in production by the end of the year.

Alas, there has been concern from our distribution partners with the ODbl 
license requirement to "Share alike".  You know these companies; Google, Here, 
Tomtom and Apple.

The information we would share, and all shared as ODbl;

  *   Disruptions
  *   Heavy vehicles
  *   Bicycles routes
  *   Public transport routes and timetables

I am wondering how we, can continue engage with these partners and use and 
improve OSM.



If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.



Regards,



Robert Potter

Helping people use the power of location to make better decisions

Manager, Spatial Data Strategy
Department of Transport and Planning

1 Spring Street

MELBOURNE 3000


M 0402 484 739

F 03 9935 4111
E robert.pot...@roads.vic.gov.au
W dtp.vic.gov.au

[cid:16f05bdc-8c23-42fb-9db6-2304edffd042]


I acknowledge the Traditional Aboriginal Owners of Country throughout Victoria 
and pay my respect to Elders past and present and emerging and to the ongoing 
living culture of Aboriginal people.

DISCLAIMER

The following conditions apply to this communication and any attachments: 
VicRoads reserves all of its copyright; the information is intended for the 
addressees only and may be confidential and/or privileged - it must not be 
passed on by any other recipients; any expressed opinions are those of the 
sender and not necessarily VicRoads; VicRoads accepts no liability for any 
consequences arising from the recipient's use of this means of communication 
and/or the information contained in and/or attached to this communication. If 
this communication has been received in error, please contact the person who 
sent this communication and delete all copies.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL and source tags

[Simon Poole]

Am 22.01.2017 um 13:38 schrieb David Marchal:
> ...
> I’m studying asking authorization for data import to a potential provider, 
> and have a question about the ODbL: does it mandate the preservation of 
> source tags, or at least including their content in the re-using DB 
> disclaimer? The potential data provider could be more easily convinced if I 
> could guarantee him that.
Wrong place for the question, but the answer is no and no.

Naturally any such tags are preserved at least in the database dump
including history and via the changeset and history views of objects,
but that is it, there are no downstream attribution requirements outside
of pointing back to OSM, and indirectly individual sources via the
Copyright and Contributors pages.

Simon



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

[OSM-talk] ODbL and source tags

[David Marchal]

Hello, there.

I’m studying asking authorization for data import to a potential provider, and 
have a question about the ODbL: does it mandate the preservation of source 
tags, or at least including their content in the re-using DB disclaimer? The 
potential data provider could be more easily convinced if I could guarantee him 
that.

Awaiting your answer,

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

[OSM-talk] ODBL, Trivial_Transformations and Specialised format databases

[THEVENON Julien]

Hi all,

I ask myself a question about specialised proprietary format database used in 
some applications like by example smartphone routing applications.
Quite often these applications propose you to dowwnload some map files if you 
want to use them Offline.
The issue I see with this is that user is dependant of the application provider 
for map update or scope cover by map extract.
I looked at this page : 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guidelineand
 especially part called Specialised (e.g: mobile) format databases

It is said that this is a trivial transformation and that format could be kept 
closed if data is also provided in an open format.
Ok but how to be sure that data provided in Open Format is exactly the same 
than the one contained in closed format ? by example how to check that non-OSM 
data have not been included in closed format ?

To make a parallell ( perhaps wrong ), GPLv3 requires that someone providing a 
binary using GPL code must provide the source code ( including modifiactions if 
any ) eveything needed to rebuild the binary.
"Both versions of the GPL require you to provide all the source necessary to 
build the software, including supporting libraries, compilation scripts, and so 
on. They also draw the line at System Libraries: you're not required to provide 
the source for certain core components of the operating system, such as the C 
library."
source: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html
and "GPLv3 stops tivoization by requiring the distributor to provide you with 
whatever information or data is necessary to install modified software on the 
device."



Do the ODBL requires the same for a closed format including OSM data ? or more 
clearly does it require that application provider also provide the tool used to 
perform the conversion between OSM data and closed format ?
If yes, by consequence this would allow user to be independant of application 
provider and to regenerate by itself the maps directly from OSM data.

If this topic has already been covered somewhere sorry and I'll please you to 
provide me some pointers to the discussion

Thanks by advance for you answer
Cheers
Julien

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-Planet

[Lynn W. Deffenbaugh (Mr)]

  
  
I'm getting an open error on the
  .torrent file from Vuze.  I have the planet downloaded already and
  was trying to set up a seed.  It says:
  
  
  
  Error reading torrent file  ANNOUNCE_URL malformed
  ('node://140.211.15.128:6989'  (interesting lack of close
  parenthesis there, too).  Anyone got any ideas or an alternate
  source for the .torrent file?
  
  I've got the PBF planet already seeding using the .torrent from
  
  http://openstreetmap.us/torrents/planet-120912.osm.pbf.torrent
  
  Lynn (D) - KJ4ERJ
  
  On 9/14/2012 4:26 PM, Toby Murray wrote:


  On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

  
Note that the PBF planet is still being copied / generated.

  
  
Looks like PBF generation just finished. It is still working on the .md5

I see a torrent[1] has gone up with the new osm.bz2 planet... will we
get one for pbf too?

[1] http://openstreetmap.us/torrents/planet-120912.osm.bz2.torrent

Toby

___
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] ODbL-Planet

[Martijn van Exel]

I'd help seed the PBF torrent if someone savvier than me put one up.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Toby Murray  wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>> Note that the PBF planet is still being copied / generated.
>
> Looks like PBF generation just finished. It is still working on the .md5
>
> I see a torrent[1] has gone up with the new osm.bz2 planet... will we
> get one for pbf too?
>
> [1] http://openstreetmap.us/torrents/planet-120912.osm.bz2.torrent
>
> Toby
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



-- 
martijn van exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-Planet

[Toby Murray]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
> Note that the PBF planet is still being copied / generated.

Looks like PBF generation just finished. It is still working on the .md5

I see a torrent[1] has gone up with the new osm.bz2 planet... will we
get one for pbf too?

[1] http://openstreetmap.us/torrents/planet-120912.osm.bz2.torrent

Toby

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-Planet

[Gregory Williams]

A further mirror is available here:

http://www.spokeseastkent.org.uk/downloads/planet-120912.osm.bz2

Gregory

> -Original Message-
> From: Martijn van Exel [mailto:m...@rtijn.org]
> Sent: 14 September 2012 18:42
> To: Roland Olbricht
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-Planet
> 
> Note that the PBF planet is still being copied / generated.
> 
> Martijn
> 
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Roland Olbricht 
> wrote:
> >> The page 'http://planet.openstreetmap.org/' still says planet
> >> "created 2
> >
> >> weeks ago". Is it The new planet?
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes it is. It is a copy of
> >
> > http://planet.openstreetmap.org/planet/2012/planet-120912.osm.bz2
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> >
> > Roland
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> martijn van exel
> http://oegeo.wordpress.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] ODbL-Planet

[Martijn van Exel]

Note that the PBF planet is still being copied / generated.

Martijn

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Roland Olbricht
 wrote:
>> The page 'http://planet.openstreetmap.org/' still says planet "created 2
>
>> weeks ago". Is it The new planet?
>
>
>
> Yes it is. It is a copy of
>
> http://planet.openstreetmap.org/planet/2012/planet-120912.osm.bz2
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Roland
>
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
martijn van exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-Planet

[Roland Olbricht]

> The page 'http://planet.openstreetmap.org/' still says planet "created 2
> weeks ago". Is it The new planet?

Yes it is. It is a copy of
http://planet.openstreetmap.org/planet/2012/planet-120912.osm.bz2

Cheers,

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-Planet

[Malcolm Herring]

On 14/09/2012 18:04, Pavel Melnikov wrote:

The page 'http://planet.openstreetmap.org/' still says planet "created 2
weeks ago". Is it The new planet?


That refers to the last weekly planet. The new planet is at the bottom 
of the page: planet-120912.osm.bz2



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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-Planet

[Pavel Melnikov]

The page 'http://planet.openstreetmap.org/' still says planet "created 2
weeks ago". Is it The new planet?
On Sep 15, 2012 12:00 AM, "Roland Olbricht"  wrote:

> **
>
> Hello everybody,
>
>
>
> the first ODbL planet has arrived. A big thank you to all who have
> contributed.
>
>
>
> To lift some load off planet.openstreetmap.org, I'll make my copy of the
> planet accessible (for some days) on
>
> http://overpass-api.de/misc/planet-latest.osm.bz2
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Roland
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] ODbL-Planet

[Roland Olbricht]

Hello everybody,

the first ODbL planet has arrived. A big thank you to all who have 
contributed.

To lift some load off planet.openstreetmap.org, I'll make my copy of the 
planet accessible (for some days) on
http://overpass-api.de/misc/planet-latest.osm.bz2

Cheers,

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL Attribution

[Richard Fairhurst]

Jochen123 wrote:
> In preparation for the release of an ODbL-Licensed planet I have been 
> looking around what the official proper attribution will be, so that I can 
> update all sites where I am using OSM data. I didn't find anything on 
> the Wiki.

A couple of months back I wrote
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ/ODbL

and threw it out for review by people.

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/ODbL-Attribution-tp5717937p5717949.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

[OSM-talk] ODbL Attribution

[Jochen Topf]

In preparation for the release of an ODbL-Licensed planet I have been looking
around what the official proper attribution will be, so that I can update all
sites where I am using OSM data. I didn't find anything on the Wiki.

Jochen
-- 
Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  http://www.remote.org/jochen/  +49-721-388298


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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[ThomasB]

do you think that you can update the data before we enter to the read only
phase? I don't want to push you...you data was very helpful for remapping. 

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/ODbL-clean-Coastlines-tp5591448p5607499.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] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[Paul Norman]

> From: ThomasB [mailto:toba0...@yahoo.de]
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
> 
> just fyithe generation of the processedc_p failed. It say it has 46
> Byte.
> coastlinec_p seems to be okay

My jxapi instance is lagged behind - it lost its state.txt file in a crash
and fell a couple days behind. Not knowing the age of the data, my
generation script refused to generate, as intended. My upload script ignored
the return code and tried to upload anyways, not as intended.

Also, a bug in cleanway was found. Cleanway ignores tags and queries WTFE
which does not consider odbl=clean, so cleanway does not consider
odbl=clean. I can fix this, but need to write some code.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[ThomasB]

just fyithe generation of the processedc_p failed. It say it has 46 Byte.
coastlinec_p seems to be okay

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/ODbL-clean-Coastlines-tp5591448p5604606.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] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[NopMap]

Paul Norman wrote
> 
> When examining the data, I found most of the ODbL-dirty status was mainly
> from the following accounts:
> hasse_osm_korinthenkacker (Antarctica)
> Kin (Antarctica)
> Blars (US West coast)
> 

Actually, in might be pretty simple in the first case. To the best of my
knowledge, the account "hasse_osm_korinthenkacker" (translation:
"hate_osm_nitpickers") is known for mass downloading, erasing and
re-uploading the unmodified data under his name. In his case dropping all
his changesets in the area might be the solution.

bye
 Nop


--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/ODbL-clean-Coastlines-tp5591448p5603212.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] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 3/24/2012 7:13 AM, David Groom wrote:

- Original Message - From: "Paul Norman" 

- Adopting changesets. Many of the dirty ways and nodes appear to be
imported. If the imported just imported PD data than they have no IP
in the
ways and they can be retained.


Are you saying that it is impossible for data originally derived from PD
to ever have IP in it, no matter what else is subsequently done to it?


