subject:"Re\: \[OSM\-talk\] Frederik declares war on data imports..."


Anthony wrote:
 What about a tracing of a photograph of a flower? [...]
 What about a tracing of a photograph of a lake, as viewed from 
 an aircraft?

Bauman v Fussell may be relevant here.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Frederik-declares-war-on-data-imports-tp5385741p5392168.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] Frederik declares war on data imports...


80n wrote:
 Why don't you try this.  Import some Ordnance Survey Street View data 
 into OSM, then render it as a Produced Work with the ODbL required 
 attribution

I've written fairly extensively on this in talk-gb, but to reiterate a
posting from May:

 To comply with ODbL for data obtained from OSM, you have to at least 
 provide attribution to OSM.

 That does not preclude that the data may have other attribution
 requirements, and it does not prevent you from fulfilling them.

Which, as David Ellams observes, for large attribution-required imports is
the same situation as we have now. I note that the recent Dundee cycle map
made with OSM data (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmam/4815063190/)
includes both OSM-original and OS-via-OSM, and correctly attributes both in
the bottom right corner.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Frederik-declares-war-on-data-imports-tp5385741p5392205.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] Frederik declares war on data imports...

80n wrote:
This is quite a good place to start:
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Copyright_protection_of_databases

It's good to see licence sceptics starting to look at the case law too.

There are of course a million things you could say about rights pertaining
to factual compilations in the US. Several thousand of them have been said
on this list over the past few years and I don't intend to bore everyone by
repeating them.

I will, however, repeat one point which I've made several times over the
years (Google suggests
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-July/002603.html
was a recent instance :) ). Whether geodata is copyrightable in the US is a
shades of grey thing, not an either/or. When a few years back I trudged
round a Worcester housing estate with a GPS noting down the street names,
then faithfully entered them into OSM, there certainly wasn't a minimal
level of creativity there. If I were to do a detailed hiking survey of the
Malvern Hills, carefully judging what might be a MTB-suitable trail, and
what paths have become established despite not being RoWs, that would
involve some creativity and thus merit some protection. And so on.

This is well established in Mason v Montgomery Data, a case about copying
data from a 'traditional' cartographic map, which I'm slightly surprised the
Wikia article doesn't cite. It's regarded by commentators as the case that
stretches the Feist v Rural judgement the most in favour of compilations
involve creativity, so it's a good one to test against. It concludes that
Mason's maps are original through the creativity in both the selection,
coordination, and arrangement of the facts that they depict... and in the
pictorial, graphic nature of the way that they do so. I wouldn't for a
moment say that my Worcester estate survey involved any creative selection,
coordination or arrangement: my Malvern Hills survey might well.

So, as I've said several times before, some extracts from OSM involve
copyright in the US, others don't. One could of course say we're happy with
only protecting some of our data, let's stick with CC-BY-SA. But given that
I remember you (Etienne) remonstrating with me three or four years ago when
I suggested maybe we should allow people to derive the position of features
not included on the map (the same thing Ed Parsons keeps suggesting to OS),
and you said ah, but what if they plot the lamp-posts then reconstruct the
road, I'm guessing you're still on the maximalist side.

Ok. Some of OSM involves copyright in the States. What does that actually
_mean_?

Probably not what we think it does. I'll cut to the chase and just
copy-and-paste the conclusion from that Wikia page:

In summary, very few of the post-Feist compilation cases have held entire
works to be uncopyrightable. In fact, copyrightability of the entire work is
seldom even contested. Disputes tend to focus instead on the scope of
protection. Consistent with Feist's pronouncement that copyright affords
compilations only 'thin' protection, most of the post-Feist appellate cases
have found wholesale takings from copyrightable compilations to be
non-infringing. This trend is carrying through to district courts as well.

In case you didn't spot the interesting bit:

wholesale takings from copyrightable compilations [are] non-infringing

Holy cow.

In other words, whether or not the compilation (the database) is
copyrightable, you can still extract from it with impunity. In Feist, it
actually says: a subsequent compiler remains free to use the facts
contained in another’s publication to aid in preparing a competing work, so
long as the competing work does not feature the same selection and
arrangement.

Mason v Montgomery Data spots this in Feist, too: The facts and ideas ...
are free for the taking... The very same facts and ideas may be divorced
from the context imposed by the author, and restated or reshuffled by second
comers

And in Wikia's commentary on Warren Publishing v Microdos Data: the only
conduct that arguably can be said to infringe is verbatim duplication of the
entire work.

It's all good fun.

But however much we content ourselves with happy thoughts of ah, but the
smoothness tag is creative and so on, we need to think about what an
alleged infringement might actually be. Let's say our mappers have corrected
all the TIGER geometries using aerial/satellite imagery. Is that a hell of a
lot of work? Yes. Is that commercially valuable? Yes. Would J Map Co, aiming
to compete on a street map level with Google et al, like that data? Hell
yes. Are they bothered about the smoothness tag? Hell no.

Can you _unambiguously_ say that the wholesale taking of this part of OSM
is an infringement according to US case law? I can't.

Shades of grey, shades of grey.

cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Frederik-declares-war-on-data-imports-tp5385741p5392366.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010/8/10 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
 think otherwise?  Exact quotes of what they said?

 unfortunately not. apparently legal advice can't be publicly shared
 without making the lawyers in question liable for it. given that our
 legal advisors are acting for us pro-bono and have asked that we don't
 quote them publicly, i don't think it would be nice to do that.

 Then can you at least stop referring to what they said, especially
 referring to it as though it's in any way authoritative.  Without the
 ability to see the exact quote, let alone ask questions, many lawyers
 said you're wrong is useless.

 i'm simply saying that there are people out there who know what
 they're talking about.

 I'm simply saying that I have strong doubts that many of them would
 have said that the contents of the OSM are purely factual.
 Furthermore, if asked whether or not collections of facts can be
 copyrightable, I have strong doubts that many of them would have said
 no.

Map is a hand-written 2D picture of the world. It is definitely more a
kind of art than a digital photo in flickr, there is more subjectivity
and intelligence etc needed to make it.

How can photos be copyrighted? Aren't photos just visual registrations
of facts? Also there are many artistic paintings, books, movies etc,
which try to be purely factual, at least through the eyes of the
author?

I don't really see how someone can even have the idea (or argument)
that map is just a database of facts.

 I'd suggest a simple technical test for is X an art or fact.
1. ask two persons to create the X.
2. store it to a digital file, and make diff of the files.

Only if you can get no differences then this was a pure fact. I am
sure that mapping (like e.g. photography) will fail the test, even
without trying it out.

-- 
Jaak

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-10 Thread Ed Avis

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes:

Any license that tries to use this patchy copyright protection of data 
is bound to be unfair at the very least, and more likely a pain the 
behind of anybody who wants to use it. The legality of OSM use cases 
would depend on whether you execute a project from your Australian or 
American office. We might be divided on some issues but *that* can 
surely not be our aim.

In fact, personally I disagree with that.  I think it is important to
respect national decisions on the scope of copyright and not try to
overrule them with contract law or other means.  So, for example, if the
parliament of Canada decided that all maps and map data should enter the
public domain, then it would be possible to do more things with OSM
in Canada than in other countries.  This is one of the reasons why we have
more than one country in the world!

It is for each country to decide on its own copyright and other 'intellectual
property' laws, and we should not try to export more-strict regulations from
one country to another.  The CC licences are carefully written to avoid doing
this.  The ODbL, sadly, seems to take the opposite approach.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com wrote:
 Map is a hand-written 2D picture of the world. It is definitely more a
 kind of art than a digital photo in flickr, there is more subjectivity
 and intelligence etc needed to make it.

 How can photos be copyrighted? Aren't photos just visual registrations
 of facts? Also there are many artistic paintings, books, movies etc,
 which try to be purely factual, at least through the eyes of the
 author?

 I don't really see how someone can even have the idea (or argument)
 that map is just a database of facts.

  I'd suggest a simple technical test for is X an art or fact.
 1. ask two persons to create the X.
 2. store it to a digital file, and make diff of the files.

 Only if you can get no differences then this was a pure fact. I am
 sure that mapping (like e.g. photography) will fail the test, even
 without trying it out.

Agreed.  That's basically the merger doctrine.  Of course, the problem
with that here in the United States is Feist, and especially the lower
court cases which attempted to follow Feist.

I asked before why isn't OSM copyrightable when maps are
copyrightable.  And after some research I think I found the answer.
Under a certain line of reasoning following Feist, maps *aren't*
copyrightable, at least not to any significant extent.  See ADC v.
Franklin Maps.

Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Maps are one of the original
works for which copyright was designed.  Not sure what's next.  Maybe
software.  Eventually only abstract art will be copyrighted ;).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010/8/10 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
 Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes:

Any license that tries to use this patchy copyright protection of data
is bound to be unfair at the very least, and more likely a pain the
behind of anybody who wants to use it. The legality of OSM use cases
would depend on whether you execute a project from your Australian or
American office. We might be divided on some issues but *that* can
surely not be our aim.

 It is for each country to decide on its own copyright and other 'intellectual
 property' laws, and we should not try to export more-strict regulations from
 one country to another.  The CC licences are carefully written to avoid doing
 this.  The ODbL, sadly, seems to take the opposite approach.

I'd like this approach too: each country should be able to decide
license terms. Communities are different, population/contributor
densities are very different, laws are different. Would it be really
practical, and how it could be technically doable - no idea, perhaps
not. But still I'd like it.

-- 
Jaak Laineste

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-10 Thread Ian Dees

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:

 On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Map is a hand-written 2D picture of the world. It is definitely more a
  kind of art than a digital photo in flickr, there is more subjectivity
  and intelligence etc needed to make it.
 
  How can photos be copyrighted? Aren't photos just visual registrations
  of facts? Also there are many artistic paintings, books, movies etc,
  which try to be purely factual, at least through the eyes of the
  author?
 
  I don't really see how someone can even have the idea (or argument)
  that map is just a database of facts.
 
   I'd suggest a simple technical test for is X an art or fact.
  1. ask two persons to create the X.
  2. store it to a digital file, and make diff of the files.
 
  Only if you can get no differences then this was a pure fact. I am
  sure that mapping (like e.g. photography) will fail the test, even
  without trying it out.

 Agreed.  That's basically the merger doctrine.  Of course, the problem
 with that here in the United States is Feist, and especially the lower
 court cases which attempted to follow Feist.

 I asked before why isn't OSM copyrightable when maps are
 copyrightable.  And after some research I think I found the answer.
 Under a certain line of reasoning following Feist, maps *aren't*
 copyrightable, at least not to any significant extent.  See ADC v.
 Franklin Maps.

 Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Maps are one of the original
 works for which copyright was designed.  Not sure what's next.  Maybe
 software.  Eventually only abstract art will be copyrighted ;).


If you march your way down Wikipedia's list of US copyright case law [0],
you'll notice that specific expansion of copyright was made for things like
photographs, applied art, and computer software.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_case_law#United_States
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-10 Thread Jukka Rahkonen

Jaak Laineste jaak.laineste at gmail.com writes:

 I don't really see how someone can even have the idea (or argument)
 that map is just a database of facts.
 
  I'd suggest a simple technical test for is X an art or fact.
 1. ask two persons to create the X.
 2. store it to a digital file, and make diff of the files.
 
 Only if you can get no differences then this was a pure fact. I am
 sure that mapping (like e.g. photography) will fail the test, even
 without trying it out.
 
I like this test because it will make things easy. No fuzzy shades of grey like
some Richard is suggesting. Can you give an example of a thing that is done by a
human being and that is not art by this definition?

-Jukka Rahkonen-


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-10 Thread John Smith

On 10 August 2010 22:09, Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'd like this approach too: each country should be able to decide
 license terms. Communities are different, population/contributor
 densities are very different, laws are different. Would it be really
 practical, and how it could be technically doable - no idea, perhaps
 not. But still I'd like it.

From the contributor side of things it would relatively straight
forward, you wouldn't be able to make changes within a country polygon
unless you agree to whatever license/terms via the website.

However then taking that information and trying to create a combined
output file would be very difficult, although I suppose you could
output multiple countries in the same file based on compatible
licenses.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com wrote:
 2010/8/10 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com:
 Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes:

Any license that tries to use this patchy copyright protection of data
is bound to be unfair at the very least, and more likely a pain the
behind of anybody who wants to use it. The legality of OSM use cases
would depend on whether you execute a project from your Australian or
American office. We might be divided on some issues but *that* can
surely not be our aim.