No. What he's saying is that the person who imported, by simply 
importing PD data without adding anything to it, has no copyright 
interest in it.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[Russ Nelson]

David Groom writes:
 > > But all theories of law aside, as a practical matter, if someone
 > > hasn't bothered to decline, they're not going to bother to sue. You
 > 
 > The argument "hey,  we understand we don't know if we have any right to use 
 > this data, buts lets leave it in and hope no one complains" doesn't sound a 
 > particularly moral one to me.  It also seems to set a rather dangerous 
 > precedent.

Copyright isn't property. It's a bargain. We agree not to copy a work
for a period of time, unless the copying is not for profit, is
educational, is limited in quantity and/or a number of other nuances
that don't fit into "not particularly moral."

 > Your worse case sounds so harmless.  Of course it's possible to sketch an 
 > alternative worse case scenario:
 > 
 > At some time in the future after being asked to delete the offending data, 
 > the data is deleted and ... ...
 > 
 > a) all those contributors who had  made edits to that data after 1 April 
 > 2012 get very annoyed because they see the results of their work deleted., 

You are describing the current case, more or less. "We had to kill OSM
to save it." We already are finding that swathes of data are
contaminated and will be deleted, e.g. most of the west coast of the
U.S. and most of the Great Lakes, which also means going up a fair
ways into the continent because the larger rivers are considered
coastline. That was a gotcha for me. The Racquette, the Grass, and the
Oswegatchie were all going to be deleted because they were coastline,
public domain data imported by a user we cannot ask to sign onto the
CT, but who supposedly might sue us even though they can't even be
bothered to decline. I'm FINE with preserving the anonymity, and I'm
even FINE with allowing anonymous users to decline.

I'm NOT FINE with allowing unnamed people to hold a copyright without
bothering to decline. There's a REASON why copyright notices have to
contain the name of the copyright holder.

This situation has just gotten ridiculous. The OSMF is saying that it
cannot use:

  o public domain data,
  o which may have been edited, but which shows no signs of having been,
  o which has been modified until it is not recognizable as the original.
  o imported by a user whom nobody can contact,
  o who has not bothered to decline acceptance of the OdBL,
  o a license nearly identical to the existing license.

And people are trying to defend this, against all logic, because they
think copyright is inviolate, and that judges are just computers,
executing the law as if their JUDGEment cannot come into play.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Russ Nelson" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines



Paul Norman writes:
> > It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted or
> > declined are having their copyright respected. If you don't post your
> > land *with your name and address* in New York State, you cannot
> > successfully pursue a claim of trespass.
>
> Copyright applies when you author something, regardless of if you state 
> your

> name on it.

I can make any kind of claims of ownership of land that I want. Unless
I go to the county clerk's office and register my claim under my name,
they won't enforce my claim against anyone else.

But all theories of law aside, as a practical matter, if someone
hasn't bothered to decline, they're not going to bother to sue. You


The argument "hey,  we understand we don't know if we have any right to use 
this data, buts lets leave it in and hope no one complains" doesn't sound a 
particularly moral one to me.  It also seems to set a rather dangerous 
precedent.



have to consider what copyright law is for: it's a temporary monopoly
granted to protect revenue. If there's no potential for restricting
distribution under CC-By-SA, and there's no potential for restricting
distribution under the OdBL, what loss in revenue has anybody
suffered? What nutcase is going to bother to sue anybody over
distributing under one free license versus a different free license
where neither one has the potential for proprietary distribution?
Nobody's making money here, and it costs money to sue. A LOT of
money. No lawyer is going to take your case on unless there are
punitive or actual damages.

Worst comes to worse, you claim innocent infringement because you
thought you were distributing under fair use, you delete the offending
data, and life goes on. In other words, the worst a lawsuit is going
to cost the OSMF is THE HARM IT'S VOLUNTARILY DOING TO ITSELF.



Your worse case sounds so harmless.  Of course it's possible to sketch an 
alternative worse case scenario:


At some time in the future after being asked to delete the offending data, 
the data is deleted and ... ...


a) all those contributors who had  made edits to that data after 1 April 
2012 get very annoyed because they see the results of their work deleted., 
and when they query this they are told "hey, its a risk we thought we'd 
take, and by the way we may have to delete a load more data in the future, 
so be careful what bits of OSM you edit".


b) users of OSM data get very annoyed because having seen masses of data 
disappear once, they suddenly see masses of data disappear again, and when 
they query this they are told "hey, its a risk we thought we'd take, and by 
the way we may have to delete a load more data in the future, so be careful 
which bits of OSM data you use".


David


--
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog

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





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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[Paul Norman]

> -Original Message-
> From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:21 PM
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
> 
> Paul Norman writes:
>  > > It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted
> or  > > declined are having their copyright respected. If you don't post
> your  > > land *with your name and address* in New York State, you
> cannot  > > successfully pursue a claim of trespass.
>  >
>  > Copyright applies when you author something, regardless of if you
> state your  > name on it.
> 
> I can make any kind of claims of ownership of land that I want. Unless I
> go to the county clerk's office and register my claim under my name,
> they won't enforce my claim against anyone else.
> 
> But all theories of law aside, as a practical matter, if someone hasn't
> bothered to decline, they're not going to bother to sue.

There are people strongly opposed to the license change who have not
declined.

OSMF has the exact same rights for redistributing contributions from someone
who has not responded as someone has declined.

> You have to
> consider what copyright law is for: it's a temporary monopoly granted to
> protect revenue. If there's no potential for restricting distribution
> under CC-By-SA, and there's no potential for restricting distribution
> under the OdBL, what loss in revenue has anybody suffered? What nutcase
> is going to bother to sue anybody over distributing under one free
> license versus a different free license where neither one has the
> potential for proprietary distribution?
> Nobody's making money here, and it costs money to sue. A LOT of money.
> No lawyer is going to take your case on unless there are punitive or
> actual damages.

Copyright holders have plenty of options short of suing. I believe in some
jurisdictions damages are automatic if the copyright is registered.

> Worst comes to worse, you claim innocent infringement because you
> thought you were distributing under fair use, you delete the offending
> data, and life goes on. In other words, the worst a lawsuit is going to
> cost the OSMF is THE HARM IT'S VOLUNTARILY DOING TO ITSELF.

You think that OSMF could claim that distributing contributions that it
knows it only has a license to under cc-by-sa under a different license
could be fair use?

Also remember that these people are not anonymous to the OSMF. They've got
registration information on them just like they do on every other user. It's
just not displayed in what they make public through the API and planet
files.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[Russ Nelson]

Paul Norman writes:
 > > It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted or
 > > declined are having their copyright respected. If you don't post your
 > > land *with your name and address* in New York State, you cannot
 > > successfully pursue a claim of trespass.
 > 
 > Copyright applies when you author something, regardless of if you state your
 > name on it.

I can make any kind of claims of ownership of land that I want. Unless
I go to the county clerk's office and register my claim under my name,
they won't enforce my claim against anyone else.

But all theories of law aside, as a practical matter, if someone
hasn't bothered to decline, they're not going to bother to sue. You
have to consider what copyright law is for: it's a temporary monopoly
granted to protect revenue. If there's no potential for restricting
distribution under CC-By-SA, and there's no potential for restricting
distribution under the OdBL, what loss in revenue has anybody
suffered? What nutcase is going to bother to sue anybody over
distributing under one free license versus a different free license
where neither one has the potential for proprietary distribution?
Nobody's making money here, and it costs money to sue. A LOT of
money. No lawyer is going to take your case on unless there are
punitive or actual damages.

Worst comes to worse, you claim innocent infringement because you
thought you were distributing under fair use, you delete the offending
data, and life goes on. In other words, the worst a lawsuit is going
to cost the OSMF is THE HARM IT'S VOLUNTARILY DOING TO ITSELF.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[Paul Norman]

> -Original Message-
> From: David Groom [mailto:revi...@pacific-rim.net]
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
> - Original Message -
> From: "Russ Nelson" 
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
> 
> 
> > Paul Norman writes:
> > > I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server,
> using
> > > the
> > > latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it over to
> filter
> > > out
> > > data that WTFE reports as dirty. This is somewhat more aggressive
> than
> > > the
> > > rebuild will be, but the results are worrisome.
> >
> > Na, not particularly. If you've looked at the PGS, you'll see that
> > it is 99% crap. My problem with it is that 1) it's public domain, 2)
> > imported by an anonymous user, 3) I fixed it in my region, leaving
> > nothing remaining from the original import except the node and way
> > existence, BUT (you knew there was a but) without the odbl=clean tag
> > that I added, it would have been deleted. Or, at least, OSMI says it
> > would have been deleted.
> >
> > Why are we deleting public domain data from OSM? If it says
> > source=PGS, it should not be deleted no matter who did the import.
> > If it was subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different.
> 
> I guess there are at least two problems.
> 
> Firstly the PGS import script had a "simplification factor" variable,
> which
> the person running the import could change.  I know that prior to doing
> my
> imports I played "around with" a number of different values for this
> variable to strike what I thought  was an acceptable trade off between
> number of nodes created, and the complexity of the resulting ways.
> Therefore what was uploaded to OSM was not simply PGS data, but was PGS
> data
> as amended by my decision making process.  I guess you would have to
> know if
> the user who did the imports in question made any similar changes.
> 
> Secondly you could use the PGS import script in two ways.  Either (i)
> run
> the script against the PGS data and let the script directly upload to
> OSM ;
> or (ii)  use script to create an OSM file, which could then be edited in
> JOSM, and then use JOSM to upload the data.  If choosing method (ii) you
> were then able to look at the data in JOSM and make corrections to it
> before
> uploading to OSM.  Although when doing my imports I started using (i) I
> later switched to method (ii) because that way what I uploaded to OSM
> was
> more error free. Had I now been a CT decliner I see no legal difference
> between the resulting data in this instance and data which "If it was
> subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different".

Yes - You'd need to know the process the importer used to see if they had
any IP in what was uploaded. This has been done for some CORINE imports with
changeset overrides
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quick_History_Service)


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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[Russ Nelson]

Stephan Knauss writes:
 > Users not agreeing or not responding have to be treated the same way, 
 > regardless of their nick known or not.

Non-responsive.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[Paul Norman]

> -Original Message-
> From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 7:42 AM
> To: Paul Norman
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines
> 
> Paul Norman writes:
>  > I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server,
> using the  > latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it
> over to filter out  > data that WTFE reports as dirty. This is somewhat
> more aggressive than the  > rebuild will be, but the results are
> worrisome.
> 
> Na, not particularly. If you've looked at the PGS, you'll see that
> it is 99% crap. My problem with it is that 1) it's public domain, 2)
> imported by an anonymous user, 3) I fixed it in my region, leaving
> nothing remaining from the original import except the node and way
> existence, BUT (you knew there was a but) without the odbl=clean tag
> that I added, it would have been deleted. Or, at least, OSMI says it
> would have been deleted.
> 
> Why are we deleting public domain data from OSM? If it says source=PGS,
> it should not be deleted no matter who did the import.
> If it was subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different.
> 
> It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted or
> declined are having their copyright respected. If you don't post your
> land *with your name and address* in New York State, you cannot
> successfully pursue a claim of trespass.

Copyright applies when you author something, regardless of if you state your
name on it. As OSMF is the party wanting to do something not allowed by the
(implied) license of the contributer, they have to seek permission. If the
copyright holder decides not to reply, OSMF doesn't have permission to
license it under different terms.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[Stephan Knauss]

On 24.03.2012 19:12, Russ Nelson wrote:

David Groom writes:
  >  more error free. Had I now been a CT decliner I see no legal difference
  >  between the resulting data in this instance and data which "If it was
  >  subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different".

How would we ever know? They're anonymous. If they want to come
forward and claim their copyright, then sure. But if not, then not.


They are not anonymous. You just can't see their nickname.
If they log in and agree to the contributor terms their edits will be 
contained in the ODbL version of the planet.


Here is a list of changesets of agreeing users still listed as anonymous 
UID 0


http://planet.openstreetmap.org/users_agreed/anon_changesets_agreed.txt

Users not agreeing or not responding have to be treated the same way, 
regardless of their nick known or not.


Stephan



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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[Russ Nelson]

David Groom writes:
 > more error free. Had I now been a CT decliner I see no legal difference 
 > between the resulting data in this instance and data which "If it was 
 > subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different".

How would we ever know? They're anonymous. If they want to come
forward and claim their copyright, then sure. But if not, then not.

You can't be anonymous and claim a copyright. The two concepts are
incompatible.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Russ Nelson" 

To: "Paul Norman" 
Cc: 
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines



Paul Norman writes:
> I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server, using 
> the
> latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it over to filter 
> out
> data that WTFE reports as dirty. This is somewhat more aggressive than 
> the

> rebuild will be, but the results are worrisome.

Na, not particularly. If you've looked at the PGS, you'll see that
it is 99% crap. My problem with it is that 1) it's public domain, 2)
imported by an anonymous user, 3) I fixed it in my region, leaving
nothing remaining from the original import except the node and way
existence, BUT (you knew there was a but) without the odbl=clean tag
that I added, it would have been deleted. Or, at least, OSMI says it
would have been deleted.

Why are we deleting public domain data from OSM? If it says
source=PGS, it should not be deleted no matter who did the import.
If it was subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different.


I guess there are at least two problems.

Firstly the PGS import script had a "simplification factor" variable, which 
the person running the import could change.  I know that prior to doing my 
imports I played "around with" a number of different values for this 
variable to strike what I thought  was an acceptable trade off between 
number of nodes created, and the complexity of the resulting ways. 
Therefore what was uploaded to OSM was not simply PGS data, but was PGS data 
as amended by my decision making process.  I guess you would have to know if 
the user who did the imports in question made any similar changes.


Secondly you could use the PGS import script in two ways.  Either (i) run 
the script against the PGS data and let the script directly upload to OSM ; 
or (ii)  use script to create an OSM file, which could then be edited in 
JOSM, and then use JOSM to upload the data.  If choosing method (ii) you 
were then able to look at the data in JOSM and make corrections to it before 
uploading to OSM.  Although when doing my imports I started using (i) I 
later switched to method (ii) because that way what I uploaded to OSM was 
more error free. Had I now been a CT decliner I see no legal difference 
between the resulting data in this instance and data which "If it was 
subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different".


David




It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted or
declined are having their copyright respected. If you don't post your
land *with your name and address* in New York State, you cannot
successfully pursue a claim of trespass.

--
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog

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





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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[Russ Nelson]

Paul Norman writes:
 > I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server, using the
 > latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it over to filter out
 > data that WTFE reports as dirty. This is somewhat more aggressive than the
 > rebuild will be, but the results are worrisome.

Na, not particularly. If you've looked at the PGS, you'll see that
it is 99% crap. My problem with it is that 1) it's public domain, 2)
imported by an anonymous user, 3) I fixed it in my region, leaving
nothing remaining from the original import except the node and way
existence, BUT (you knew there was a but) without the odbl=clean tag
that I added, it would have been deleted. Or, at least, OSMI says it
would have been deleted.

Why are we deleting public domain data from OSM? If it says
source=PGS, it should not be deleted no matter who did the import.
If it was subsequently edited by a decliner, well, that's different.

It's particularly galling that anonymous users who haven't accepted or
declined are having their copyright respected. If you don't post your
land *with your name and address* in New York State, you cannot
successfully pursue a claim of trespass.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[Thomas Davie]

> 
> One advantage of remapping is the possibility that there are now better data 
> sets available for import than the PGS data which was originally used.  I'm 
> particularly thinking here of the US & Canada.

This is exactly what I've been doing – non-safe coastline in the UK using the 
OS OpenData StreetView MHWS to go by, it's a massive amount more detailed than 
the PGS stuff as an added bonus.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[Simon Poole]

I was just going to suggest this, while it limits you to  CC_by-SA 2.0
as a licence for tiles (or similar), there is no reason that you
couldn't use a pre-licence change coastline for rendering (in the case
of the main OSM site, the tiles are going to remain CC-by-SA 2.0 anyway).

Simon

Am 24.03.2012 12:13, schrieb David Groom:
>
>
> There is I think one other option.  Since a pretty much error free
> processed_p.shp file will be available just up to the licence switch
> over, then is it not legally possible to continue use this file in
> Mapnik combined with post switch over OSM data to create the maps. 
> The missing coastline in OSM can then be re-mapped on a more leisurely
> basis.
>
> David
>
>


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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Norman" 

To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:34 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines



I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server, using the
latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it over to filter out
data that WTFE reports as dirty. This is somewhat more aggressive than the
rebuild will be, but the results are worrisome.

A PNG showing the OSM coastline post-transition along with red dots for
where the coastcheck program found errors is at
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines24b.png
The red dots represent places where coastcheck found an error

A few things can be seen:
No continent will generate a satisfactory rendering. Australia, the US, 
most

of Africa and most of Eurasia from 50 degrees south will be completely
flooded.


Paul
thanks a lot for generating this, the situation is far worse than I had 
thought it was going to be.




There are 3471 points where coastcheck found errors. Normally I would 
expect

about 10.

The following areas are particularly bad:
The west coast of the US
The US coast of the Great Lakes
Australia
Antarctica (which has significant parts completely missing with no error
points since there's nothing left to even try to close)

When examining the data, I found most of the ODbL-dirty status was mainly
from the following accounts:
hasse_osm_korinthenkacker (Antarctica)
Kin (Antarctica)
Blars (US West coast)

I see a few ways for dealing with the coastlines:
- Remapping. Obviously this is the only option where the coastline was
actually created by the non-acceptor.


One advantage of remapping is the possibility that there are now better data 
sets available for import than the PGS data which was originally used.  I'm 
particularly thinking here of the US & Canada.



- Adopting changesets. Many of the dirty ways and nodes appear to be
imported. If the imported just imported PD data than they have no IP in 
the

ways and they can be retained.


Are you saying that it is impossible for data originally derived from PD to 
ever have IP in it, no matter what else is subsequently done to it?



- odbl=clean. It's generally easy to verify that a way is a coastline from
imagery



There is I think one other option.  Since a pretty much error free 
processed_p.shp file will be available just up to the licence switch over, 
then is it not legally possible to continue use this file in Mapnik combined 
with post switch over OSM data to create the maps.  The missing coastline in 
OSM can then be re-mapped on a more leisurely basis.


David


My coastline files are available in the usual location of
http://pnorman.dev.openstreetmap.org/coastlines/ but are named 
coastlinec_p
and processedc_p. processedc_p has not yet uploaded but will be complete 
in

about an hour.

Additional detail of some regions can be found at
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-europe.png
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-na-lakes.png
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-na-west.png
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-nz.png
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-au.png

If opening processedc_p in QGIS be sure to make a spatial index or it will
crawl.

A refresher on coastlines for those who haven't tagged them in awhile:

Direction *matters*. Land on the left, water on the right.

Each end of each way should join with exactly one other natural=coastline
way

I am not sure when each processedc_p file will be completed. Cron starts 
the
job at 5 AM PST and I'd expect it to take about 5 hours, mainly depending 
on
WTFE server speed and my upload speed to errol. The coastlinec_p files 
will

be uploaded first so arrive at the server earlier.

Technical details:
The results of the jxapi way[natural=coastline] is filtered by cleanway to
remove any objects reported as severity=normal, leaving behind 0 or 1 node
ways if necessary. It then is passed to the coastcheck programs and the
results uploaded.

A CT-clean way to which a decliner added a tag other than 
natural=coastline

would be removed by this algorithm, but not by the rebuild.


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





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

[OSM-talk] ODbL-clean Coastlines

[Paul Norman]

I have been running a nightly coastline generation on my server, using the
latest data from my jxapi server. Tonight I switched it over to filter out
data that WTFE reports as dirty. This is somewhat more aggressive than the
rebuild will be, but the results are worrisome.

A PNG showing the OSM coastline post-transition along with red dots for
where the coastcheck program found errors is at
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines24b.png
The red dots represent places where coastcheck found an error

A few things can be seen: 
No continent will generate a satisfactory rendering. Australia, the US, most
of Africa and most of Eurasia from 50 degrees south will be completely
flooded.

There are 3471 points where coastcheck found errors. Normally I would expect
about 10. 

The following areas are particularly bad:
The west coast of the US
The US coast of the Great Lakes
Australia
Antarctica (which has significant parts completely missing with no error
points since there's nothing left to even try to close)

When examining the data, I found most of the ODbL-dirty status was mainly
from the following accounts:
hasse_osm_korinthenkacker (Antarctica)
Kin (Antarctica)
Blars (US West coast)

I see a few ways for dealing with the coastlines:
- Remapping. Obviously this is the only option where the coastline was
actually created by the non-acceptor.
- Adopting changesets. Many of the dirty ways and nodes appear to be
imported. If the imported just imported PD data than they have no IP in the
ways and they can be retained.
- odbl=clean. It's generally easy to verify that a way is a coastline from
imagery

My coastline files are available in the usual location of
http://pnorman.dev.openstreetmap.org/coastlines/ but are named coastlinec_p
and processedc_p. processedc_p has not yet uploaded but will be complete in
about an hour.

Additional detail of some regions can be found at
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-europe.png
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-na-lakes.png
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-na-west.png
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-nz.png
http://maps.paulnorman.ca/coastlines-au.png

If opening processedc_p in QGIS be sure to make a spatial index or it will
crawl.

A refresher on coastlines for those who haven't tagged them in awhile:

Direction *matters*. Land on the left, water on the right.

Each end of each way should join with exactly one other natural=coastline
way

I am not sure when each processedc_p file will be completed. Cron starts the
job at 5 AM PST and I'd expect it to take about 5 hours, mainly depending on
WTFE server speed and my upload speed to errol. The coastlinec_p files will
be uploaded first so arrive at the server earlier.

Technical details:
The results of the jxapi way[natural=coastline] is filtered by cleanway to
remove any objects reported as severity=normal, leaving behind 0 or 1 node
ways if necessary. It then is passed to the coastcheck programs and the
results uploaded.

A CT-clean way to which a decliner added a tag other than natural=coastline
would be removed by this algorithm, but not by the rebuild.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl non-agreement and humanitarian exceptions.

[Michael Collinson]

FYI, you can now see declined and undecided mappers in the Haiti and 
Dominican Republic at


http://odbl.de/haiti-and-domrep.html

http://odbl.poole.ch/ 
http://odbl.poole.ch/haiti-domrep-20111208-20120201-poly.html


Thank you to OSM users SunCobalt and wicking and to Simon Poole 
respectively for providing these.


Mike

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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl non-agreement and humanitarian exceptions.

[Paul Norman]

In a case like that, I would expect that the geometry would then be the
issue and retracing would be required. I suppose a potential workflow would
be to look at an objects, see what tags are CT-clean and then trace a new
object with those tags.