 It is for each country to decide on its own copyright and other 'intellectual
 property' laws, and we should not try to export more-strict regulations from
 one country to another.  The CC licences are carefully written to avoid doing
 this.  The ODbL, sadly, seems to take the opposite approach.

 I'd like this approach too: each country should be able to decide
 license terms. Communities are different, population/contributor
 densities are very different, laws are different. Would it be really
 practical, and how it could be technically doable - no idea, perhaps
 not. But still I'd like it.

Seriously?  What a mess.

Frederick obviously is advocating for public domain here (or, more
specifically, a public domain-like license), since the only way to
offer consistent restrictions is to have no restrictions.

ODbL actually makes things less consistent between countries.  In
addition to the inconsistent treatment of copyright law, it adds
inconsistent treatment of database right law, and inconsistent
treatment of contract law.  It's a step in the wrong direction.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...


Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
 I like this test because it will make things easy. No fuzzy shades of grey 
 like some Richard is suggesting.

I'm not suggesting, I'm reporting. You might like things to be easy but that
isn't the way the law works... or we wouldn't have been having this
discussion for the last five years.

cheers
Richard
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Frederik-declares-war-on-data-imports-tp5385741p5392819.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] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-10 Thread Jukka Rahkonen

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes:

 Jukka Rahkonen wrote:
  I like this test because it will make things easy. No fuzzy shades of grey 
  like some Richard is suggesting.
 
 I'm not suggesting, I'm reporting. You might like things to be easy but that
 isn't the way the law works... or we wouldn't have been having this
 discussion for the last five years.

I am awfully sorry, I did it again. I should have just written that I consider
that the test that Jaak suggests is too simple, and the shades of grey are the
colours I tend to see around me.

-Jukka-


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:

 Anthony wrote:
 What about a tracing of a photograph of a flower? [...]
 What about a tracing of a photograph of a lake, as viewed from
 an aircraft?

 Bauman v Fussell may be relevant here.

Not particularly.  The question there was not about whether or not the
painting was copyrightable, but whether or not the painting was an
infringement on the photo.

The question I'm asking (which you chopped out of the quote) is
whether or not the tracing is copyrightable.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

 I like this test because it will make things easy. No fuzzy shades of grey 
 like
 some Richard is suggesting. Can you give an example of a thing that is done 
 by a
 human being and that is not art by this definition?

 Humans create many non-art things. For example databases it
human-created items. Database of phone numbers of a telco operator,
financial accounting database, state registry of roads. If two persons
are creating the same database, then only reason why there can be
differences is that there there is clear mistake  in one of them,
without any doubt.

-- 
Jaak

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

 The question I'm asking (which you chopped out of the quote) is
 whether or not the tracing is copyrightable.

Automatic tracing is not copyrightable by the tracer, according to the
test. What was copyrightable is the aerial image, and automatic
tracing is just a way of making a specific copy of that (just like you
use BW copymachine to copy colored image, different result, but still
just a copy). Generally you must have permission to copy from the
holder of the original. If different people use same tracing
soft+config+source, they'll get exactly the same result. Manual
tracing is different: it will become combined art, as you partly just
create copy and partly create art yourself. I guess that to
publish/sell combined art you have to have agreement (and revenue
sharing) with the original also.

In common sense it seems quite clear, simple and logical to me. Why
different countries have different copyright principles, and it
depends on type of creation (software, maps, photos, art etc) is
another question. Especially in some countries I'm afraid it just
reflects which interest group happened to have more power and
therefore better attorneys/lobbyists. Unfortunately they still have,
so their truth is stronger than my philosophical points of view.

 OSM is just a huge collective artistic work. Probably the largest one
in the world, in terms of number of artists. Who owns it? It is matter
of agreement between artists, and as far as I know then general
consensus/agreement seems to be that it is OSMF and the license for
the work will be ODbL (unless someone proves that the votes you all
know have been flawed). Of course, artists tend to be crazy people
(luckily usually in good sense) and with collective work you'll always
find some of them who think that their 0.001% part of the work is so
important that they'll always find reason to try to tear whole picture
to the pieces. But it would be ashame if they'll succeed.

-- 
Jaak

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Jaak Laineste jaak.laine...@gmail.com wrote:
 I like this test because it will make things easy. No fuzzy shades of grey 
 like
 some Richard is suggesting. Can you give an example of a thing that is done 
 by a
 human being and that is not art by this definition?

  Humans create many non-art things. For example databases it
 human-created items. Database of phone numbers of a telco operator,
 financial accounting database, state registry of roads.

Software, maps, encyclopedias, textbooks...

 If two persons
 are creating the same database, then only reason why there can be
 differences is that there there is clear mistake  in one of them,
 without any doubt.

If two people are creating the same database, then there aren't any
differences, because then they wouldn't be the same database.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-10 Thread Robert Kaiser


Anthony schrieb:

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Matt Amoszerebub...@gmail.com  wrote:

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Anthonyo...@inbox.org  wrote:

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Matt Amoszerebub...@gmail.com  wrote:

the ODbL is the only example i know of.


That's certainly a reason to be wary of it.


not really. it's on the cutting edge, but that's because we're trying
to do something that no-one else has done before: an attribution,
share-alike license for factual data.


You don't think one should be wary of the cutting edge?  If no one
else has done it before, there's probably a reason for that.


Yes, the reason is that nobody has ever made an open database of so many 
hand-collected small facts about the real work yet, OSM is a pioneer 
there and therefore needs new solutions that haven't existed before.


As Matt noted, there's a growing legal opinion that our current data is 
in fact in the PD, as the CC-BY-SA can't be legally applied to it. Is 
that the state you want to have in the future?


Robert Kaiser


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
 As Matt noted, there's a growing legal opinion that our current data is in
 fact in the PD, as the CC-BY-SA can't be legally applied to it. Is that the
 state you want to have in the future?

Better than it being under ODbL.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-09 Thread Aun Johnsen

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Erik Johansson e...@kth.se wrote:

 2010/8/8 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
  Am 08.08.2010 16:59, schrieb John Smith:
  On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson e...@kth.se wrote:
  Australia 2 people per km^2
  Sweden 21 people per km^2
 
  Canada is ~3 people per km^2...
 
  You seem to forget that the most interesting Data (to most people) is
  also where the people are.

 I formally invite you to come to Sweden, which I find a pretty
 interesting place.

 There are really nice views here, if enough European OSM:er spend
 their vacation here we could probably map Sweden in 5 years? A great
 place to start i Härjedalen beautiful mountains and lots of mapping to
 do, even in areas where there are no people within 3 hours of travel.
 So the interesting thing about these places (for most people) is that
 there are few very ppl.

 You can put those blank spots in Austria/Germany in perspective, and
 get to map some really low density places; e.g. try to figure out the
 name of a thousand lakes, mountains or the footpath you are on, it's
 not like there are signs. :-)

 Härjedalen with a few blank spots:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=62.546mlon=12.542zoom=9

 Even Stockholm has quite a few of those blankspots.
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=59.32lon=18.07zoom=9

 So Dirk and Cartinus when are you coming over to map Sweden?


 /Erik who has spent lots of time in blank spots.


I hear Fredrikk (among others) dislikes imports, and I hear his argument
that it might work discouraging on people to have large areas imported. But
here in the Brazilian community we see imports as a necessary way to improve
map coverage, which in turn can increase reqruitment.

Brazil is a country the size of europe, but still we are only a handful
contributors, some of which (myself included) are not native Brazilians.

This discussion started with wether or not the proposed change of license
could go on because of some imported data somewhere was in an uncompatible
license. I can with this confirm that at least 99% of imported data in
Brazil is compatible with the change of license, and most of that also is
compatible with the even more extreme (but currently not considered) Public
Domain license.

If people from the overcrowded European communities, (or anywhere else for
that matter), want to map blank spots like Erik invites to, than Brazil must
be the paradise for you. Only a few regions of Brazil have local
contributions, Yahoo coverage is limited to a few metropolitan areas, and
the majority of imported data is crude, with low node density. Just a few
places have a high detail level, so even in the mapped areas there are much
to do. Just browse to Copacobana in Rio de Janeiro, the streets are there,
but hardly any shops, restaurants, bars, hotels, parking spaces, etc.
Running out of things to map in Hamburg doesn't mean the map is completed.

Actually, after I imported the municipal data of Vitoria, the state capital
of Espirito Santo, Brazil, I have noticed an increase in registrations of
users in that area. This are people that might fill in the data that I
couldn't import, correct inaccuracies in the import (old data?), and map the
areas outside the limit of the import. In Brazil, imports helps reqruiting,
and is encouraging to the people living in the region, but feel free to
contribute with some of your survey data next time you visit Brazil.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-09 Thread Dirk-Lüder Kreie

Am 08.08.2010 23:10, schrieb Liz:
 On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Cartinus wrote:
 It doesn't take as many manhours to map a desert as it takes to map
 downtown  Melbourne.
 Cartinus
 Please don't come up with this sort of nonsense

Well, a Desert usually has much less features than urban terrain, so I
don't see how you can call that nonsense. Of course it depends on your
tools available how many mapping man-hours you need for a square
kilometer area.

 Imports have increased our number of contributors, not decreased them.
 I have mapped, with my partner, a VERY large area of my state. Mostly from 
 survey work. That means we got the main roads, streets in towns and some side 
 roads, POIs.
 Nowhere would I claim it is complete. My survey work has been supplemented by 
 imports which have provided some river and some rail and some road alignments.

I think the discrepancy comes from different experiences with imports,
with respect to when and how the import is done, and how dense the data
imported is.

 My work extends from Cobar to Tocumwal with a little overlap at the southern 
 end
 and between Adelaide and Wollongong
 East West the area between Yass and Mildura is mostly my work, with little 
 overlap.
 
 My work is not going under ODBL but I am still waiting to hear how my work is 
 going to be excluded. 

It saddens me that political reasons will tear additional holes in the
project. It's bad enough that the chosen license turns out to not be
legally sound.

-- 

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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-09 Thread Dave F.


 On 08/08/2010 22:10, Liz wrote:

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Cartinus wrote:

It doesn't take as many manhours to map a desert as it takes to map
downtown  Melbourne.

Cartinus
Please don't come up with this sort of nonsense


Ha, ha, ha.

You do say the funniest things sometimes, Liz.
But only sometimes.

Dave F.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On 9 August 2010 23:40, Julio Costa Zambelli
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:
 The government imports (some highways, schools, hospitals, boundaries,
 etc.) are an essential part of what we are doing here, and at least
 for us, the license change represents no problem.

What about the new contributor terms that don't guarantee that future
licenses will offer BY-SA?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-09 Thread john whelan

But strangely enough it is a lot more complicated to map remote areas
such a desert than to map a city.  Logistics for a start, I can catch
a bus and map my city locally for an hour or two, the city bus just
doesn't run to remote areas and there are a lot of remote areas in
Canada.  I have written to my MP requesting that the northern lakes
and other features get sign posts placed on them but haven't had any
reply yet.

Cheerio John

On 9 August 2010 09:39, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
  On 08/08/2010 22:10, Liz wrote:

 On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Cartinus wrote:

 It doesn't take as many manhours to map a desert as it takes to map
 downtown  Melbourne.

 Cartinus
 Please don't come up with this sort of nonsense

 Ha, ha, ha.

 You do say the funniest things sometimes, Liz.
 But only sometimes.

 Dave F.

 ___
 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] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-09 Thread Julio Costa Zambelli

John,

That may be a problem, but my impression is that the point four solves it.

Cheers

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:56 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 9 August 2010 23:40, Julio Costa Zambelli
 julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:
 The government imports (some highways, schools, hospitals, boundaries,
 etc.) are an essential part of what we are doing here, and at least
 for us, the license change represents no problem.

 What about the new contributor terms that don't guarantee that future
 licenses will offer BY-SA?


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli 
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:

 Aun,

 +1 from Chile.

 The government imports (some highways, schools, hospitals, boundaries,
 etc.) are an essential part of what we are doing here, and at least
 for us, the license change represents no problem.

 Every time we have negotiated with a government agency we have talked
 about a BY-SA license and not about (CC) in particular (many times
 explaining them that we are in a license transition process).

 Also most of the times those agencies only require from us the
 attribution (in the complete suburban highway DB import process for
 example). The most important part of the negotiation for us is to
 explain them how are we going to attribute them with some tags (most
 of the times: source=* and/or attribution=*) in every way and node
 data that they provide to us, instead of a footer note in a slippy map
 like the one Google Maps/Earth use.


Do those agencies realise that under ODbL Produced Works do not require
attribution?  It doesn't sound like your imports are compatible at all.

They are also required to agree to the contributor terms.  You will not be
allowed to agree to them on their behalf.  The contributor terms contain
clauses that permit OSMF to do whatever they like with the content including
change the license.

It's possible that your imports will not be compatible with at least some
parts of the three proposed agreements ODbL, DbCL and CT.

80n





 Cheers


 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Aun Johnsen li...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
 
 
  On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Erik Johansson e...@kth.se wrote:
 
  2010/8/8 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
   Am 08.08.2010 16:59, schrieb John Smith:
   On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson e...@kth.se wrote:
   Australia 2 people per km^2
   Sweden 21 people per km^2
  
   Canada is ~3 people per km^2...
  
   You seem to forget that the most interesting Data (to most people) is
   also where the people are.
 
  I formally invite you to come to Sweden, which I find a pretty
  interesting place.
 
  There are really nice views here, if enough European OSM:er spend
  their vacation here we could probably map Sweden in 5 years? A great
  place to start i Härjedalen beautiful mountains and lots of mapping to
  do, even in areas where there are no people within 3 hours of travel.
  So the interesting thing about these places (for most people) is that
  there are few very ppl.
 
  You can put those blank spots in Austria/Germany in perspective, and
  get to map some really low density places; e.g. try to figure out the
  name of a thousand lakes, mountains or the footpath you are on, it's
  not like there are signs. :-)
 
  Härjedalen with a few blank spots:
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=62.546mlon=12.542zoom=9
 
  Even Stockholm has quite a few of those blankspots.
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=59.32lon=18.07zoom=9
 
  So Dirk and Cartinus when are you coming over to map Sweden?
 
 
  /Erik who has spent lots of time in blank spots.
 
  I hear Fredrikk (among others) dislikes imports, and I hear his argument
  that it might work discouraging on people to have large areas imported.
 But
  here in the Brazilian community we see imports as a necessary way to
 improve
  map coverage, which in turn can increase reqruitment.
 
  Brazil is a country the size of europe, but still we are only a handful
  contributors, some of which (myself included) are not native Brazilians.
 
  This discussion started with wether or not the proposed change of license
  could go on because of some imported data somewhere was in an
 uncompatible
  license. I can with this confirm that at least 99% of imported data in
  Brazil is compatible with the change of license, and most of that also is
  compatible with the even more extreme (but currently not considered)
 Public
  Domain license.
 
  If people from the overcrowded European communities, (or anywhere else
 for
  that matter), want to map blank spots like Erik invites to, than Brazil
 must
  be the paradise for you. Only a few regions of Brazil have local
  contributions, Yahoo coverage is limited to a few metropolitan areas, and
  the majority of imported data is crude, with low node density. Just a few
  places have a high detail level, so even in the mapped areas there are
 much
  to do. Just browse to Copacobana in Rio de Janeiro, the streets are
 there,
  but hardly any shops, restaurants, bars, hotels, parking spaces, etc.
  Running out of things to map in Hamburg doesn't mean the map is
 completed.
 
  Actually, after I imported the municipal data of Vitoria, the state
 capital
  of Espirito Santo, Brazil, I have noticed an increase in registrations of
  users in that area. This are people that might fill in the data that I
  couldn't import, correct inaccuracies in the import (old data?), and map
 the
  areas outside the limit of the import. In Brazil, imports helps
 reqruiting,
  and is

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-09 Thread Robert Kaiser


John Smith schrieb:

The problem here isn't imports, if anything the few imports we have
had helped make the map less blank where fewer people map, which isn't
the same thing as fewer people living.


We have a number of reports here that people took a look, saw that 
there's nothing interesting for them to map as there's so much stuff 
there (even if half of the import isn't accurate) and so they didn't 
even try to contribute. Others tried and gave up as correcting botched 
imports is no fun, drawing on an empty space is much nicer and gives you 
more satisfaction.


Robert Kaiser


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-09 Thread Julio Costa Zambelli

George,

If The contributor terms contain clauses that permit OSMF to do
whatever they like with the content including change the license off
course any non PD import will not be compatible at all.

We will have to ask the agencies to agree with the Contributor Terms
but if we are changing to a PD license disguised as BY-SA (via the CT)
they probably will not cooperate. Even if the point four of the CT
works as enough attribution (who knows).

As I said most of the agencies just asked us to attribute the source
and we told them the way that we will do it. The ODbL (and for this
matter any BY-SA License) does not seem to pose a problem to that, but
that point three of the CT certainly may provoke a _huge_ mess.

What is the idea of putting that condition there? If some people wants
to migrate to Public Domain (and I have read many of them in this
list), why not ask directly for a PD migration acceptance instead of
asking people to accept this kind of CT as part of a BY-SA license
change?

If this is voted as a package I will obviously have to vote against
the change (I do not want to see 7/8 of the Chilean highways
disappearing from the map in one day, not to say many POIs that we
were about to import right now [hospitals, schools, etc.]).

Regards,

Julio Costa


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:16 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli
 julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:

 Aun,

 +1 from Chile.

 The government imports (some highways, schools, hospitals, boundaries,
 etc.) are an essential part of what we are doing here, and at least
 for us, the license change represents no problem.

 Every time we have negotiated with a government agency we have talked
 about a BY-SA license and not about (CC) in particular (many times
 explaining them that we are in a license transition process).

 Also most of the times those agencies only require from us the
 attribution (in the complete suburban highway DB import process for
 example). The most important part of the negotiation for us is to
 explain them how are we going to attribute them with some tags (most
 of the times: source=* and/or attribution=*) in every way and node
 data that they provide to us, instead of a footer note in a slippy map
 like the one Google Maps/Earth use.

 Do those agencies realise that under ODbL Produced Works do not require
 attribution?  It doesn't sound like your imports are compatible at all.

 They are also required to agree to the contributor terms.  You will not be
 allowed to agree to them on their behalf.  The contributor terms contain
 clauses that permit OSMF to do whatever they like with the content including
 change the license.

 It's possible that your imports will not be compatible with at least some
 parts of the three proposed agreements ODbL, DbCL and CT.

 80n




 Cheers


 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Aun Johnsen li...@gimnechiske.org wrote:
 
 
  On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Erik Johansson e...@kth.se wrote:
 
  2010/8/8 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
   Am 08.08.2010 16:59, schrieb John Smith:
   On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson e...@kth.se wrote:
   Australia 2 people per km^2
   Sweden 21 people per km^2
  
   Canada is ~3 people per km^2...
  
   You seem to forget that the most interesting Data (to most people) is
   also where the people are.
 
  I formally invite you to come to Sweden, which I find a pretty
  interesting place.
 
  There are really nice views here, if enough European OSM:er spend
  their vacation here we could probably map Sweden in 5 years? A great
  place to start i Härjedalen beautiful mountains and lots of mapping to
  do, even in areas where there are no people within 3 hours of travel.
  So the interesting thing about these places (for most people) is that
  there are few very ppl.
 
  You can put those blank spots in Austria/Germany in perspective, and
  get to map some really low density places; e.g. try to figure out the
  name of a thousand lakes, mountains or the footpath you are on, it's
  not like there are signs. :-)
 
  Härjedalen with a few blank spots:
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=62.546mlon=12.542zoom=9
 
  Even Stockholm has quite a few of those blankspots.
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=59.32lon=18.07zoom=9
 
  So Dirk and Cartinus when are you coming over to map Sweden?
 
 
  /Erik who has spent lots of time in blank spots.
 
  I hear Fredrikk (among others) dislikes imports, and I hear his argument
  that it might work discouraging on people to have large areas imported.
  But
  here in the Brazilian community we see imports as a necessary way to
  improve
  map coverage, which in turn can increase reqruitment.
 
  Brazil is a country the size of europe, but still we are only a handful
  contributors, some of which (myself included) are not native Brazilians.
 
  This discussion started with wether or not the proposed change of
  license
  could go on because of some imported data somewhere

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On 10 August 2010 04:10, Julio Costa Zambelli
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:
 If this is voted as a package I will obviously have to vote against
 the change (I do not want to see 7/8 of the Chilean highways
 disappearing from the map in one day, not to say many POIs that we
 were about to import right now [hospitals, schools, etc.]).

And this is why Frederik wants to get rid of data imports, because it
reduces the chances of getting a PD dataset by stealth or feature
creep

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:
 We will have to ask the agencies to agree with the Contributor Terms
 but if we are changing to a PD license disguised as BY-SA (via the CT)
 they probably will not cooperate.

OSMF is not moving to a PD license disguised as BY-SA, OSMF would
like to move to ODbL. however, it has to be pointed out that CC BY-SA
might be described as a PD license disguised as BY-SA, since many
lawyers (including those at Creative Commons) think that CC BY-SA is
unsuitable for factual data (such as geodata) and may not be
enforceable in many jurisdictions (such as the USA).

 Even if the point four of the CT
 works as enough attribution (who knows).

whether section 4 is enough to allow CC BY compatibility is something
that OSMF is currently seeking legal advice on.

 As I said most of the agencies just asked us to attribute the source
 and we told them the way that we will do it. The ODbL (and for this
 matter any BY-SA License) does not seem to pose a problem to that, but
 that point three of the CT certainly may provoke a _huge_ mess.

if (as i hope) the lawyers say that section 4 of the CT ensures
compatibility with CC BY, why would section 3 pose a problem? if
section 4 requires that OSMF provide a method of attribution then that
couldn't be taken away by changes under section 3 unless a new version
of the CT were released - which would require asking every single
contributor and re-raising the problem of data loss: the very problem
that section 3 is supposed to alleviate.

 What is the idea of putting that condition there? If some people wants
 to migrate to Public Domain (and I have read many of them in this
 list), why not ask directly for a PD migration acceptance instead of
 asking people to accept this kind of CT as part of a BY-SA license
 change?

migration to PD is not part of the plan. the motivation for that
section is simply that needs and requirements change over time. when
the project was started CC BY-SA seemed like a perfectly valid
license. we're now 6 years on, and 2 years into trying to change the
license, because we were wrong about CC BY-SA. while we think ODbL is
far, far better - do we want to have the spectre of data loss again in
another 6 years if we prove to be wrong again?

 If this is voted as a package I will obviously have to vote against
 the change (I do not want to see 7/8 of the Chilean highways
 disappearing from the map in one day, not to say many POIs that we
 were about to import right now [hospitals, schools, etc.]).

no-one wants to see any data loss. that's one of the many reasons
we're moving from a BY-SA license to another BY-SA license. while
there is an option to declare your preference with regard to PD, this
is for information only.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-09 Thread Frederik Ramm


John,

John Smith wrote:

And this is why Frederik wants to get rid of data imports, because it
reduces the chances of getting a PD dataset by stealth or feature
creep


Maybe if you'd scale back your demagogy a bit. The subject you chose for 
this thread is offensive enough.


Nothing here happens stealthily. My main concern is not that data 
imports are a hindrance towards going PD (an estimated 95% of imported 
data is PD and thus irrelevant in this question). My main concern is 
that people, among them you as one of the loudest, use existing data 
imports as a *reason* to try and stop our move to the better ODbL. And I 
say again, if we have to decide between keep imports and move to 
ODbL, then let's start to rip out those imports *today* because they 
are a dead weight that keeps us from moving ahead.


There is a clause in the contributors terms that allows the license to 
be changed by a 2/3 majority of active contributors, to another free and 
open license.


2/3 of active contributors is a pretty damn large group of people who 
would all have to agree. That's an immensely high hurdle. The license 
has to be free and open. There is no other restriction, and John is 
right in saying that this would technically even allow a move to PD.


This is not a planned move to PD, or some stealthy maneouvre by anybody 
in the license working group. This is just what any sane person would 
do: Leave the door open; give yourself an spectrum of choices that is as 
broad as possible in the future so you can react to a changing situation.


We are seeing now that license change is a very difficult process with 
lots of problems, one that damages the community as well as the data.