> -Original Message-
> From: Kate Chapman [mailto:k...@maploser.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 7:18 PM
> To: Paul Norman
> Cc: openstreetmap; nicolas chavent
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] odbl non-agreement and humanitarian exceptions.
> 
> This is going to require some analysis, but I believe all of the
> decliners were tracing from satellite imagery.  So the specific tags
> added would have been detailed information about those objects.
> 
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:
> > If it wasn't you surveying it, you'd have to verify that nothing
> > remained of the decliners contributions. Just because someone surveyed
> > something doesn't mean that they surveyed all the v1 data (for an
> > example where v1 was from a
> > decliner)
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Kate Chapman [mailto:k...@maploser.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:18 PM
> >> To: Michael Collinson
> >> Cc: hot; OSM Talk
> >> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] odbl non-agreement and humanitarian
> exceptions.
> >>
> >> Much of this data has already been ground surveyed.  Would it be
> >> possible based on the source tags to mark things odbl=clean?
> >>
> >> I think that would take care of a large majority of the problem,
> >> since there has been so much on the ground work since the earthquake.
> >>
> >> -Kate
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Michael Collinson 
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 02/02/2012 16:23, Larry O'Neill wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi All,
> >> >>
> >> >> Apologies for any overlap in recipients for this - I very rarely
> >> >> post to mailing lists, so I am not sure how wide a net for this
> >> >> issue would be appropriate.
> >> >>
> >> >> There was a discussion on the #osm irc channel recently about the
> >> >> possibility of approaching non-agreers to the new CT about any
> >> >> data they may have contributed to areas where the removal of such
> >> >> data could have a negative effect on our humanitarian efforts.
> >> >> Looking for example at how much data we stand to lose in Haiti,
> >> >> this is something that may limit the difficulty of those that are
> >> >> on the ground in these places and struggling to remap.
> >> >>
> >> >> The possibility of haing a bounding box around areas such as these
> >> >> was mentioned - and there is aparantly a precedent for a users
> >> >> data within a BB being retained.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any thoughts, comments, or points?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Larry O'Neill
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hi Larry,
> >> >
> >> > It looks as though there are no specific licensing issues as
> >> > regards base data/photos used in Haiti [1]. The issue appears to be
> >> > confined to mappers who have been active in the area but have
> >> > either declined or not yet responded to requests to re-license? [2]
> >> >
> >> > We will need their individual permissions, the simplest way being
> >> > just to ask them to respond to the new terms.  Friendly, courteous
> >> > messages coming from individual mappers working in the same area
> >> > have been highly effective in a number of countries. I would expect
> >> > it to be doubly so here. We can then revisit the issue in say, two
> >> > weeks time
> >> and see if anyone is left.
> >> >
> >> > I am immediately going to ask for a Haiti/Dominican Republic link
> >> > to be added to http://odbl.de/ and http://odbl.poole.ch/ Then you
> >> > can just read off the names and status.
> >> >
> >> > Meanwhile, you can use the OSMI License View tool to get started.
> >> > Here is an incomplete list I just grabbed using it:
> >> >
> >> > Exponent, Brent Miller, cetest, osmapb1, Tinono, rendle, Tinono,
> >> > EvaStern, robbert, Sidneyleenen, Elle_M, DDDarek, veugelke, Mirko
> >> > Küster, Eddy Frometa, Alfredo Gil, Jochen Plumeyer, llibre
> >> >
> >>

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl non-agreement and humanitarian exceptions.

[Kate Chapman]

This is going to require some analysis, but I believe all of the
decliners were tracing from satellite imagery.  So the specific tags
added would have been detailed information about those objects.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:
> If it wasn't you surveying it, you'd have to verify that nothing remained of
> the decliners contributions. Just because someone surveyed something doesn't
> mean that they surveyed all the v1 data (for an example where v1 was from a
> decliner)
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Kate Chapman [mailto:k...@maploser.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:18 PM
>> To: Michael Collinson
>> Cc: hot; OSM Talk
>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] odbl non-agreement and humanitarian exceptions.
>>
>> Much of this data has already been ground surveyed.  Would it be
>> possible based on the source tags to mark things odbl=clean?
>>
>> I think that would take care of a large majority of the problem, since
>> there has been so much on the ground work since the earthquake.
>>
>> -Kate
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Michael Collinson 
>> wrote:
>> > On 02/02/2012 16:23, Larry O'Neill wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi All,
>> >>
>> >> Apologies for any overlap in recipients for this - I very rarely post
>> >> to mailing lists, so I am not sure how wide a net for this issue
>> >> would be appropriate.
>> >>
>> >> There was a discussion on the #osm irc channel recently about the
>> >> possibility of approaching non-agreers to the new CT about any data
>> >> they may have contributed to areas where the removal of such data
>> >> could have a negative effect on our humanitarian efforts.
>> >> Looking for example at how much data we stand to lose in Haiti, this
>> >> is something that may limit the difficulty of those that are on the
>> >> ground in these places and struggling to remap.
>> >>
>> >> The possibility of haing a bounding box around areas such as these
>> >> was mentioned - and there is aparantly a precedent for a users data
>> >> within a BB being retained.
>> >>
>> >> Any thoughts, comments, or points?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Larry O'Neill
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Larry,
>> >
>> > It looks as though there are no specific licensing issues as regards
>> > base data/photos used in Haiti [1]. The issue appears to be confined
>> > to mappers who have been active in the area but have either declined
>> > or not yet responded to requests to re-license? [2]
>> >
>> > We will need their individual permissions, the simplest way being just
>> > to ask them to respond to the new terms.  Friendly, courteous messages
>> > coming from individual mappers working in the same area have been
>> > highly effective in a number of countries. I would expect it to be
>> > doubly so here. We can then revisit the issue in say, two weeks time
>> and see if anyone is left.
>> >
>> > I am immediately going to ask for a Haiti/Dominican Republic link to
>> > be added to http://odbl.de/ and http://odbl.poole.ch/ Then you can
>> > just read off the names and status.
>> >
>> > Meanwhile, you can use the OSMI License View tool to get started. Here
>> > is an incomplete list I just grabbed using it:
>> >
>> > Exponent, Brent Miller, cetest, osmapb1, Tinono, rendle, Tinono,
>> > EvaStern, robbert, Sidneyleenen, Elle_M, DDDarek, veugelke, Mirko
>> > Küster, Eddy Frometa, Alfredo Gil, Jochen Plumeyer, llibre
>> >
>> > It is good know their status.  You can do that by feeding them into
>> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ or seeing if they are on
>> >
>> > http://odbl.poole.ch/central-america-20111208-20120201-poly.html
>> >
>> > This wiki page can be used to coordinate efforts:
>> >
>> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Asking_users_to_accept_the_ODbL
>> >
>> > Please do not hesitate to coordinate with us at
>> > le...@osmfoundation.org . We will do our best to assist.
>> >
>> > Mike
>> > License Working Group
>> >
>> > [1]. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue (Appears to
>> > be only Digital Orthophotos)
>> >
>> > [2]
>> > http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-71.35913&lat=18.22309&z
>> > oom=7&opacity=0.69&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_clean,wtfe_line_clean,
>> > wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_m
>> > odified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,
>> > wtfe_line_created
>> >
>> > ___
>> > talk mailing list
>> > talk@openstreetmap.org
>> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>> ___
>> 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] odbl non-agreement and humanitarian exceptions.

[Paul Norman]

If it wasn't you surveying it, you'd have to verify that nothing remained of
the decliners contributions. Just because someone surveyed something doesn't
mean that they surveyed all the v1 data (for an example where v1 was from a
decliner)

> -Original Message-
> From: Kate Chapman [mailto:k...@maploser.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:18 PM
> To: Michael Collinson
> Cc: hot; OSM Talk
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] odbl non-agreement and humanitarian exceptions.
> 
> Much of this data has already been ground surveyed.  Would it be
> possible based on the source tags to mark things odbl=clean?
> 
> I think that would take care of a large majority of the problem, since
> there has been so much on the ground work since the earthquake.
> 
> -Kate
> 
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Michael Collinson 
> wrote:
> > On 02/02/2012 16:23, Larry O'Neill wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> Apologies for any overlap in recipients for this - I very rarely post
> >> to mailing lists, so I am not sure how wide a net for this issue
> >> would be appropriate.
> >>
> >> There was a discussion on the #osm irc channel recently about the
> >> possibility of approaching non-agreers to the new CT about any data
> >> they may have contributed to areas where the removal of such data
> >> could have a negative effect on our humanitarian efforts.
> >> Looking for example at how much data we stand to lose in Haiti, this
> >> is something that may limit the difficulty of those that are on the
> >> ground in these places and struggling to remap.
> >>
> >> The possibility of haing a bounding box around areas such as these
> >> was mentioned - and there is aparantly a precedent for a users data
> >> within a BB being retained.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts, comments, or points?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Larry O'Neill
> >
> >
> > Hi Larry,
> >
> > It looks as though there are no specific licensing issues as regards
> > base data/photos used in Haiti [1]. The issue appears to be confined
> > to mappers who have been active in the area but have either declined
> > or not yet responded to requests to re-license? [2]
> >
> > We will need their individual permissions, the simplest way being just
> > to ask them to respond to the new terms.  Friendly, courteous messages
> > coming from individual mappers working in the same area have been
> > highly effective in a number of countries. I would expect it to be
> > doubly so here. We can then revisit the issue in say, two weeks time
> and see if anyone is left.
> >
> > I am immediately going to ask for a Haiti/Dominican Republic link to
> > be added to http://odbl.de/ and http://odbl.poole.ch/ Then you can
> > just read off the names and status.
> >
> > Meanwhile, you can use the OSMI License View tool to get started. Here
> > is an incomplete list I just grabbed using it:
> >
> > Exponent, Brent Miller, cetest, osmapb1, Tinono, rendle, Tinono,
> > EvaStern, robbert, Sidneyleenen, Elle_M, DDDarek, veugelke, Mirko
> > Küster, Eddy Frometa, Alfredo Gil, Jochen Plumeyer, llibre
> >
> > It is good know their status.  You can do that by feeding them into
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ or seeing if they are on
> >
> > http://odbl.poole.ch/central-america-20111208-20120201-poly.html
> >
> > This wiki page can be used to coordinate efforts:
> >
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Asking_users_to_accept_the_ODbL
> >
> > Please do not hesitate to coordinate with us at
> > le...@osmfoundation.org . We will do our best to assist.
> >
> > Mike
> > License Working Group
> >
> > [1]. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue (Appears to
> > be only Digital Orthophotos)
> >
> > [2]
> > http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-71.35913&lat=18.22309&z
> > oom=7&opacity=0.69&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_clean,wtfe_line_clean,
> > wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_m
> > odified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,
> > wtfe_line_created
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 
> ___
> 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] odbl non-agreement and humanitarian exceptions.

[Kate Chapman]

Much of this data has already been ground surveyed.  Would it be
possible based on the source tags to mark things odbl=clean?

I think that would take care of a large majority of the problem, since
there has been so much on the ground work since the earthquake.

-Kate

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Michael Collinson  wrote:
> On 02/02/2012 16:23, Larry O'Neill wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Apologies for any overlap in recipients for this - I very rarely post to
>> mailing lists, so I am not sure how wide a net for this issue would be
>> appropriate.
>>
>> There was a discussion on the #osm irc channel recently about the
>> possibility of approaching non-agreers to the new CT about any data they may
>> have contributed to areas where the removal of such data could have a
>> negative effect on our humanitarian efforts.
>> Looking for example at how much data we stand to lose in Haiti, this is
>> something that may limit the difficulty of those that are on the ground in
>> these places and struggling to remap.
>>
>> The possibility of haing a bounding box around areas such as these was
>> mentioned - and there is aparantly a precedent for a users data within a BB
>> being retained.
>>
>> Any thoughts, comments, or points?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Larry O'Neill
>
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> It looks as though there are no specific licensing issues as regards base
> data/photos used in Haiti [1]. The issue appears to be confined to mappers
> who have been active in the area but have either declined or not yet
> responded to requests to re-license? [2]
>
> We will need their individual permissions, the simplest way being just to
> ask them to respond to the new terms.  Friendly, courteous messages coming
> from individual mappers working in the same area have been highly effective
> in a number of countries. I would expect it to be doubly so here. We can
> then revisit the issue in say, two weeks time and see if anyone is left.
>
> I am immediately going to ask for a Haiti/Dominican Republic link to be
> added to http://odbl.de/ and http://odbl.poole.ch/ Then you can just read
> off the names and status.
>
> Meanwhile, you can use the OSMI License View tool to get started. Here is an
> incomplete list I just grabbed using it:
>
> Exponent, Brent Miller, cetest, osmapb1, Tinono, rendle, Tinono, EvaStern,
> robbert, Sidneyleenen, Elle_M, DDDarek, veugelke, Mirko Küster, Eddy
> Frometa, Alfredo Gil, Jochen Plumeyer, llibre
>
> It is good know their status.  You can do that by feeding them into
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ or seeing if they are on
>
> http://odbl.poole.ch/central-america-20111208-20120201-poly.html
>
> This wiki page can be used to coordinate efforts:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Asking_users_to_accept_the_ODbL
>
> Please do not hesitate to coordinate with us at le...@osmfoundation.org . We
> will do our best to assist.
>
> Mike
> License Working Group
>
> [1]. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue (Appears to be only
> Digital Orthophotos)
>
> [2]
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-71.35913&lat=18.22309&zoom=7&opacity=0.69&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_clean,wtfe_line_clean,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_line_created
>
> ___
> 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] odbl non-agreement and humanitarian exceptions.

[Simon Poole]

http://odbl.poole.ch/haiti-domrep-20111208-20120201-poly.html

Most of Mirkos stuff is in Santo Domingo so not that relevant.

Simon

Am 02.02.2012 17:46, schrieb Michael Collinson:

On 02/02/2012 16:23, Larry O'Neill wrote:

Hi All,

Apologies for any overlap in recipients for this - I very rarely post 
to mailing lists, so I am not sure how wide a net for this issue 
would be appropriate.


There was a discussion on the #osm irc channel recently about the 
possibility of approaching non-agreers to the new CT about any data 
they may have contributed to areas where the removal of such data 
could have a negative effect on our humanitarian efforts.
Looking for example at how much data we stand to lose in Haiti, this 
is something that may limit the difficulty of those that are on the 
ground in these places and struggling to remap.


The possibility of haing a bounding box around areas such as these 
was mentioned - and there is aparantly a precedent for a users data 
within a BB being retained.


Any thoughts, comments, or points?

Thanks,
Larry O'Neill


Hi Larry,

It looks as though there are no specific licensing issues as regards 
base data/photos used in Haiti [1]. The issue appears to be confined 
to mappers who have been active in the area but have either declined 
or not yet responded to requests to re-license? [2]


We will need their individual permissions, the simplest way being just 
to ask them to respond to the new terms.  Friendly, courteous messages 
coming from individual mappers working in the same area have been 
highly effective in a number of countries. I would expect it to be 
doubly so here. We can then revisit the issue in say, two weeks time 
and see if anyone is left.


I am immediately going to ask for a Haiti/Dominican Republic link to 
be added to http://odbl.de/ and http://odbl.poole.ch/ Then you can 
just read off the names and status.


Meanwhile, you can use the OSMI License View tool to get started. Here 
is an incomplete list I just grabbed using it:


Exponent, Brent Miller, cetest, osmapb1, Tinono, rendle, Tinono, 
EvaStern, robbert, Sidneyleenen, Elle_M, DDDarek, veugelke, Mirko 
Küster, Eddy Frometa, Alfredo Gil, Jochen Plumeyer, llibre


It is good know their status.  You can do that by feeding them into 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ or seeing if they are on


http://odbl.poole.ch/central-america-20111208-20120201-poly.html

This wiki page can be used to coordinate efforts:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Asking_users_to_accept_the_ODbL

Please do not hesitate to coordinate with us at 
le...@osmfoundation.org . We will do our best to assist.


Mike
License Working Group

[1]. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue (Appears to 
be only Digital Orthophotos)


[2] 
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-71.35913&lat=18.22309&zoom=7&opacity=0.69&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_clean,wtfe_line_clean,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_line_created


___
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] odbl non-agreement and humanitarian exceptions.

[Richard Weait]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Michael Collinson  wrote:
[ ... ]
> Meanwhile, you can use the OSMI License View tool to get started. Here is an
> incomplete list I just grabbed using it:
>
> Exponent, Brent Miller, cetest, osmapb1, Tinono, rendle, Tinono, EvaStern,
> robbert, Sidneyleenen, Elle_M, DDDarek, veugelke, Mirko Küster, Eddy
> Frometa, Alfredo Gil, Jochen Plumeyer, llibre

A new (to me) function on cleanmap[1] allows one to select a bounding
box and see a list of all non-CT/ODbL authors in that area.  The bb
size is limited, but I was able to get a list of several dozen
accounts who edited in PaP.

Create your own bb for up to date info, or other areas, or start with
this list retrieved a few minutes ago.
http://weait.com/pap_non-ct.html

[1] http://cleanmap.poole.ch/?zoom=9&lat=19.05872&lon=-72.34551&layers=B00

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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl non-agreement and humanitarian exceptions.

[Michael Collinson]

On 02/02/2012 16:23, Larry O'Neill wrote:

Hi All,

Apologies for any overlap in recipients for this - I very rarely post 
to mailing lists, so I am not sure how wide a net for this issue would 
be appropriate.


There was a discussion on the #osm irc channel recently about the 
possibility of approaching non-agreers to the new CT about any data 
they may have contributed to areas where the removal of such data 
could have a negative effect on our humanitarian efforts.
Looking for example at how much data we stand to lose in Haiti, this 
is something that may limit the difficulty of those that are on the 
ground in these places and struggling to remap.


The possibility of haing a bounding box around areas such as these was 
mentioned - and there is aparantly a precedent for a users data within 
a BB being retained.


Any thoughts, comments, or points?

Thanks,
Larry O'Neill


Hi Larry,

It looks as though there are no specific licensing issues as regards 
base data/photos used in Haiti [1]. The issue appears to be confined to 
mappers who have been active in the area but have either declined or not 
yet responded to requests to re-license? [2]


We will need their individual permissions, the simplest way being just 
to ask them to respond to the new terms.  Friendly, courteous messages 
coming from individual mappers working in the same area have been highly 
effective in a number of countries. I would expect it to be doubly so 
here. We can then revisit the issue in say, two weeks time and see if 
anyone is left.


I am immediately going to ask for a Haiti/Dominican Republic link to be 
added to http://odbl.de/ and http://odbl.poole.ch/ Then you can just 
read off the names and status.


Meanwhile, you can use the OSMI License View tool to get started. Here 
is an incomplete list I just grabbed using it:


Exponent, Brent Miller, cetest, osmapb1, Tinono, rendle, Tinono, 
EvaStern, robbert, Sidneyleenen, Elle_M, DDDarek, veugelke, Mirko 
Küster, Eddy Frometa, Alfredo Gil, Jochen Plumeyer, llibre


It is good know their status.  You can do that by feeding them into 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ or seeing if they are on


http://odbl.poole.ch/central-america-20111208-20120201-poly.html

This wiki page can be used to coordinate efforts:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Asking_users_to_accept_the_ODbL

Please do not hesitate to coordinate with us at le...@osmfoundation.org 
. We will do our best to assist.


Mike
License Working Group

[1]. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue (Appears to be 
only Digital Orthophotos)


[2] 
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-71.35913&lat=18.22309&zoom=7&opacity=0.69&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_clean,wtfe_line_clean,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_line_created


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

[OSM-talk] odbl non-agreement and humanitarian exceptions.

[Larry O'Neill]

Hi All,

Apologies for any overlap in recipients for this - I very rarely post to
mailing lists, so I am not sure how wide a net for this issue would be
appropriate.

There was a discussion on the #osm irc channel recently about the
possibility of approaching non-agreers to the new CT about any data they
may have contributed to areas where the removal of such data could have a
negative effect on our humanitarian efforts.
Looking for example at how much data we stand to lose in Haiti, this is
something that may limit the difficulty of those that are on the ground in
these places and struggling to remap.

The possibility of haing a bounding box around areas such as these was
mentioned - and there is aparantly a precedent for a users data within a BB
being retained.

Any thoughts, comments, or points?

Thanks,
Larry O'Neill
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl=clean usage

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 1/15/2012 12:34 PM, Toby Murray wrote:

According to this, deletions will not be reverted:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F#Deletions_are_not_tainted


Now that's just stupid. Can you imagine what a random town where an 
ungood mapper has done some joining will look like when the OSMF is done 
with it?


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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl=clean usage

[Toby Murray]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On 1/15/2012 11:09 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 01/15/2012 05:03 PM, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
>>>
>>> in my opinion, obdl=clean is the ugliest thing in the whole license
>>> change so far...
>>>
>>> i can't believe this would be automatically accepted on april 1st.
>>
>>
>> I'm happy to debate the issue on legal-talk.
>
>
> I'm sure you are. But it doesn't belong there, since it's several times
> removed from legal matters.
>
>
>
> Here's another issue I have:
>
> Ungoodmapper joins two ways.
> Goodmapper sees that all that happened was a joining, he would have done it
> anyway, and tags odbl=clean on the joined way. (Alternately, Ungoodmapper's
> attribution could have been lost through joins and splits.)
> Now the license change goes through, and the OSMF doesn't touch the joined
> way. But in reverting Ungoodmapper's edits, the OSMF undeletes the other way
> that was joined. So now we have two overlapping ways.
>
> I see no way to avoid this. If the OSMF doesn't undelete anything deleted by
> ungood mappers, the damage is much greater.

According to this, deletions will not be reverted:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F#Deletions_are_not_tainted

I have been using the odbl=clean tag in a pretty similar way as you
propose along the interstates in Kansas. Since the decliner last
touched them, I have traveled along most of them 2-3 times and each
time I have added more detail from direct observation plus improving
geometry and splitting out more bridges and such. The contributions by
the armchair mapping decliner consisted of splitting ways for bridges
and adding obvious tags like ref so I am confident the data would have
ended up in an identical state if they had never touched it. I removed
any obvious node additions by the decliner and re-improved the
geometry from Bing and my own GPS traces and then added an odbl=clean
tag.

Toby

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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl=clean usage

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 1/15/2012 11:09 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 01/15/2012 05:03 PM, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:

in my opinion, obdl=clean is the ugliest thing in the whole license
change so far...

i can't believe this would be automatically accepted on april 1st.


I'm happy to debate the issue on legal-talk.


I'm sure you are. But it doesn't belong there, since it's several times 
removed from legal matters.