At the same time, we have absolutely no idea what the world is going to 
look like 10 years from now. If neither the mood in the community nor 
the outside world change - then why should our license.


However, it is quite possible that the geodata world changes 
drastically. For example, it might be possible that courts rule that 
geodata doesn't carry any copyright and in consequence, more and more 
governments follow the US lead and just make their data available as PD 
(including, let's assume that for a moment, governments in Australia and 
Chile). If that happens, then OSM still has better data because we have 
lots of people working on it, but we'd be seeing more and more 
competition - potential OSM users preferring to use other data sources 
which are only half as good but have no restrictions. In such a world, I 
could envisage a large majority of OSMers saying: Let's drop that 
stupid share-alike license which nobody really understands anyway, and 
become as free as the rest of the world already is.


(Remember: We're here to create a free world map because there is no 
free world map at the moment. What we do is *more free* than what all 
the others are doing. - Can you imagine a time when people say oh well 
there's OSM which as a few more footways but it comes with all that 
license hassle, I'll rather use the free government data.)


This is of course only one potential reason for changing the license in 
the future. Other reasons would include ODbL turning out to be 
unworkable for some reason or other, or the legal situation with regards 
to geodata changing in some other direction. And of course *any* change 
in license is thinkable, as long as it remains free and open.


Anything we try to cement now will be with us until the end of the 
project. The current CT are written in a way that makes us entrust the 
future of OSM to those who are active mappers at any future time - it 
will be their project, and through democratic elections to the OSMF 
board and the license change process envisaged in the CT, they will get 
the chance to shape the license in the way that is best for the project 
then.


I consider myself a bright guy, but I would never presume that I can 
today make an intelligent decision that would still be right for the 
project and its members in 10 years. And the *least* I would do is base 
such a decision on a little data that I have imported from a source 
which might be unhappy with what the project wants to do in 10 years' time.


In theory one could seek to limit the license change rules in the CT, 
for example by adding that the chosen license must not only be free and 
open, but also have an attribution component. Superficially, this 
might solve your pet problem, namely ensuring eternal compatibility with 
data you have taken from the Australian government. (A government that 
is not unlikely to, by the time the project might contemplate another 
license change, have gone through several license changes themselves.) 
But the next think you'll ask is whether that attribution component is 
enough. Surely evil Frederik is already plotting to have the attribution 
listed only in some obscure planning department on Alpha Centauri! We 
need to make this clear... and sooner rather than later you'll

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On 10 August 2010 05:46, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Maybe if you'd scale back your demagogy a bit. The subject you chose for
 this thread is offensive enough.

Sorry if the truth hurts, but some of us are offended by the notion
that something we find useful can be so easily and unceremoniously
discarded on a whim of what ifs...

 Nothing here happens stealthily. My main concern is not that data imports
 are a hindrance towards going PD (an estimated 95% of imported data is PD
 and thus irrelevant in this question). My main concern is that people, among

How exactly did you come up with this 75% figure, the biggest import
I'm aware of was TIGER data and it was about 1/3rd, I can only assume
you assume that people contributing will happily relicense under a non
By-SA license, this doesn't seem to have any basis in reality...

 them you as one of the loudest, use existing data imports as a *reason* to
 try and stop our move to the better ODbL. And I say again, if we have to

And you constantly confuser or blur the issue of license with
contributor terms, as far as I'm aware CDBL makes claims about
individual facts being non-copyrightable, and the new CTs are
incompatible with almost every other non-PD data source, including any
other ODBL data if/when it exists. We kept getting asked if our
government would relicense under ODBL, but even then that wouldn't be
allowable under the CTs...

 decide between keep imports and move to ODbL, then let's start to rip
 out those imports *today* because they are a dead weight that keeps us from
 moving ahead.

As others have pointed out, how can they be dead weight if they expand
the community, so ditching that 'dead weight' will likely drive
contributors with it...

 There is a clause in the contributors terms that allows the license to be
 changed by a 2/3 majority of active contributors, to another free and open
 license.

Which I disagree with, and it seems many others do too...

 2/3 of active contributors is a pretty damn large group of people who would

Which seems to be getting smaller at present...

 all have to agree. That's an immensely high hurdle. The license has to be
 free and open. There is no other restriction, and John is right in saying
 that this would technically even allow a move to PD.

If it's such a high hurdle why even bother to weight us down with such
restrictions?

You are limiting our freedoms as contributors, and you were the one
that keeps spouting about how the contributors, not the data, is the
most important thing to the project, you seem to have your logic mixed
up there some where...

 This is not a planned move to PD, or some stealthy maneouvre by anybody in
 the license working group. This is just what any sane person would do: Leave
 the door open; give yourself an spectrum of choices that is as broad as
 possible in the future so you can react to a changing situation.

Sure, if this was at the beginning, but that ship has long sailed,
there is people already planning further imports and you come along
and say we should rip out the existing ones, way to upset the
community...

 We are seeing now that license change is a very difficult process with lots
 of problems, one that damages the community as well as the data.

I couldn't agree more...

 At the same time, we have absolutely no idea what the world is going to look
 like 10 years from now. If neither the mood in the community nor the outside
 world change - then why should our license.

If you want a PD project start a new one, but there is far too much
data and work gone into the existing project on the assumption that we
could use cc-by and cc-by-sa data...

 However, it is quite possible that the geodata world changes drastically.
 For example, it might be possible that courts rule that geodata doesn't
 carry any copyright and in consequence, more and more governments follow the
 US lead and just make their data available as PD (including, let's assume
 that for a moment, governments in Australia and Chile). If that happens,
 then OSM still has better data because we have lots of people working on it,
 but we'd be seeing more and more competition - potential OSM users
 preferring to use other data sources which are only half as good but have no
 restrictions. In such a world, I could envisage a large majority of OSMers
 saying: Let's drop that stupid share-alike license which nobody really
 understands anyway, and become as free as the rest of the world already is.

We could spend a year working on what ifs, but the fact of life is
many people would be effected by this, why should we care more about
people 10 years from now, than those contributing at present?

 (Remember: We're here to create a free world map because there is no free
 world map at the moment. What we do is *more free* than what all the others
 are doing. - Can you imagine a time when people say oh well there's OSM
 which as a few more footways but it comes with all that license hassle, I'll

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-09 Thread john whelan

I honestly think the way forward is to continue as we are currently
and set up a separate project which is pure PD.  Extract anything that
can be extracted from the current map, this can be done by selecting
data which has been contributed by those who are happy with public
domain licensing and that gives you a start for the PD project and
lets the rest of us get on with life creating something useful.  In
the longer term the PD version might even create something usable and
gives us a short term solution as well.

Cheerio John

On 9 August 2010 16:16, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 10 August 2010 05:46, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Maybe if you'd scale back your demagogy a bit. The subject you chose for
 this thread is offensive enough.

 Sorry if the truth hurts, but some of us are offended by the notion
 that something we find useful can be so easily and unceremoniously
 discarded on a whim of what ifs...

 Nothing here happens stealthily. My main concern is not that data imports
 are a hindrance towards going PD (an estimated 95% of imported data is PD
 and thus irrelevant in this question). My main concern is that people, among

 How exactly did you come up with this 75% figure, the biggest import
 I'm aware of was TIGER data and it was about 1/3rd, I can only assume
 you assume that people contributing will happily relicense under a non
 By-SA license, this doesn't seem to have any basis in reality...

 them you as one of the loudest, use existing data imports as a *reason* to
 try and stop our move to the better ODbL. And I say again, if we have to

 And you constantly confuser or blur the issue of license with
 contributor terms, as far as I'm aware CDBL makes claims about
 individual facts being non-copyrightable, and the new CTs are
 incompatible with almost every other non-PD data source, including any
 other ODBL data if/when it exists. We kept getting asked if our
 government would relicense under ODBL, but even then that wouldn't be
 allowable under the CTs...

 decide between keep imports and move to ODbL, then let's start to rip
 out those imports *today* because they are a dead weight that keeps us from
 moving ahead.

 As others have pointed out, how can they be dead weight if they expand
 the community, so ditching that 'dead weight' will likely drive
 contributors with it...

 There is a clause in the contributors terms that allows the license to be
 changed by a 2/3 majority of active contributors, to another free and open
 license.

 Which I disagree with, and it seems many others do too...

 2/3 of active contributors is a pretty damn large group of people who would

 Which seems to be getting smaller at present...

 all have to agree. That's an immensely high hurdle. The license has to be
 free and open. There is no other restriction, and John is right in saying
 that this would technically even allow a move to PD.

 If it's such a high hurdle why even bother to weight us down with such
 restrictions?

 You are limiting our freedoms as contributors, and you were the one
 that keeps spouting about how the contributors, not the data, is the
 most important thing to the project, you seem to have your logic mixed
 up there some where...

 This is not a planned move to PD, or some stealthy maneouvre by anybody in
 the license working group. This is just what any sane person would do: Leave
 the door open; give yourself an spectrum of choices that is as broad as
 possible in the future so you can react to a changing situation.

 Sure, if this was at the beginning, but that ship has long sailed,
 there is people already planning further imports and you come along
 and say we should rip out the existing ones, way to upset the
 community...

 We are seeing now that license change is a very difficult process with lots
 of problems, one that damages the community as well as the data.

 I couldn't agree more...

 At the same time, we have absolutely no idea what the world is going to look
 like 10 years from now. If neither the mood in the community nor the outside
 world change - then why should our license.

 If you want a PD project start a new one, but there is far too much
 data and work gone into the existing project on the assumption that we
 could use cc-by and cc-by-sa data...

 However, it is quite possible that the geodata world changes drastically.
 For example, it might be possible that courts rule that geodata doesn't
 carry any copyright and in consequence, more and more governments follow the
 US lead and just make their data available as PD (including, let's assume
 that for a moment, governments in Australia and Chile). If that happens,
 then OSM still has better data because we have lots of people working on it,
 but we'd be seeing more and more competition - potential OSM users
 preferring to use other data sources which are only half as good but have no
 restrictions. In such a world, I could envisage a large majority of OSMers
 saying: Let's

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 OSMF is not moving to a PD license disguised as BY-SA

Then why don't they ever talk about the fact that the contents are
going to be released under DbCL?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-09 Thread Frederik Ramm


Hi,

Anthony wrote:

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:

OSMF is not moving to a PD license disguised as BY-SA


Then why don't they ever talk about the fact that the contents are
going to be released under DbCL?


Because it is irrelevant given that the Database as a whole is 
protected, rather than the individual pieces it contains which, as you 
correctly state, are largely unprotectable anway?


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] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On 10 August 2010 07:11, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Because it is irrelevant given that the Database as a whole is protected,
 rather than the individual pieces it contains which, as you correctly state,
 are largely unprotectable anway?

Largely isn't completely, which means you are suggesting that if there
is any copyright it be removed, which is relevant because then that
data becomes PD like Anthony suggested.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-09 Thread Frederik Ramm


Hi,

John Smith wrote:

Because it is irrelevant given that the Database as a whole is protected,
rather than the individual pieces it contains which, as you correctly state,
are largely unprotectable anway?



Largely isn't completely, which means you are suggesting that if there
is any copyright it be removed, which is relevant because then that
data becomes PD like Anthony suggested.


I think it has been repeated countless times already, and it is funny to 
see how both you and Anthony seem to ignore that.


Copyright protection of facts is patchy at best. It depends very much on 
how much art you have put into your facts, and in what country you live. 
John and Liz in Australia say that CC-BY(-SA) works for geodata in 
Australia, meaning that facts can be copyrighted. Several Australian 
judges seem to think otherwise but let's assume it were so. Anthony in 
the US says that CC-BY(-SA) is more or less equivalent to PD when 
applied to geodata in the US, i.e. CC-BY(-SA) doesn't work as supposed 
(and that's why he likes it - he perceives ODbL as restricting some 
options he thinks he has under CC-BY-SA).


Any license that tries to use this patchy copyright protection of data 
is bound to be unfair at the very least, and more likely a pain the 
behind of anybody who wants to use it. The legality of OSM use cases 
would depend on whether you execute a project from your Australian or 
American office. We might be divided on some issues but *that* can 
surely not be our aim.