Here's another issue I have:

Ungoodmapper joins two ways.
Goodmapper sees that all that happened was a joining, he would have done 
it anyway, and tags odbl=clean on the joined way. (Alternately, 
Ungoodmapper's attribution could have been lost through joins and splits.)
Now the license change goes through, and the OSMF doesn't touch the 
joined way. But in reverting Ungoodmapper's edits, the OSMF undeletes 
the other way that was joined. So now we have two overlapping ways.


I see no way to avoid this. If the OSMF doesn't undelete anything 
deleted by ungood mappers, the damage is much greater.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl=clean usage

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 01/15/2012 05:03 PM, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:

in my opinion, obdl=clean is the ugliest thing in the whole license
change so far...

i can't believe this would be automatically accepted on april 1st.


I'm happy to debate the issue on legal-talk.

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] odbl=clean usage

[Floris Looijesteijn]

in my opinion, obdl=clean is the ugliest thing in the whole license
change so far...

i can't believe this would be automatically accepted on april 1st.

greets,
floris looijesteijn

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> Since there's been no response, I plan to start doing this.
>
> On 1/13/2012 6:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>
>> It's my view that odbl=clean is essentially a loophole - that is, if the
>> OSMF actually pays attention to it when mass-reverting. But given that
>> it seems to be accepted, I'm wondering about the following case:
>>
>> A non-agreeing mapper changes a bunch of roads from residential to
>> secondary, using essentially an algorithmic approach (a certain subset
>> of the state highway system).
>> Several years later, I go through and create relations for these routes,
>> as well as demoting some of the less-major ones to tertiary.
>>
>> If the mass-revert were to go forward now, those that I changed would
>> remain tertiary, while those I didn't would go back to residential (as
>> imported from TIGER). This is obviously not an ideal state of affairs.
>>
>> So my question is whether this would be an appropriate usage of
>> odbl=clean. In other words, if that mapper had not changed it from
>> residential to secondary, would I have done the same? If so, can I add
>> the tag?
>>
>> (Apologies if this belongs in tagging, since it's about use of a tag.)
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] odbl=clean usage

[Nathan Edgars II]

Since there's been no response, I plan to start doing this.

On 1/13/2012 6:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

It's my view that odbl=clean is essentially a loophole - that is, if the
OSMF actually pays attention to it when mass-reverting. But given that
it seems to be accepted, I'm wondering about the following case:

A non-agreeing mapper changes a bunch of roads from residential to
secondary, using essentially an algorithmic approach (a certain subset
of the state highway system).
Several years later, I go through and create relations for these routes,
as well as demoting some of the less-major ones to tertiary.

If the mass-revert were to go forward now, those that I changed would
remain tertiary, while those I didn't would go back to residential (as
imported from TIGER). This is obviously not an ideal state of affairs.

So my question is whether this would be an appropriate usage of
odbl=clean. In other words, if that mapper had not changed it from
residential to secondary, would I have done the same? If so, can I add
the tag?

(Apologies if this belongs in tagging, since it's about use of a tag.)



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

[OSM-talk] odbl=clean usage

[Nathan Edgars II]

It's my view that odbl=clean is essentially a loophole - that is, if the 
OSMF actually pays attention to it when mass-reverting. But given that 
it seems to be accepted, I'm wondering about the following case:


A non-agreeing mapper changes a bunch of roads from residential to 
secondary, using essentially an algorithmic approach (a certain subset 
of the state highway system).
Several years later, I go through and create relations for these routes, 
as well as demoting some of the less-major ones to tertiary.


If the mass-revert were to go forward now, those that I changed would 
remain tertiary, while those I didn't would go back to residential (as 
imported from TIGER). This is obviously not an ideal state of affairs.


So my question is whether this would be an appropriate usage of 
odbl=clean. In other words, if that mapper had not changed it from 
residential to secondary, would I have done the same? If so, can I add 
the tag?


(Apologies if this belongs in tagging, since it's about use of a tag.)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODBL Status Garmin Maps

[andrzej zaborowski]

The subject should rather say CT-acceptance status Garmin map, as the
map is not based on ODbL compatibility but rather on CT-acceptance.
ODbL compatibility is not implied by CT version 1.2.4 acceptance.  Not
because someone clicked "accept" fraudulently, but because its text
doesn't really require it.

Cheers

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

[OSM-talk] ODBL Status Garmin Maps

[Simon Poole]

As I previously mentioned, I have put a set of Garmin maps online that 
are based on Frederik Ramms data for his online viewer.


I've now included a couple of more regions and a 2nd map style. I expect 
to update the European maps on a daily base, the others less frequently 
for now.


The maps can be downloaded from http://odbl.poole.ch/garmin/

Simon


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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL site taken over by spam

[Steve Coast]

I'm not discussing the ODbL but sure

On 5/31/2011 4:35 PM, David Murn wrote:

On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 16:12 -0700, Steve Coast wrote:

I think I know why - its because I'm coming from a microsoft.com domain!
It thinks I'm a bing crawler.

I can't be bothered to join a mailing list to do this. Maybe someone on
talk@ will care enough.

In before Frederik.. but shouldnt this discussion be taken to
talk-legal, like every other discussion of ODbL?

David




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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL site taken over by spam

[David Murn]

On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 16:12 -0700, Steve Coast wrote:
> I think I know why - its because I'm coming from a microsoft.com domain! 
> It thinks I'm a bing crawler.
> 
> I can't be bothered to join a mailing list to do this. Maybe someone on 
> talk@ will care enough.

In before Frederik.. but shouldnt this discussion be taken to
talk-legal, like every other discussion of ODbL?

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL site taken over by spam

[Steve Coast]

I think I know why - its because I'm coming from a microsoft.com domain! 
It thinks I'm a bing crawler.


I can't be bothered to join a mailing list to do this. Maybe someone on 
talk@ will care enough.


tl;dr; the open data commons site has been hacked and is showing viagra 
adverts to people from certain domains.



On 5/31/2011 3:48 PM, Richard Weait wrote:

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Henk Hoff  wrote:

That looks like some other license indeed. But  not in my browser  Even 
after several (shift) refreshes ...

Looks fine in firefox and konqueror on linux.  Page source looks fine
at a glance.

You could let them know here.
"odc-discuss"



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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Martijn van Exel]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Elizabeth Dodd  wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 03:45:45 -0800 (PST)
> Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>
>> Joseph Reeves wrote:
>> > without explaining in layman's terms what this means.
>>
>> http://old.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html
>>
>> Follow-ups to legal-talk please, so that those here who have made
>> their mind up one way or the other don't have to read the whole
>> caboodle all over again.
>>
>> cheers
>> Richard
>>
>>
> Once again, there is not any hope that a clear explanation in Plain
> English will appear to a request on legal-talk.
> There is not a prohibition on asking these questions on /talk/, just a
> determined effort by a small number of people to ensure that discussion
> on /talk/ is limited, which is not part of the description of /talk/.

The discussion is not being limited, it's just being funneled to its
proper place. I like talk because it exposes me to a variety of topics
that are alive in the community today. I also like it for its
manageable volume. Lengthy debates on topics that have their own
designated lists - be it dev, local lists *or* legal - make it less
manageable and are bound to get people to lose interest and
unsubscribe. I think that would be a shame.

>
> The fact that the question appears each month, from somebody new, shows
> me that the question never gets answered in a satisfactory manner.
> There are still a large number of unanswered questions.

What it shows is that there's always going to be people interested in
the license questions that do not know where to turn to for an answer.
This list gets a lot of those type of questions, because of its
catch-all topic description. And lots of times, people are directed to
the right place to get an answer. This is no different, so why make it
sound like it is?

-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://about.me/mvexel

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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[David Murn]

On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 03:45 -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Joseph Reeves wrote:
> > without explaining in layman's terms what this means.
> 
> http://old.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html
> 
> Follow-ups to legal-talk please, so that those here who have made their mind
> up one way or the other don't have to read the whole caboodle all over
> again.

What about the important reading who those havent made up their mind, or
are worried about their liability if they agree to be bound by the new
licence?

Maybe what is needed, is a list for these discussions, which isnt so
legal-focused, so that the laymen can actually understand what theyre
involved in, or maybe instead of 100 people telling someone off for
asking a question, one person could give a clear and precise answer and
nip these threads in the bud from the start.

Honestly, I couldnt give a rats rear-end if someone thinks that
subsection 3.7b(c) should have its own title, or that the wording of
'OSM user' should be changed to 'OSM contributor' or the like.  Whether
that is what is discussed on legal-talk, I dont know as I dont
subscribe, but given its name, its only natural to assume so.. What I
care about is the big picture of what will happen to all our data and
the project in general, looking toward the future.  Given the entire
project will undergo massive sweeping changes in only 3 weeks, shouldnt
this issue be at the forefront of current OSM discussions, or will
people start trying to sort out the problems after theyve happened,
rather than stopping them in the first place?

Im as tired as anyone about these endless threads, but until someone is
prepared to give some clear cut answers to peoples simple honest
questions, I fear they'll continue.  Some have tried to give helpful
answers, but others seem to get off on playing the power game and
achieve nothing but division within our community.

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 03:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> Joseph Reeves wrote:
> > without explaining in layman's terms what this means.
> 
> http://old.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html
> 
> Follow-ups to legal-talk please, so that those here who have made
> their mind up one way or the other don't have to read the whole
> caboodle all over again.
> 
> cheers
> Richard
> 
>
Once again, there is not any hope that a clear explanation in Plain
English will appear to a request on legal-talk.
There is not a prohibition on asking these questions on /talk/, just a
determined effort by a small number of people to ensure that discussion
on /talk/ is limited, which is not part of the description of /talk/.

The fact that the question appears each month, from somebody new, shows
me that the question never gets answered in a satisfactory manner.
There are still a large number of unanswered questions.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 13:01:57 +0100
Andreas Perstinger  wrote:

> > All of the lists suffer from endless discussion of the same points
> > with very little action ever occurring - and reading the amateur
> > lawyers on legal-talk arguing with the professional lawyers is a
> > form of amusement that I don't need.  
> 
> But if legal-talk didn't exist wouldn't all these discussions you
> don't want to see be on this list?

You can make that argument if you like. legal-talk does exist, and no
one is proposing to shut it down.
This is the description of this list, from the mailman list
talkOpenStreetMap user discussion

It doesn't finish with "unless there is another list which might cover
the situation".

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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Andreas Perstinger]

On 2011-03-06 10:45, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:

All of the lists suffer from endless discussion of the same points with
very little action ever occurring - and reading the amateur lawyers on
legal-talk arguing with the professional lawyers is a form of amusement
that I don't need.


But if legal-talk didn't exist wouldn't all these discussions you don't 
want to see be on this list?


Bye, Andreas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Mike N]

On 3/6/2011 4:45 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:

  and reading the amateur lawyers on
legal-talk arguing with the professional lawyers is a form of amusement
that I don't need.


  Yes, the solution to that problem is to carry on all legal 
discussions on talk@ ; we all know that no amateur lawyers subscribe to 
talk@


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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Richard Fairhurst]

Joseph Reeves wrote:
> without explaining in layman's terms what this means.

http://old.opengeodata.org/2008/01/07/the-licence-where-we-are-where-were-going/index.html

Follow-ups to legal-talk please, so that those here who have made their mind
up one way or the other don't have to read the whole caboodle all over
again.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/odbl-tp6092609p6094042.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] odbl

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 09:24:50 +0100
Andreas Perstinger  wrote:

> Would you ask a question specific to the US on talk-au (or any other 
> country-specific list)?

> Why do people have the impression that subsribing to legal-talk is 
> somehow more difficult than subscribing to talk?

It makes much more sense to have a central list where important
community matters are discussed. The idea that all 'tagging' has to go
to tagging list or all 'licence' to legal list divides the community.
Talk is a central point which should have no such rules as "not here".
I can understand that trying to discuss tagging matters on legal-talk
should be heartily discouraged, but once we have a number of lists
covering every sub-branch of discussion we lose our community.

All of the lists suffer from endless discussion of the same points with
very little action ever occurring - and reading the amateur lawyers on
legal-talk arguing with the professional lawyers is a form of amusement
that I don't need.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Andreas Perstinger]

On 2011-03-06 01:45, Joseph Reeves wrote:

In fairness, I don't want to get spammed on the talk list with
trolling (Anthony?) remarks about the license change, but saying that
people can't ask questions about it *at all* is just a lazy attempt to
try and ignore the defining feature of OSM.


Nobody said you can't ask questions. Frederik and others just pointed 
out that it's more likely to get an answer to a legal question on 
legal-talk.


Would you ask a question specific to the US on talk-au (or any other 
country-specific list)?


Why do people have the impression that subsribing to legal-talk is 
somehow more difficult than subscribing to talk?


Bye, Andreas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Andreas Perstinger]

On 2011-03-06 00:10, john whelan wrote:

My concern is purely that data I have entered may not all have been from
pure uncopyrighted sources and if someone is taking legal action based my
input I would like to feel it was only based on data that was absolutely
pure.


Could you give an example of data you entered you think was good for 
cc-by-sa and is not for odbl?
Thus it's probably easier for others to give an answer not based on 
vague assumptions.


Bye, Andreas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[John Smith]

On 6 March 2011 09:10, john whelan  wrote:
> So basically you are saying that it is not possible to explain it in
> layman's terms.  Thank you for your input.

The new license changes things from something many people understand
to something massively more complex that it's proponents can't even
agree over what it means.

Instead of just relying on copyright it tries to use contract and
database law as well, and this will make things much more complex for
people distributing, since they would need to form contracts with
people copying, but of course this is one point of contention, some
dispute this, but for ODBL to stick beyond copyright a contract has to
be in place otherwise why switch from cc-by-sa in the first place.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Joseph Reeves  wrote:
> There's a balance that
> needs to be struck, but people should understand that legal issues are
> core to OSM.
>
> If you want to contribute to a project and not ask questions about the
> legal issues concerning data you produce, you might as well sign up
> for Google Map Maker; I thought that OSM had this licensing issue at
> the heart of what we did, but I could be wrong.

Lots of things are central to OSM, like tagging, licensing, import
issues, geodata standards, usability and quality, editing conventions,
database issues, etc. And it's precisely the number of varied topics
that are important to OSM why we have specialized mailing lists: dev,
legal-talk, tagging, etc.

There are many people who are sick and tired of seeing email about
licenses and that's why they're on talk, not legal-talk. So if you
want to discuss license issues, then take the time to subscribe to
legal-talk and then unsubscribe when you are satisfied and never
(hopefully) be bothered again about it.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Joseph Reeves]

> No, just that your more likely to get an answer about the legal side of
> things in legal-talk.

But this is the problem; the "legal side of things" is the central
issue to OpenStreetMap at the moment. You can't simply try and
sideline a difficult issue by describing it as "legal".
*Open*StreetMap is defined by its license, but there are plenty of
people who want to change the license, and therefore the core of the
project, without explaining in layman's terms what this means.

I signed up to contribute to a map with a specific license; changing
the license down the line isn't a legal matter, it's a core user
issue. This is something that many in the licensing discussions have
failed to address, probably because it's difficult and it's easier to
say "the legal mailing list is over there".

I've received emails from OSM contributors asking why I haven't
accepted the new license terms; I always reply saying that I would
consider it if it could be explained in a manner that didn't end in
trolling on the mailing lists. So far nobody has managed to do that.

In fairness, I don't want to get spammed on the talk list with
trolling (Anthony?) remarks about the license change, but saying that
people can't ask questions about it *at all* is just a lazy attempt to
try and ignore the defining feature of OSM. There's a balance that
needs to be struck, but people should understand that legal issues are
core to OSM.

If you want to contribute to a project and not ask questions about the
legal issues concerning data you produce, you might as well sign up
for Google Map Maker; I thought that OSM had this licensing issue at
the heart of what we did, but I could be wrong.

Cheers, Joseph




On 5 March 2011 23:29, Robert Naylor  wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 23:10:38 -, john whelan 
> wrote:
>
>> So basically you are saying that it is not possible to explain it in
>> layman's terms.  Thank you for your input.
>
> No, just that your more likely to get an answer about the legal side of
> things in legal-talk.
>
> --
> Robert
>
> ___
> 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] odbl

[Robert Naylor]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 23:10:38 -, john whelan   
wrote:


So basically you are saying that it is not possible to explain it in  
layman's terms.  Thank you for your input.


No, just that your more likely to get an answer about the legal side of  
things in legal-talk.


--
Robert

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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Mike N]

On 3/5/2011 6:10 PM, john whelan wrote:

Since you are unable to supply sufficient information about odbl for me
to feel a level of comfort with it I think the next question becomes how
can we remove my questionable data or is that a topic for legal-talk as
well?


http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[john whelan]

So basically you are saying that it is not possible to explain it in
layman's terms.  Thank you for your input.

I have noted some posts saying that some data had leaked into Google or whom
ever maps and that odbl would prevent this in some way so it would seem that
if we are going in this legal style path that we have a need for a higher
standard of data input.

There is a wide range of sources used from a hand held GPS device through
copying down the name from a sign.  If its the only name on the sign there
is no copyright, but if there is a collection of names then there is
copyright.

My concern is purely that data I have entered may not all have been from
pure uncopyrighted sources and if someone is taking legal action based my
input I would like to feel it was only based on data that was absolutely
pure.

Since you are unable to supply sufficient information about odbl for me to
feel a level of comfort with it I think the next question becomes how can we
remove my questionable data or is that a topic for legal-talk as well?

Thanks

Cheerio John

On 5 March 2011 16:17, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> John,
>
>
> john whelan wrote:
>
>> The intention is to try to understand a bit more about it.
>>
>
> The legal-talk mailing list is an excellent place to ask questions about
> ODbL.
>
> 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] odbl

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:17:33 +0100
Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> John,
> 
> john whelan wrote:
> > The intention is to try to understand a bit more about it. 
> 
> The legal-talk mailing list is an excellent place to ask questions
> about ODbL.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 



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

Re: [OSM-talk] odbl

[Frederik Ramm]

John,

john whelan wrote:
The intention is to try to understand a bit more about it. 


The legal-talk mailing list is an excellent place to ask questions about 
ODbL.


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

[OSM-talk] odbl

[john whelan]

The intention is to try to understand a bit more about it.

I think I understood what CC-by-SA meant and added information based on that
understanding.  Now the rules have changed and I'm not clear about data I
have added in the past, now labelled odbl and if it met the new criteria at
the time I added it.

This is more a comfort thing than anything else.  Have I inadvertently
granted OSM some permissions which I did not have have the authority to
grant based on some one's advice rather than checking for myself.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ed Avis" 

To: 
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons




Grant Slater  firefishy.com> writes:


The vote has been dropped, so don't expect to be asked to vote.



It was an OSMF Members vote I'll quote the first line:
"In December 2009, OpenStreetMap Foundation members were asked whether
they agreed or disagreed with a proposal to change the OpenStreetMap
geodata license. "


IIRC, the choice offered was 'I approve the process' or 'I do not approve 
the
process'.  It wasn't quite clear whether OSMF members were being asked to 
vote
on the licence change itself, or just to express satisfaction with the 
actions

taken and planned by the licence working group.



With the benefit of hindsight , the inability of OSMF to actually word the 
vote in a clear an unambiguous manner did not bode well for its ability to 
run the licence change process in a smooth manner.


David



At that stage, didn't the plan still include a public vote of OSM 
contributors?
Perhaps some OSMF members voted 'approve' on the basis of the earlier 
plan, happy
to proceed to a public vote and see what the community thought, but would 
not
have voted 'approve' if it were made clear that the new plan was to impose 
the

change unilaterally.

--
Ed Avis 






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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Ed Loach]

Ed wrote:

> IIRC, the choice offered was 'I approve the process' or 'I do
> not approve the
> process'.  It wasn't quite clear whether OSMF members were
> being asked to vote
> on the licence change itself, or just to express satisfaction
> with the actions
> taken and planned by the licence working group.

The email here suggests the vote was on the adoption of ODbL
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_
Plan/OSMF_Vote_Email

> At that stage, didn't the plan still include a public vote of
> OSM contributors?

It details the process of active members voting for any future
changes. 

> Perhaps some OSMF members voted 'approve' on the basis of the
> earlier plan, happy
> to proceed to a public vote and see what the community thought,
> but would not
> have voted 'approve' if it were made clear that the new plan
> was to impose the
> change unilaterally.

>From the email quoted on the wiki link above and the PDF document
that it links to that seems unlikely.

(Another) Ed
(who wasn't a member of the OSMF at the time of the vote)


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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Ed Avis]

Grant Slater  firefishy.com> writes:

>>The vote has been dropped, so don't expect to be asked to vote.

>It was an OSMF Members vote I'll quote the first line:
>"In December 2009, OpenStreetMap Foundation members were asked whether
>they agreed or disagreed with a proposal to change the OpenStreetMap
>geodata license. "

IIRC, the choice offered was 'I approve the process' or 'I do not approve the
process'.  It wasn't quite clear whether OSMF members were being asked to vote
on the licence change itself, or just to express satisfaction with the actions
taken and planned by the licence working group.

At that stage, didn't the plan still include a public vote of OSM contributors?
Perhaps some OSMF members voted 'approve' on the basis of the earlier plan, 
happy
to proceed to a public vote and see what the community thought, but would not
have voted 'approve' if it were made clear that the new plan was to impose the
change unilaterally.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Anthony]

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:52 PM, andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
> Also I don't see how CC-By-SA 3.0 explicitly does not apply to
> databases more than 2.0.  It explicitly applies to things like maps
> however (possibly this only means maps as images though)

Well, it explicitly applies to "a compilation of data to the extent it
is protected as a copyrightable work".  Which means it implicitly
doesn't apply to "a compilation of data to the extent it is not
protected as a copyrightable work".

The argument being made by some is that the OSM database consists
completely of the latter.  Some have even gone so far as to claim that
all databases consist completely of the latter.  I guess if you take
that position then you could say CC-BY-SA explicitly does not apply to
databases.

But it's quite a leap from "some databases (e.g. white pages) are
non-copyrightable in some jurisdictions" and "databases are
non-copyrightable".  In fact, I'd say it's quite plainly false.  If
some databases are copyrightable, then CC-BY-SA 3.0 does apply to some
databases.

(The very fact that CC-BY-SA 3.0 explicitly covers "a compilation of
data to the extent it is protected as a copyrightable work" surely
means that the drafters of CC-BY-SA 3.0 thought copyright does apply
to some databases.)