That's why ODbL protects the *collection* as a whole, rather than 
individual bits of data. The individual bits might already be PD in your 
jurisdiction or they might become effectively PD but ODbL is constructed 
in a way that this does not matter; and indeed (since un-protectability 
of factual database contents is a given in some jurisdictions) this is 
the only sane way of dealing with the situation.


That's what is meant by irrelevant - ODbL works independently of 
whether or not you could theoretically protect individual facts in your 
jurisdiction.


Fortunately most people seem to grasp the concept but I've here made an 
effort to present it, again, in simple terms to increase the number of 
those who do.


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] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 they do. and it's in the contributor terms: ODbL 1.0 for the database
 and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database. the
 database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold
 no copyright - so copyright law can't be used to enforce attribution

But the contents aren't just facts, especially when it comes to
subjective tags like smoothness...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On 10 August 2010 07:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 I think it has been repeated countless times already, and it is funny to see
 how both you and Anthony seem to ignore that.

We're not ignoring anything, the problem is the content license
explicitly removes copyright, which makes any BY or SA data
incompatible.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-09 Thread Julio Costa Zambelli

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 OSMF is not moving to a PD license disguised as BY-SA, OSMF would
 like to move to ODbL. however, it has to be pointed out that CC BY-SA
 might be described as a PD license disguised as BY-SA, since many
 lawyers (including those at Creative Commons) think that CC BY-SA is
 unsuitable for factual data (such as geodata) and may not be
 enforceable in many jurisdictions (such as the USA).

I know about the problems with (CC)BY-SA, and I also know that ODbL is
supposed to solve those. And unless I am getting lost in translation I
do not have any problem with ODbL, but with the point made by John
Smith about the third condition on the CT (OSMF agrees to use or
sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the
terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0 for the database and
DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or
another free and open license).

In the process of approving the change to ODbL the Foundation is
asking us to let it change the license to something that may be PD in
the future. That said the imports that we have made here in Chile are
probably compatible with ODbL but not with letting the foundation
change the license to something more open than BY-SA.

Again, risking some misunderstanding with my far from perfect English,
I understand from what you are saying that two problems are trying to
be solved, the unfitness of the (CC)BY-SA license for our kind of
data, and the risk of loosing data in future changes of license.

The thing is that I am all about solving the first but not about
lossing lots of data today speculating about that first solution
failing in the future, risking lots of data then.

The only reason that I see to put that condition there is thinking
about changing the license to PD in the future without asking all the
contributors again.

 whether section 4 is enough to allow CC BY compatibility is something
 that OSMF is currently seeking legal advice on.

I guess this will help, but if the license can be changed in the
future to PD without asking the Gov agency, I am almost sure that they
will not comply with this.

 if (as i hope) the lawyers say that section 4 of the CT ensures
 compatibility with CC BY, why would section 3 pose a problem? if
 section 4 requires that OSMF provide a method of attribution then that
 couldn't be taken away by changes under section 3 unless a new version
 of the CT were released - which would require asking every single
 contributor and re-raising the problem of data loss: the very problem
 that section 3 is supposed to alleviate.

I think this time I actually got lost in translation but as far as I
understand it, the point 4 is useless if it can be discarded without
asking the contributors. Am I getting something wrong?

 migration to PD is not part of the plan. the motivation for that
 section is simply that needs and requirements change over time. when
 the project was started CC BY-SA seemed like a perfectly valid
 license. we're now 6 years on, and 2 years into trying to change the
 license, because we were wrong about CC BY-SA. while we think ODbL is
 far, far better - do we want to have the spectre of data loss again in
 another 6 years if we prove to be wrong again?

I think it is a perfectly reasonable risk in front of a sure damage.

 no-one wants to see any data loss. that's one of the many reasons
 we're moving from a BY-SA license to another BY-SA license. while
 there is an option to declare your preference with regard to PD, this
 is for information only.

It is a BY-SA to BY-SA moving as long as you do not give the OSMF the
right to move to PD (or anything different from BY-SA for this matter)
without asking again.
At this point I do not see any good reason to prefer PD and accept to
consecuences of moving to it.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 they do. and it's in the contributor terms: ODbL 1.0 for the database
 and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database. the
 database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold
 no copyright - so copyright law can't be used to enforce attribution

 But the contents aren't just facts, especially when it comes to
 subjective tags like smoothness...

it's great that you think that, but many lawyers think otherwise. in
any case, they'll be just facts if someone strips the smoothness tags
out.

wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?

i'm not saying this for your benefit, by the way. it seems pretty
obvious you've made up your mind and aren't going to change it in the
face of reasoned argument or factual counterpoint.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-09 Thread Liz

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 John and Liz in Australia say that CC-BY(-SA) works for geodata in 
 Australia, meaning that facts can be copyrighted. Several Australian 
 judges seem to think otherwise but let's assume it were so.
Misquote
John has pointed out twice that one legal decision is under appeal



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,

 Anthony wrote:

 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:

 OSMF is not moving to a PD license disguised as BY-SA

 Then why don't they ever talk about the fact that the contents are
 going to be released under DbCL?

 Because it is irrelevant given that the Database as a whole is protected,
 rather than the individual pieces it contains which, as you correctly state,
 are largely unprotectable anway?

Perhaps you can clarify what it means for the Database as a whole to
be protected, but the individual pieces not to be.  Specifically, what
does that mean in a jurisdiction which does not recognize database
rights.  What does the DbCL permit people to do which would not be
permitted in its absense?  What's the point of it?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 they do. and it's in the contributor terms: ODbL 1.0 for the database
 and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database. the
 database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold
 no copyright - so copyright law can't be used to enforce attribution

 But the contents aren't just facts, especially when it comes to
 subjective tags like smoothness...

 it's great that you think that, but many lawyers think otherwise. in
 any case, they'll be just facts if someone strips the smoothness tags
 out.

 wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?

Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
think otherwise?  Exact quotes of what they said?

Also an example of licenses which distinguish the whole database
from the individual contents of the database would be helpful.  How
does that make any more sense than releasing a book under CC-BY-SA,
for the book, and CC0 for the individual words of the book.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On 10 August 2010 07:43, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?

That isn't the point, the point was about it *explicitly* removing any
claim of copyright, which then makes it incompatible with BY and SA
data sources.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

 On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 they do. and it's in the contributor terms: ODbL 1.0 for the database
 and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database. the

One other thing.  What is meant by the individual contents of the
database.  Is a changeset an individual piece of the database?  A
node?  A way?  If a way, are the lat/lon pairs of the nodes within the
way considered part of the way?

WTF does DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database mean?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli
julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 OSMF is not moving to a PD license disguised as BY-SA, OSMF would
 like to move to ODbL. however, it has to be pointed out that CC BY-SA
 might be described as a PD license disguised as BY-SA, since many
 lawyers (including those at Creative Commons) think that CC BY-SA is
 unsuitable for factual data (such as geodata) and may not be
 enforceable in many jurisdictions (such as the USA).

 I know about the problems with (CC)BY-SA, and I also know that ODbL is
 supposed to solve those. And unless I am getting lost in translation I
 do not have any problem with ODbL, but with the point made by John
 Smith about the third condition on the CT (OSMF agrees to use or
 sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the
 terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0 for the database and
 DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or
 another free and open license).

 In the process of approving the change to ODbL the Foundation is
 asking us to let it change the license to something that may be PD in
 the future. That said the imports that we have made here in Chile are
 probably compatible with ODbL but not with letting the foundation
 change the license to something more open than BY-SA.

 Again, risking some misunderstanding with my far from perfect English,
 I understand from what you are saying that two problems are trying to
 be solved, the unfitness of the (CC)BY-SA license for our kind of
 data, and the risk of loosing data in future changes of license.

 The thing is that I am all about solving the first but not about
 lossing lots of data today speculating about that first solution
 failing in the future, risking lots of data then.

unfortunately, we will lose data this time around - it's unavoidable
because it's extremely unlikely that all contributors will be
reachable and, as many here have pointed out, be willing to agree to
the new CTs. if the data you're worried about is governmental
attribution datasets (such as OS opendata, LINZ, NRC, etc...) then,
pending legal advice, they could be fine.

 The only reason that I see to put that condition there is thinking
 about changing the license to PD in the future without asking all the
 contributors again.

or to change the license to something else which is also BY and SA, if
it turns out that's necessary. or to move to a BY-only license, if
that's necessary. is the possibility of needing to change the license
again in the future not worthwhile, given the problems it's causing
right now?

 whether section 4 is enough to allow CC BY compatibility is something
 that OSMF is currently seeking legal advice on.

 I guess this will help, but if the license can be changed in the
 future to PD without asking the Gov agency, I am almost sure that they
 will not comply with this.

i think that's a question for a real lawyer. ;-)

 if (as i hope) the lawyers say that section 4 of the CT ensures
 compatibility with CC BY, why would section 3 pose a problem? if
 section 4 requires that OSMF provide a method of attribution then that
 couldn't be taken away by changes under section 3 unless a new version
 of the CT were released - which would require asking every single
 contributor and re-raising the problem of data loss: the very problem
 that section 3 is supposed to alleviate.

 I think this time I actually got lost in translation but as far as I
 understand it, the point 4 is useless if it can be discarded without
 asking the contributors. Am I getting something wrong?

point 4 cannot be discarded without asking all the contributors who've
agreed to the contributor terms. so it's far from useless in
guaranteeing attribution.

 migration to PD is not part of the plan. the motivation for that
 section is simply that needs and requirements change over time. when
 the project was started CC BY-SA seemed like a perfectly valid
 license. we're now 6 years on, and 2 years into trying to change the
 license, because we were wrong about CC BY-SA. while we think ODbL is
 far, far better - do we want to have the spectre of data loss again in
 another 6 years if we prove to be wrong again?

 I think it is a perfectly reasonable risk in front of a sure damage.

and what might the damage be in the future if we need to change in the future?

 no-one wants to see any data loss. that's one of the many reasons
 we're moving from a BY-SA license to another BY-SA license. while
 there is an option to declare your preference with regard to PD, this
 is for information only.

 It is a BY-SA to BY-SA moving as long as you do not give the OSMF the
 right to move to PD (or anything different from BY-SA for this matter)
 without asking again.
 At this point I do not see any good reason to prefer PD and accept to
 consecuences of moving to it.

that's great - so you don't have to tick the

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 10 August 2010 07:43, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?

 That isn't the point, the point was about it *explicitly* removing any
 claim of copyright, which then makes it incompatible with BY and SA
 data sources.

that's currently awaiting legal advice. but if you can save us, and
the lawyers, the trouble of giving advice, thanks!

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On 10 August 2010 08:02, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 that's currently awaiting legal advice. but if you can save us, and
 the lawyers, the trouble of giving advice, thanks!

How many different lawyers have been asked, and do they all share the
same opinions that we've been hearing?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 they do. and it's in the contributor terms: ODbL 1.0 for the database
 and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database. the
 database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold
 no copyright - so copyright law can't be used to enforce attribution

 But the contents aren't just facts, especially when it comes to
 subjective tags like smoothness...

 it's great that you think that, but many lawyers think otherwise. in
 any case, they'll be just facts if someone strips the smoothness tags
 out.

 wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?

 Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
 think otherwise?  Exact quotes of what they said?

unfortunately not. apparently legal advice can't be publicly shared
without making the lawyers in question liable for it. given that our
legal advisors are acting for us pro-bono and have asked that we don't
quote them publicly, i don't think it would be nice to do that.

 Also an example of licenses which distinguish the whole database
 from the individual contents of the database would be helpful.  How
 does that make any more sense than releasing a book under CC-BY-SA,
 for the book, and CC0 for the individual words of the book.

the ODbL is the only example i know of. and your example is good: it's
not possible to copyright individual dictionary words, as far as i
know, but the collection of them is protectable. releasing the words
as CC0 is simply a tautology in this case, as the DbCL is in many
jurisdictions by waiving copyright in individual data.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
 think otherwise?  Exact quotes of what they said?

 unfortunately not. apparently legal advice can't be publicly shared
 without making the lawyers in question liable for it. given that our
 legal advisors are acting for us pro-bono and have asked that we don't
 quote them publicly, i don't think it would be nice to do that.

Then can you at least stop referring to what they said, especially
referring to it as though it's in any way authoritative.  Without the
ability to see the exact quote, let alone ask questions, many lawyers
said you're wrong is useless.