Whether or not the OSM database is such a database is more arguable.
Although I'd still say it most likely is copyrightable *to some
extent* (so CC-BY-SA 3.0 would apply *to some extent*).  There's a
paper on the copyrightability of electronic maps in the United States
at (http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/Articles/Jurimetrics1995.html).
 In the conclusion:

[quote]"Confusion" is the best description of the state of post-Feist
copyright protection of maps, especially digitized geographic
information systems.[/quote]

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Albertas Agejevas  wrote:

> But FlightGear, for instance, currently uses "cooked" scenery files,
> distributing OSM data separately is not an option.  So it is not
> included at all. (I am not associated with FlightGear).

would it not be possible to create a separate so that contains the cooked code?
mike

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Rob Myers]

On 09/01/2010 03:05 PM, Francis Davey wrote:


Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be
transferred to someone else who you may trust less. I'm not saying it
will happen or is even likely to happen, but I'm afraid as a lawyer
I'm inclined to be cautious about the far future. Copyright (which is
one of the rights in issue) can last a very long time and much can
change over that period.


Yes, this is definitely something OSMF should plan for/guard against if 
they haven't already.


- Rob.

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Francis Davey]

On 1 September 2010 14:42, Robert Kaiser  wrote:
> Francis Davey schrieb:
>>
>> Agreeing with the person you assign to that they will only use the
>> copyright in certain ways won't protect you against a subsequent
>> assignee of the copyright (eg OSMF assigns to XXX Ltd), subject to
>> certain exceptions.
>
> While that may be true, anyone not trusting the organization that operates
> all of the software and hardware of the project (the OSMF in our case)
> should not have contributed any data to the project as a whole in the first
> place.

That's a different point I think. All I was trying to clarify was the
effect any contractual tying of OSMF's hands might have.

Bear in mind that OSMF may cease to exist and its assets be
transferred to someone else who you may trust less. I'm not saying it
will happen or is even likely to happen, but I'm afraid as a lawyer
I'm inclined to be cautious about the far future. Copyright (which is
one of the rights in issue) can last a very long time and much can
change over that period.

I'm not expressing a view about the rights and wrongs of anything though.

-- 
Francis Davey

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Robert Kaiser]

John Smith schrieb:

On 30 August 2010 20:03, Rob Myers  wrote:

The majority (>  50%) of GPL projects are now GPL 3. Which is hardly an
argument against allowing relicencing.


There is a little bit of a difference between changing versions that
are merely an extension of the existing license, than changing
licenses, that is going from GPL to BSD...


If anything, OSM is about to go from BSD go "LGPL and later" right now.

And then, the GPL v3 is basically a completely different license than 
the GPL v2, even in large parts of its spirit - and still everyone can 
use it when projects were clever enough to use a "GPL v2 and later" clause.


Robert Kaiser


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Robert Kaiser]

Maarten Deen schrieb:

On 29-8-2010 19:21, Rob Myers wrote:

It's basically the same as copyright assignment. Which can work well for
projects of non-profit foundations.


Copyright assignment is not signing a blank sheet of paper.


No, but it is signing a paper that states exactly which information (all 
your OSM data? all your GNU code?) is handed over to a specific entity 
(the OSMF? the FSF?) in terms of copyright entirely and it's up to that 
entity to license it as they please - possible with certain restrictions 
(like always making it available with a free and open license, as the CT 
states).


Actually, IMHO, it's was wrong of the OSM project to do neither a 
copyright assignment nor a license that has a clear clause on automatic 
possibility of upgrade to a newer license in the same spirit (i.e. and 
"and later" clause).


Robert Kaiser


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:29 PM, John Smith wrote:

> On 30 August 2010 17:24, Albertas Agejevas  wrote:
> > Want an example of a use case DB integration?  Consider flight
> > simulators.  It would be good to have scenery generated by combining
> > data from OSM with data with satellite photos, models of buildings,
> > altitude data.  Brushing away integration with other databases makes
> > the possibility of having a single download of free scenery for
> > free flight sims combining all that data a lot less feasible.
>
> Which makes the assumption that those other sources of data can freely be
> mixed.
>

Which is not the point.

While OSM cannot control the license of those other imagery, DEM, and
building models, OSM can make it possible for its own data to be freely
mixed, which ODbL enables (due to the distinction between produced works and
derivative databases) and which CC-BY-SA cannot.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Albertas Agejevas]

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 01:12:16AM +0200, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Really, I am not worried about  data integration, but getting data. It
> does not bother me that other people cannot just take my work and use
> it under a different license. My purpose in creating a map is just
> that, to create a map, to share it, to work with others to create a
> good map.
>
> Integration with other maps is not the purpose or the goal.

I think this is a really narrow-minded stand.  Many things, especially
in the IT sphere, found their use far beyond those intended by the
original authors or inventors.  Limiting the access to the information
to merely "getting the map" makes it just a bit more open than
conventional paper maps.

Want an example of a use case DB integration?  Consider flight
simulators.  It would be good to have scenery generated by combining
data from OSM with data with satellite photos, models of buildings,
altitude data.  Brushing away integration with other databases makes
the possibility of having a single download of free scenery for
free flight sims combining all that data a lot less feasible.

Albertas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Niklas Cholmkvist]

Hi,

Grant Slater wrote:
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001982.html
That post was written by John Wilbanks from Creative Commons.

I remember about 6-9 months ago I put 3-4 monthly archives of legal-talk 
discussions on my pda, 
and read until late at night. Later I saw confusions on the wiki about that 
CC-BY-SA-2.0 seemed
like a valid license for data, which is not the case so I started searching the 
archives, but alas
I had forgotten where and when it was stated.
So I thank you for finding this.

Kind regards,

Niklas Cholmkvist
-- 



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Grant Slater]

On 29 August 2010 02:05, David Murn  wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 23:44 +0100, Grant Slater wrote:
>
>> PLEASE...
>> Follow ups on legal-talk list. Thread started here:
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004221.html
>
> A, maybe this explains why it seems like Ive missed huge chunks of
> this licence discussion.  Like a lot of OSMers, Im only subscribed to
> talk@ and talk-au@ for my country specific things.  What other lists do
> we have to join to be involved in these discussions that affect our
> project?  The only way Ive even been partly kept up-to-date (since im
> not on legal-talk) is when people post to this list, shortly before
> their threads get shutdown, after everyone else who apparently isnt on
> legal-talk wonders why theyre being ignored and not being kept
> up-to-date with the process.
>
> I suspect Im not the only mapper who has put their mapping activities
> on-hold until these discussions can be figured out, and I know exactly
> how you plan on controlling my contributed information.  Surely its not
> in the interests of OSM to keep fobbing off contributors, telling them
> theyre worthless, and if they want any input into the project theyre a
> part of, they need to learn legalese and have it out with the wanna-be
> lawyers.
>

I'll gladly say it, I think Contributors are the single most important
asset to this project. Annoying everyone on talk@ with the legal back
and forth discussion that is taking place is not helpful in keeping
contributors informed. Licensing updates/progress and other general
discussion is being flooded out. If you are interested in the
nitty-gritty of licensing discussion then legal-talk@ is the right
place. If you are interested there are public archives:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/
Alternatively if you are looking for purely hard fact announments then
the announce list is the best place:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/announce

By far the majority of the legal back and forth at the moment is
concerning historical mass data imports' licensing and not about
individual mappers' contributions. The 1 excpetion is the Australian
aerial imagery provider taking exception to some points of the new
"Contributor Terms" and not the actual license. The Licensing Working
Group (LWG) is in discussion with them and hope to fully resolve the
issue over the next few weeks.

I'm a member of the LWG and have been going out mapping more often
recently as I'm find it a great stress release. London's new Cycle
Hire scheme is now nearly fully mapped. :-)

Regards
 Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Joe Richards]

>
>
> > The last page title sums up the current approach of OSMF to the licence -
> > "We are changing the licence"
> >
>
> It was an OSMF Members vote I'll quote the first line:
> "In December 2009, OpenStreetMap Foundation members were asked whether
> they agreed or disagreed with a proposal to change the OpenStreetMap
> geodata license. "
>

Well I personally am remaining neutral until I have enough of the facts and
would like to act with the best goals of the OSM project in mind, but this
(above) fact alone sucks and feels pretty exclusionary.  I didn't realise I
had to join OSMF to have a say in whether large tracts of the data would
remain in the project (amongst other impacts), I consider it a pretty large
decision.  I realise operating a vote on a larger scale is a big job but
perhaps it would have been worth attempting it at least, with notification
via email etc.

My main concern at this stage is whether all the various (sometimes large)
sets of data contributed by various (often governmental) organisations can
be imported (or must be removed if previously imported).

For example I am involved with the LINZ New Zealand data import - whose main
requirement is really just attribution of the Land Information New
Zealand/Crown Copyright source.  There are also quite a few organisations
that release their data on a CC-by-SA license.

I sometimes wonder if OSM is one of the largest projects of its kind why the
CC people didn't take more interest (or whether sufficient effort was made
from the OSM side) in reforming or modifying the license, perhaps with a
connection to the CC-by-SA license (at least in name) that allows these
organisations to make the switch more easily.  Getting them to review the
ODbL is sometimes difficult when they have limited legal resources and
already have a CC-by-SA policy.  Perhaps I'm viewing this a little
simplistically, please enlighten me if I'm overlooking something obvious.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[David Murn]

On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 23:44 +0100, Grant Slater wrote:

> PLEASE...
> Follow ups on legal-talk list. Thread started here:
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004221.html

A, maybe this explains why it seems like Ive missed huge chunks of
this licence discussion.  Like a lot of OSMers, Im only subscribed to
talk@ and talk-au@ for my country specific things.  What other lists do
we have to join to be involved in these discussions that affect our
project?  The only way Ive even been partly kept up-to-date (since im
not on legal-talk) is when people post to this list, shortly before
their threads get shutdown, after everyone else who apparently isnt on
legal-talk wonders why theyre being ignored and not being kept
up-to-date with the process.

I suspect Im not the only mapper who has put their mapping activities
on-hold until these discussions can be figured out, and I know exactly
how you plan on controlling my contributed information.  Surely its not
in the interests of OSM to keep fobbing off contributors, telling them
theyre worthless, and if they want any input into the project theyre a
part of, they need to learn legalese and have it out with the wanna-be
lawyers.

Why cant we all just get along?

David


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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Grant Slater]

On 28 August 2010 15:37, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
 wrote:
> please see this as well,
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons
>

What is missing there is that Creative Commons have said that a
CC-BY-SA license is not suitable for a database of factual
information.
Quote: "Creative Commons does not recommend using Creative Commons
licenses for informational databases, such as educational or
scientific databases."
Reference: http://sciencecommons.org/old/databases/

Creative Commons gave up in their attempt to creates a
Sharealike/Attribution license for factual information:
Reference: 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001982.html
ODbL solves the issues they had with the produced works provision.

ODbL is a license that was designed with OpenStreetMap in mind by the
legal team from Open Data Commons. It covers factual information and
preserves the Attribution and Share-Alike provisions that exist under
our CC-BY-SA license.

> they say the odbl is not a copyleft license but a contract...
>

Yes it is true that it is a contract. It is contructed this way to
make sure that internationally everyone gets the same deal. European
Union has the "Database Directive" but most other countries do not.
I strongly believe the ODbL is a copyleft license. The GPL software
license was used as a model for creating the ODbL.

PLEASE...
Follow ups on legal-talk list. Thread started here:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004221.html

Regards
 Grant

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

Re: [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Grant Slater wrote:

It was an OSMF Members vote I'll quote the first line:
"In December 2009, OpenStreetMap Foundation members were asked whether
they agreed or disagreed with a proposal to change the OpenStreetMap
geodata license. "


Correct. I have added a note to both pages that the vote is over, and 
linked to the results.


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