 Also an example of licenses which distinguish the whole database
 from the individual contents of the database would be helpful.  How
 does that make any more sense than releasing a book under CC-BY-SA,
 for the book, and CC0 for the individual words of the book.

 the ODbL is the only example i know of.

That's certainly a reason to be wary of it.

 and your example is good: it's
 not possible to copyright individual dictionary words, as far as i
 know, but the collection of them is protectable. releasing the words
 as CC0 is simply a tautology in this case, as the DbCL is in many
 jurisdictions by waiving copyright in individual data.

If that's really all this is, it's awfully confusing and unnecessary.
As I say in my other post, it's not even clear what the individual
contents means.  If it means a single changeset, that's one thing,
and something I would *not* like to release under DbCL.  If on the
other hand it means just an individual node...  Who's going to copy
just a single node?

Is there any way in which releasing the individual contents under
DbCL is *not* redundant?  If it *is* redundant, is there any way to
have it removed?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:


 Fortunately most people seem to grasp the concept but I've here made an
 effort to present it, again, in simple terms to increase the number of those
 who do.

 Most people are actually pretty clueless about the details of ODbL, to the
extent that I've even seen it used to license a bunch of photographs, which
is about the most inappropriate use I can think of.

80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
  they do. and it's in the contributor terms: ODbL 1.0 for the database
  and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database. the
  database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold
  no copyright - so copyright law can't be used to enforce attribution
 
  But the contents aren't just facts, especially when it comes to
  subjective tags like smoothness...

 it's great that you think that, but many lawyers think otherwise. in
 any case, they'll be just facts if someone strips the smoothness tags
 out.

 Lawyers can think what they like, it's the judges that make the decisions.

While pure facts have been judged not to be copyrightable, it requires only
a tiny amount of creativity to permit them to become copyrightable.

Most of the cases you are probably familiar with involve simple lists of
telephone numbers and subscribers.  The moment you add even the slightest
originality to a collection of facts then it become eligible for copyright.

Matt, you really do need to read up on case law about the minimum threshold
for copyrightability.

80n





 wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database?

 i'm not saying this for your benefit, by the way. it seems pretty
 obvious you've made up your mind and aren't going to change it in the
 face of reasoned argument or factual counterpoint.

 cheers,

 matt

 ___
 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] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-09 Thread Ian Dees

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:

 Most of the cases you are probably familiar with involve simple lists of
 telephone numbers and subscribers.  The moment you add even the slightest
 originality to a collection of facts then it become eligible for copyright.


Can you give examples of what you consider originality in the OSM database?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
think otherwise? Exact quotes of what they said?

unfortunately not. apparently legal advice can't be publicly shared
without making the lawyers in question liable for it. given that our
legal advisors are acting for us pro-bono and have asked that we don't
quote them publicly, i don't think it would be nice to do that.

Then can you at least stop referring to what they said, especially
referring to it as though it's in any way authoritative. Without the
ability to see the exact quote, let alone ask questions, many lawyers
said you're wrong is useless.

i'm simply saying that there are people out there who know what
they're talking about. some lawyers have gone on the record about
ODbL. see http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-August/000181.html
and http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-December/045170.html
and
http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabanklicentie-versie-10
and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License#ODbL_reviews_from_lawyers

Also an example of licenses which distinguish the whole database
from the individual contents of the database would be helpful. How
does that make any more sense than releasing a book under CC-BY-SA,
for the book, and CC0 for the individual words of the book.

the ODbL is the only example i know of.

That's certainly a reason to be wary of it.

not really. it's on the cutting edge, but that's because we're trying
to do something that no-one else has done before: an attribution,
share-alike license for factual data.

and your example is good: it's
not possible to copyright individual dictionary words, as far as i
know, but the collection of them is protectable. releasing the words
as CC0 is simply a tautology in this case, as the DbCL is in many
jurisdictions by waiving copyright in individual data.

If that's really all this is, it's awfully confusing and unnecessary.
As I say in my other post, it's not even clear what the individual
contents means. If it means a single changeset, that's one thing,
and something I would *not* like to release under DbCL. If on the
other hand it means just an individual node... Who's going to copy
just a single node?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline

we've been discussing this for a long time.

Is there any way in which releasing the individual contents under
DbCL is *not* redundant? If it *is* redundant, is there any way to
have it removed?

it makes it legally explicit what's going on. although it might seem
redundant, or confusing, it adds legal clarity.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:05 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 10 August 2010 08:02, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 that's currently awaiting legal advice. but if you can save us, and
 the lawyers, the trouble of giving advice, thanks!

 How many different lawyers have been asked, and do they all share the
 same opinions that we've been hearing?

of course, any lawyer is free to look at it. the lawyers that have
been asked to look at it are, as far as i know, the guys acting
pro-bono for us at WSGR and ITO world's lawyer. independently, the
lawyers at CC and axel metzger, andrea rossati and
arnoud engelfriet have given opinions.

see http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-August/000181.html
and http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-December/045170.html
and 
http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabanklicentie-versie-10
and 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License#ODbL_reviews_from_lawyers

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
 Matt, you really do need to read up on case law about the minimum threshold
 for copyrightability.

i have. but perhaps you could point out the judgements you're
referring to, because i've not seen them.

cheers,

matt

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:

 unfortunately, we will lose data this time around - it's unavoidable


Data loss can easily be avoided.  Just abandon your attempts to change the
license.

If you want an ODbL licensed project why not just start one?



 point 4 cannot be discarded without asking all the contributors who've
 agreed to the contributor terms. so it's far from useless in
 guaranteeing attribution.

 Point 4 does not guarantee attribution.It may provide an attribution
mechanism to users of OSM's data but it does not enforce that on their
produced works.

Why don't you try this.  Import some Ordnance Survey Street View data into
OSM, then render it as a Produced Work with the ODbL required attribution:

 Contains information from OpenStreetMap, which is made available here
under the Open Database License (ODbL).

Now take that rendered map and wave it under the noses of the nice people at
Orndance Survey and see how long it takes them to sue you for not complying
with their attribution clause.

80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
  Matt, you really do need to read up on case law about the minimum
 threshold
  for copyrightability.

 i have. but perhaps you could point out the judgements you're
 referring to, because i've not seen them.


This is quite a good place to start:
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Copyright_protection_of_databases
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
 think otherwise?  Exact quotes of what they said?

 unfortunately not. apparently legal advice can't be publicly shared
 without making the lawyers in question liable for it. given that our
 legal advisors are acting for us pro-bono and have asked that we don't
 quote them publicly, i don't think it would be nice to do that.

 Then can you at least stop referring to what they said, especially
 referring to it as though it's in any way authoritative.  Without the
 ability to see the exact quote, let alone ask questions, many lawyers
 said you're wrong is useless.

 i'm simply saying that there are people out there who know what
 they're talking about.

I'm simply saying that I have strong doubts that many of them would
have said that the contents of the OSM are purely factual.
Furthermore, if asked whether or not collections of facts can be
copyrightable, I have strong doubts that many of them would have said
no.

 some lawyers have gone on the record about ODbL.

That's not equivalent to saying that the content of OSM are purely factual.

 Also an example of licenses which distinguish the whole database
 from the individual contents of the database would be helpful.  How
 does that make any more sense than releasing a book under CC-BY-SA,
 for the book, and CC0 for the individual words of the book.

 the ODbL is the only example i know of.

 That's certainly a reason to be wary of it.

 not really. it's on the cutting edge, but that's because we're trying
 to do something that no-one else has done before: an attribution,
 share-alike license for factual data.

You don't think one should be wary of the cutting edge?  If no one
else has done it before, there's probably a reason for that.

[discussion of individual contents and DbCL]

Okay.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:

 Most of the cases you are probably familiar with involve simple lists of
 telephone numbers and subscribers.  The moment you add even the slightest
 originality to a collection of facts then it become eligible for copyright.

 Can you give examples of what you consider originality in the OSM database?

Pretty much every way created by a human is original.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-09 Thread Liz

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Ian Dees wrote:
  Most of the cases you are probably familiar with involve simple lists of
  telephone numbers and subscribers.  The moment you add even the slightest
  originality to a collection of facts then it become eligible for
  copyright.
 
 Can you give examples of what you consider originality in the OSM database?

On tagging within the last 24 hours was a discussion on Living Street.

Living Street in some jurisdictions is clearly defined. Marking those 
streets so signed as highway=living_street is noting down a fact.

Deciding that a Shared Zone is highway=living_street is not a fact, it is my 
or some other persons decision, and if the matter is not so clear at all, and 
the decision is made as recommended on the street's features (low speed limit, 
no marked centre line) then it is clearly an original decision.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
 Can you give examples of what you consider originality in the OSM database?

Is a painting of a flower copyrightable?  What about a tracing of a
photograph of a flower?  What if you just trace the outline of the
flower?

Is a painting of a lake, as viewed from an aircraft, copyrightable?
What about a tracing of a photograph of a lake, as viewed from an
aircraft?  What if you just trace the outline of the lake?

What if you draw the outline of the lake from memory, after flying
above it in an airplane?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-08 Thread john whelan

Probably if you live in an area with a fairly large number of mappers
on the ground imports have less impact, reality is trying to map
Canada from GPS traces is a bit unrealistic.  I tend not to go for
walks at minus thirty, or even minus twenty come to that.

Cheerio John

On 8 August 2010 05:38, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 For anyone still fence sitting over the new contributor terms and the
 ODBL this is what you have to look forward to in the near future:

 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003908.html

 Basically those in favour of PD but not directly effected by or
 benefiting from data imports would like to have them all ripped out
 and replaced with surveyed data.

 I for one would love it if Frederik would carry out his threat in this email:

 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003910.html

 Because he would no longer be able to hide behind someone else
 vandalising the data if/when data is removed in future due to the
 license change over and he himself would directly become the data
 vandal.

 If these people were serious about making a PD set of map data they
 would start their own project rather than foisting their morals and
 agendas on the rest of us.

 ___
 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] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-08 Thread Peteris Krisjanis

2010/8/8 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com:
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003908.html

 Basically those in favour of PD but not directly effected by or
 benefiting from data imports would like to have them all ripped out
 and replaced with surveyed data.

I respect PD guys, but in overall, I start to grow to openly dislike
their attitude. Their PD at all costs attitude will drive more and
more contributors away, and not because of PD, but of their pushing PD
down our throats ignoring pleas to stop.

Frederic, citing your email in legal:
Some people seem to think that such a fork is evil; some seem to even
use it as a threat (and if I don't get what I want, then... then...
then... I'll FORK THE PROJECT). But I don't view it that way. One
is always best at doing what one likes, and continuing in an environment
which one doesn't like is not only bad for oneself but also bad for that
environment. So if one is unhappy with how things go in OSM, and feels
it cannot be changed,

Well, first of all, you seem not to getting it why most of us are
here. We want to make a map, period. We want to do it with a hassle as
less as possible. While it is tempting to fork, it is not a opinion.
It means splitting effort. It means two maps who are not sustainable
as much as OSM is now. No one wants to do it. You want us to do it and
you actually more and more pushing people to do it. You simply poison
public communication of project so we, those who disobey or disagree
about the future of OSM as PD, would leave. And I won't get into how
wrong it is to do that.

As much you like concept of fact as non-copyrightable, most
geographical facts coming in bunches and are copyrighted. It is
reality which you seem don't like to accept. But it is how world works
for now and will for some time.

In my opinion, it is PD guys should do a fork and work from there to
get rest of data PDified. Not SA guys. For me having everything what
is in OSM to released in PD is about three four years at best. So we
will have to jeopardise our current efforts in main project just
because you want PD? It is really worth this fallout in community?

Have a nice day,
Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-08 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
I respect PD guys, but in overall, I start to grow to openly
dislike their attitude.

Could you cite who these alleged PD guys are, please? Thanks in advance.

I'm getting increasingly exasperated with people projecting this big
bogeyman (or strawman. A big man made out of straw bogeys) of PD onto what's
meant to be a debate about exchanging one share-alike licence for another
share-alike licence.

PD has nothing to do with it. Full stop. OSM is a share-alike project and is
always going to be a share-alike project. We were trying to talk about ODbL
(remember that?) before the conspiracy theorists waded in.

As someone who personally prefers PD this saddens me, not least because I
can see the trend in geodata is for ever more permissive licensing and that
OSM is therefore going to be out on a limb in ten years' time, probably with
a bunch of local, permissively-licensed projects chipping away at it. But
there's a difference between what should be and what can be, and
seriously, the chances of getting this fractious community to agree to a PD
relicensing is nil. Never. That much should be obvious to anyone who has
read the mailing lists at any point in the last five years. It isn't going
to happen.

At this point someone will mention the relicensing clause in the Contributor
Terms. It is my opinion that this is unnecessary: the any future version
clauses in both CC-BY-SA and ODbL should be adequate. I've told LWG this and
they're considering it. (See
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_3d3ws9sgn point 5.)

And seriously, Aussie guys, global warming is going to fuck your precious
coastline anyway so I'd stop getting quite so het up about it. :p

cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Frederik-declares-war-on-data-imports-tp5385741p5385814.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] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:

Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
I respect PD guys, but in overall, I start to grow to openly
dislike their attitude.

Could you cite who these alleged PD guys are, please? Thanks in advance.

I'm getting increasingly exasperated with people projecting this big
bogeyman (or strawman. A big man made out of straw bogeys) of PD onto
what's
meant to be a debate about exchanging one share-alike licence for another
share-alike licence.

PD has nothing to do with it. Full stop. OSM is a share-alike project and
is
always going to be a share-alike project. We were trying to talk about ODbL
(remember that?) before the conspiracy theorists waded in.

As someone who personally prefers PD this saddens me, not least because I
can see the trend in geodata is for ever more permissive licensing and that
OSM is therefore going to be out on a limb in ten years' time, probably
with
a bunch of local, permissively-licensed projects chipping away at it. But
there's a difference between what should be and what can be, and
seriously, the chances of getting this fractious community to agree to a PD
relicensing is nil. Never. That much should be obvious to anyone who has
read the mailing lists at any point in the last five years. It isn't going
to happen.

At this point someone will mention the relicensing clause in the
Contributor
Terms. It is my opinion that this is unnecessary: the any future version
clauses in both CC-BY-SA and ODbL should be adequate. I've told LWG this
and
they're considering it. (See
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_3d3ws9sgn point 5.)

Isn't it going to present some complicated management problems if the LWG
changes the contributor terms at this stage in the process? There are
already some 30,000 accounts that have signed up to CT 1.0, if the next
batch agrees to a differently worded CT 1.1 then every future decision has
to take account of both these two groups and all those who are still on
CC-BY-SA. It could quickly become a very tangled knot.

What mandate does LWG have to change the contributor terms anyway? Would
they need to put it to a vote of OSMF members or would they need to follow
the guidelines that the CT lays down? Perhaps they should add an or later
clause while they are at it so that they can change the contributor terms
any time they like.

80n

And seriously, Aussie guys, global warming is going to fuck your precious
coastline anyway so I'd stop getting quite so het up about it. :p

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-08 Thread Richard Fairhurst


80n wrote:

Isn't it going to present some complicated management problems if the
LWG changes the contributor terms at this stage in the process?


No, not in this case. The proposal is a subset of the powers currently 
available to OSMF, not a superset. It is the existing CT _minus_ the 
option of future relicensing (with a clarification on asserting rights 
in any derivative database combined entirely of contributions by PD users).


Therefore OSMF need not treat the two groups separately as long as it 
does not exert the future licence change option for the 30,000 'CT 1.0' 
signups.


cheers
Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-08 Thread Peteris Krisjanis

2010/8/8 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net:

 Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
 I respect PD guys, but in overall, I start to grow to openly
 dislike their attitude.

 Could you cite who these alleged PD guys are, please? Thanks in advance.

Sorry, it wasn't meant PD supportive persons in OSM in general.
However, you could admit that there is group of vocal PD supporters
who see CT as way to move to PD in the future. Again, I'm not against
PD, but chosen way.

 I'm getting increasingly exasperated with people projecting this big
 bogeyman (or strawman. A big man made out of straw bogeys) of PD onto what's
 meant to be a debate about exchanging one share-alike licence for another
 share-alike licence.

Well, I hope it is so. Because I'm not against ODbL.

 PD has nothing to do with it. Full stop. OSM is a share-alike project and is
 always going to be a share-alike project. We were trying to talk about ODbL
 (remember that?) before the conspiracy theorists waded in.

Conspiracy theory was fuelled by some people who directly said that
Section 3 is really intended as gateway to PD. Maybe it was/still is
overreacting, but there are some reasoning behind this.

 As someone who personally prefers PD this saddens me, not least because I
 can see the trend in geodata is for ever more permissive licensing and that
 OSM is therefore going to be out on a limb in ten years' time, probably with
 a bunch of local, permissively-licensed projects chipping away at it. But
 there's a difference between what should be and what can be, and
 seriously, the chances of getting this fractious community to agree to a PD
 relicensing is nil. Never. That much should be obvious to anyone who has
 read the mailing lists at any point in the last five years. It isn't going
 to happen.

Problem is not with PD - I want to release my collected data under PD
as next guy. However, I work with lot of governmental/regional sources
and they need at least a attribution. We can try to work on political
level to get all geographical data collected using government
financing released under PD, but it will require some time.

 At this point someone will mention the relicensing clause in the Contributor
 Terms. It is my opinion that this is unnecessary: the any future version
 clauses in both CC-BY-SA and ODbL should be adequate. I've told LWG this and
 they're considering it. (See
 https://docs.google.com/View?id=dc3bxdhs_3d3ws9sgn point 5.)

This is main point why I got worried. I really hope LWG will support
your suggestion.

Thanks for your comment,
Cheers,
Peter.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-08 Thread andrzej zaborowski

On 8 August 2010 13:25, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
 Isn't it going to present some complicated management problems if the LWG
 changes the contributor terms at this stage in the process?  There are
 already some 30,000 accounts that have signed up to CT 1.0, if the next
 batch agrees to a differently worded CT 1.1 then every future decision has
 to take account of both these two groups and all those who are still on

The proposed version of the CT clause is compatible with the current
version so no.

I will really welcome such change and I'm also happy it was suggested
to LWG by RichardF, who is already known to everyone in the LWG.  The
clause as it is now makes the CT incompatible with the ODbL itself
(the proposed version still would be incompatible but mostly just due
to the CC-By-SA provision, which would have little value after the
switch).  I can't imagine a realistic scenario where the CT upgrade
clause would be able to help and the ODbL's upgrade clause can't
help.

Note that the CT can be upgraded by OSMF at any time as long they
don't lock themselves out unable to release a planet file including
old and new contributions together.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:

 80n wrote:

 Isn't it going to present some complicated management problems if the
 LWG changes the contributor terms at this stage in the process?


 No, not in this case. The proposal is a subset of the powers currently
 available to OSMF, not a superset. It is the existing CT _minus_ the option
 of future relicensing (with a clarification on asserting rights in any
 derivative database combined entirely of contributions by PD users).

 Therefore OSMF need not treat the two groups separately as long as it does
 not exert the future licence change option for the 30,000 'CT 1.0' signups.

 Richard, that's very true in this case.  But the LWG still needs a mandate
to make this change.  They can't do it just because Richard asked nicely.
What's the mechanism by which they can make changes to the contributor
terms?

80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-08 Thread andrzej zaborowski

On 8 August 2010 13:25, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
 wrote:
 What mandate does LWG have to change the contributor terms anyway?  Would
 they need to put it to a vote of OSMF members or would they need to follow
 the guidelines that the CT lays down?  Perhaps they should add an or later
 clause while they are at it so that they can change the contributor terms
 any time they like.

BTW the I consider my edits public domain button will give the OSMF
the same rights that the current CT section 3 would give it, too.  The
proposed change just gives the contributors a new choice.

I'm a little surprised that there has been no flame^Wdiscussion about
the order of the buttons yet, as the UI designers always observe that
the defaults is always what 90% of users will choose.

Cheers

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 PD has nothing to do with it. Full stop.

What's the difference between PD and DBCL?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...


John Smith schrieb:

For anyone still fence sitting over the new contributor terms and the
ODBL this is what you have to look forward to in the near future:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003908.html


Don't fight his conclusion, but his if in that sentence: |If imports 
now, in addition, start to become a corset that limits our choices with 
regards to where the project should be going, then it is *high time* to 
get rid of them completely.|


He has a point in that anything limiting our choice of where we are 
going is something we need to closely inspect. And if we want to change 
the direction os OSM, that surely has some cost, even to the point of 
excluding some data. That needs to be clear. We need to think about the 
ifs and not the conclusions there.
Let's go what if and weigh the grand outcomes logically, not not fight 
over some people pointing out some details of some possible outcome.



If these people were serious about making a PD set of map data they
would start their own project rather than foisting their morals and
agendas on the rest of us.


Offending them doesn't help either. We are still ONE community in ONE 
project, we should put all our heads together and find common ground 
instead of trying to fight against each other and dividing this great 
community.
I have seen some dividing fights in other communities, but real progress 
only really came around when people finally worked together on common 
ground.


Robert Kaiser


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:

 John Smith schrieb:

  For anyone still fence sitting over the new contributor terms and the
 ODBL this is what you have to look forward to in the near future:


 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003908.html


 Don't fight his conclusion, but his if in that sentence: |If imports now,
 in addition, start to become a corset that limits our choices with regards
 to where the project should be going, then it is *high time* to get rid of
 them completely.|

 He has a point in that anything limiting our choice of where we are going
 is something we need to closely inspect. And if we want to change the
 direction os OSM, that surely has some cost, even to the point of excluding
 some data. That needs to be clear. We need to think about the ifs and not
 the conclusions there.


Who's talking about changing the direction of OSM?  There's no consensus for
any change of direction that I'm aware of.  Arguing that imports should not
be allowed because there *might* be change in direction is very
presumptuous.




 Let's go what if and weigh the grand outcomes logically, not not fight
 over some people pointing out some details of some possible outcome.


  If these people were serious about making a PD set of map data they
 would start their own project rather than foisting their morals and
 agendas on the rest of us.


 Offending them doesn't help either. We are still ONE community in ONE
 project, we should put all our heads together and find common ground instead
 of trying to fight against each other and dividing this great community.
 I have seen some dividing fights in other communities, but real progress
 only really came around when people finally worked together on common
 ground.

 Robert Kaiser



 ___
 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] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On 8 August 2010 23:23, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
 Let's go what if and weigh the grand outcomes logically, not not fight
 over some people pointing out some details of some possible outcome.

So those people that have been importing cc-by-sa go what if and
conclude that most of their efforts for the last few years have been
for nothing end up loosing all?

There is no single license that will allow everyone everywhere to be
happy with the outcome, the only guarantee for some is the status
quo...

 Offending them doesn't help either. We are still ONE community in ONE

He seems to be doing a good job of offending Australians and anyone
else that has been involved with either importing or cleaning up
imports in the past...

 project, we should put all our heads together and find common ground instead
 of trying to fight against each other and dividing this great community.
 I have seen some dividing fights in other communities, but real progress
 only really came around when people finally worked together on common
 ground.

I'm not the one pushing for major license changes, if anything I'm
pushing back against them because I disagree, not only with the
proposed changes, but the way some people are going about them.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On 8 August 2010 23:31, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
 Who's talking about changing the direction of OSM?  There's no consensus for
 any change of direction that I'm aware of.  Arguing that imports should not
 be allowed because there *might* be change in direction is very
 presumptuous.

He wasn't just arguing to disallow imports, but to remove any existing
imports and that would in some cases throw away years of some people's
hard work.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote:
 John Smith schrieb:

 For anyone still fence sitting over the new contributor terms and the
 ODBL this is what you have to look forward to in the near future:


 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003908.html

 Don't fight his conclusion, but his if in that sentence: |If imports now,
 in addition, start to become a corset that limits our choices with regards
 to where the project should be going, then it is *high time* to get rid of
 them completely.|

 He has a point in that anything limiting our choice of where we are going is
 something we need to closely inspect. And if we want to change the direction
 os OSM, that surely has some cost, even to the point of excluding some data.
 That needs to be clear. We need to think about the ifs and not the
 conclusions there.

There is no if.  Imports limit the choice of license.  They always have.

The whole idea that you retroactively shoehorn choices into OSM is
what needs to be fought.  It's far too late for that.  If you want to
legitimately change the license of OSM you've got two choices:  work
with CC to get CC-BY-SA updated, or start over from scratch.  Choice 1
failed, and choice 2 is unacceptable to the vast majority of the
community, so unless we ignore the facts of reality, we're stuck with
CC-BY-SA.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-08 Thread Frederik Ramm


John,

On 08/08/2010 11:38 AM, John Smith wrote:

Basically those in favour of PD but not directly effected by or
benefiting from data imports would like to have them all ripped out
and replaced with surveyed data.


It's nothing to do with PD. It's that I'm sick and tired of hearing we 
cannot go ahead with ODbL because someone in Australia imported some 
coastline.


There are many places in the world where we have the second-best data 
in OSM because the best available data is not under a suitable license. 
That's accepted, we're making do with that, it even encourages us.


Now for the last half year I've had to listen to two or three people 
from Australia whining about the proposed move to ODbL not being 
possible because they have imported coastline. But in my eyes that's not 
at all different to any other situation regarding license - if the 
coastline turns out to be incompatible with the license we want to use, 
then we have to use another data source.


I don't see any reason for an outcry other than this might make the 
coastline less precise for a while. Chances are it is going to be fixed 
very quickly in areas with Yahoo imagery, and might retain some of the 
typical blockiness of the PGS import in wilderness areas. But honestly 
- if *that* is something that holds us back from doing the license 
change then maybe we should simply switch off the servers.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 I don't see any reason for an outcry other than this might make the
 coastline less precise for a while. Chances are it is going to be fixed very
 quickly in areas with Yahoo imagery, and might retain some of the typical
 blockiness of the PGS import in wilderness areas. But honestly - if *that*
 is something that holds us back from doing the license change then maybe we
 should simply switch off the servers.

If the license change is important, why don't the people who want the
license change make their own coastline, on the dev server.  This can
be done quickly, right?  *Then* you can delete the import, and replace
it with the one on the dev server.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On 9 August 2010 00:07, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 It's nothing to do with PD. It's that I'm sick and tired of hearing we
 cannot go ahead with ODbL because someone in Australia imported some
 coastline.

And I've tried to explain numerous times that it goes well beyond
coastlines, and that's only Australian data, and assuming data has
been sourced and attributed properly it could be anywhere from 1/3rd
to 1/2 the data for Australia. However no one has coded anything to
properly analysis the losses so that's the best guess we can come up
with at this stage.

 There are many places in the world where we have the second-best data in
 OSM because the best available data is not under a suitable license. That's
 accepted, we're making do with that, it even encourages us.

Until recently cc licensed data was more than suitable, now you are
trying to turn the boat round mid-course and more than likely will not
have time to dodge the on coming iceberg.

 Now for the last half year I've had to listen to two or three people from
 Australia whining about the proposed move to ODbL not being possible because
 they have imported coastline. But in my eyes that's not at all different to

And for the last while I've tried to correct your assumption, but you
insist on making the same inaccurate claims as those you are
complaining about.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On 9 August 2010 00:39, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
 If the license change is important, why don't the people who want the
 license change make their own coastline, on the dev server.  This can
 be done quickly, right?  *Then* you can delete the import, and replace
 it with the one on the dev server.

Because it isn't only coastline data, and the current coastline data
was also traced from Nearmap, doing what you suggest is only going to
exacerbate the problems previously speculated about.

This is one reason why people have stopped contributing, why waste
your time if someone is just going to vandalise it later on a whim?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On 9 August 2010 00:59, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson e...@kth.se wrote:
 Australia 2 people per km^2
 Sweden 21 people per km^2

 Canada is ~3 people per km^2...


Oh and most people in Canada live within 100km of the US border, and
in Australia most people live within 100km of the eastern seaboard,
usually clumped in cities...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-08 Thread Frederik Ramm


Hi,

On 08/08/2010 04:39 PM, Anthony wrote:

If the license change is important, why don't the people who want the
license change make their own coastline, on the dev server.  This can
be done quickly, right?  *Then* you can delete the import, and replace
it with the one on the dev server.


I have no problem with that; the PGS coastline is probably even there in 
the data history and needs only to be retrieved.


In fact, this is exactly what I said I would do - not delete the 
existing coastline, but replace it with a version that has a suitable 
license. For some reason John Smith does not seem to share our view that 
this is a reasonable thing to do!


I think this could be a way forward for all those who fear data loss; we 
switch to ODbL but continue to publish the planet under CC-BY-SA, 
containig all the non-relicensed data, until such time that enough 
CC-BY-SA data has been replaced by ODbL data. I'm sure that, given the 
proper tools, we'd be there in a matter of months. Of course nobody is 
giong to kayak the Australian coastline just for a few meters' extra 
accuracy; but we're not going to have *no* coastline either.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On 9 August 2010 01:00, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 In fact, this is exactly what I said I would do - not delete the existing
 coastline, but replace it with a version that has a suitable license. For
 some reason John Smith does not seem to share our view that this is a
 reasonable thing to do!

What do you plan to do about the rest of Australia, including some
major work done on rivers?

This is like rearranging deck chairs on the titanic, you aren't making
the problem go away with slight of hand tricks...

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,

 On 08/08/2010 04:39 PM, Anthony wrote:

 If the license change is important, why don't the people who want the
 license change make their own coastline, on the dev server.  This can
 be done quickly, right?  *Then* you can delete the import, and replace
 it with the one on the dev server.

 I have no problem with that; the PGS coastline is probably even there in the
 data history and needs only to be retrieved.

 In fact, this is exactly what I said I would do

So do it.

 For
 some reason John Smith does not seem to share our view that this is a
 reasonable thing to do!

I don't think it's a reasonable thing to do either.  I think you're
wasting your time.  But it's your time.

 I think this could be a way forward for all those who fear data loss; we
 switch to ODbL but continue to publish the planet under CC-BY-SA, containig
 all the non-relicensed data, until such time that enough CC-BY-SA data has
 been replaced by ODbL data. I'm sure that, given the proper tools, we'd be
 there in a matter of months.

And I'm sure if you do it that way you'll be infringing on the
copyright of the CC-BY-SA data.

No, what I said is that you need to start from a blank map.  If you
want to create a map which isn't CC-BY-SA, you aren't allowed to use
the CC-BY-SA map to do it.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 John,


 On 08/08/2010 11:38 AM, John Smith wrote:

 Basically those in favour of PD but not directly effected by or
 benefiting from data imports would like to have them all ripped out
 and replaced with surveyed data.


 It's nothing to do with PD. It's that I'm sick and tired of hearing we
 cannot go ahead with ODbL because someone in Australia imported some
 coastline.

 Frederik, it's not just Australian data.  Many people have happily imported
CC-BY-SA licensed data over the past several years.  This is all going to go
along with the contributions of many major individuals, all those who no
longer contribute or can't be contacted and, of course, those who can't be
bothered.

The sad thing is that despite three years of seriously hard work on creating
a new license nobody has bothered to find out whether the change would
actually be feasible.

There's likely to be 20% data loss based on the feedback I'm getting. Have
you got a feel for the likely amount of data loss in Germany?  I don't have
any visibility of the sentiment or German contributors but I suspect that
you do.



 There are many places in the world where we have the second-best data in
 OSM because the best available data is not under a suitable license. That's
 accepted, we're making do with that, it even encourages us.

 Now for the last half year I've had to listen to two or three people from
 Australia whining about the proposed move to ODbL not being possible because
 they have imported coastline. But in my eyes that's not at all different to
 any other situation regarding license - if the coastline turns out to be
 incompatible with the license we want to use, then we have to use another
 data source.

 I don't see any reason for an outcry other than this might make the
 coastline less precise for a while. Chances are it is going to be fixed very
 quickly in areas with Yahoo imagery, and might retain some of the typical
 blockiness of the PGS import in wilderness areas. But honestly - if *that*
 is something that holds us back from doing the license change then maybe we
 should simply switch off the servers.

 Bye
 Frederik


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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-08 Thread Frederik Ramm


Hi,

On 08/08/2010 05:13 PM, Anthony wrote:

No, what I said is that you need to start from a blank map.  If you
want to create a map which isn't CC-BY-SA, you aren't allowed to use
the CC-BY-SA map to do it.


Depends on how exactly you use it. If you use the CC-BY-SA map to flag 
stuff that needs re-surveying, then go there and survey, that's 
perfectly ok. You mustn't copy of course.


Bye
Frederik

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
 Hi,

 On 08/08/2010 05:13 PM, Anthony wrote:

 No, what I said is that you need to start from a blank map.  If you
 want to create a map which isn't CC-BY-SA, you aren't allowed to use
 the CC-BY-SA map to do it.

 Depends on how exactly you use it. If you use the CC-BY-SA map to flag stuff
 that needs re-surveying, then go there and survey, that's perfectly ok. You
 mustn't copy of course.

Fine, so in addition to re-mapping everything from scratch you can
write a program to flag areas that need re-surveying.  Please don't
feel like I'm standing in your way.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:15 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
 There's likely to be 20% data loss based on the feedback I'm getting.

I can't imagine it'll be anywhere near that low.  What percentage of
contributors are even still active?  Maybe 20% of active contributors
will disagree with the change.  But that has to be added to all the
contributors who just never respond.  And the earliest contributors
will cause the most data loss, because everything based on their
contribution has to be removed, even if the later contributors agree
to the change.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-08 Thread Dirk-Lüder Kreie

Am 08.08.2010 16:59, schrieb John Smith:
 On 9 August 2010 00:58, Erik Johansson e...@kth.se wrote:
 Australia 2 people per km^2
 Sweden 21 people per km^2
 
 Canada is ~3 people per km^2...

You seem to forget that the most interesting Data (to most people) is
also where the people are.
Forests, lakes, shorelines and many more features can all be mapped from
NASA sat imagery and put unter any license, even PD.

So I don't think OSM Contributor effort will result in second best
Data *at* *all*.

For example: Germany does have very good geodata from the state, just
that those maps are not available to OSM, so we are mapping Germany
ourselves. The Netherlands (even more densely populated btw.) had most
of their data imported.
Has this damaged the German OSM mapping effort? Not at all. I would
rather argue that the AND import has hindered OSM community growth in NL.

So even if you lose data, it's not really that big an issue, provided
you come up with a way to save work done by OSM Mappers wherever possible.

With enough (motivated) people we can take any data loss, and rebuild
our database to be better within a short timeframe.

It may sound arrogant, but if you look at it rationally, we could even
compensate for mappers demotivated by any data loss by the growth of our
community.
I'm not saying we can easily afford it, but to give hope that even a
worst case scenario isn't that bad as some people make it out to be.

-- 

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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010/8/9 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net:
 With enough (motivated) people we can take any data loss, and rebuild
 our database to be better within a short timeframe.

 It may sound arrogant, but if you look at it rationally, we could even
 compensate for mappers demotivated by any data loss by the growth of our
 community.
 I'm not saying we can easily afford it, but to give hope that even a
 worst case scenario isn't that bad as some people make it out to be.

You've made a couple of big incorrect assumptions, firstly we have a
big lack of contributors at present in Australia and you are saying
it's ok to loose some major contributors just so data can be licensed
under something better. If you can make something better why not
start your own project without impacting on the work of others instead
of making others jump through so many hoops?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...


80n schrieb:

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at  wrote:

And if we want to change the
direction os OSM, [...]


Who's talking about changing the direction of OSM?


Hehe, another case of jumping on the conclusion, rather than the if. ;-)

I should probably noted that I don't think a change of direction is 
needed or wanted, but the work for clearing up licensing difficulties is 
probably even seen as one by some people, unfortunately.


Robert Kaiser


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...


John Smith schrieb:

On 8 August 2010 23:23, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at  wrote:

Offending them doesn't help either. We are still ONE community in ONE


He seems to be doing a good job of offending Australians and anyone
else that has been involved with either importing or cleaning up
imports in the past...


I'm from a country that's been heavily burned by having a badly 
organized import taking place, where some people have loudly voiced we 
should kill all that data no matter what its license is. I can 
sympathize as much with someone disliking some imports as I can with 
people wanted more clarified licensing - and with people who don't want 
to lose any people or data over stupid license fights.


Robert Kaiser


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

2010-08-08 Thread Cartinus

On Sunday 08 August 2010 17:40:40 John Smith wrote:
 You've made a couple of big incorrect assumptions, firstly we have a
 big lack of contributors at present in Australia

Which probably has the same cause as the lack of contributors in the 
Netherlands: Too many imports!

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...