Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On 21 December 2010 09:52, David Murn wrote: > So, can you tell from every edit you did, whether you used nearmap as a > reference while doing the edit? If so, you must be one of the very > small percentage of people who tagged 100% every change they made, > including even just shifting a node or realigning a single node on a > way. I do mark my changesets (not each node or way changed, necessarily) with the sources I used while editing them. And even if I find one unmarked, I can tell whether it was possible for me to have used it, yes. Many of my edits were either before nearmap imagery was available for an area, or where they still don't have any, or overseas. They only cover a small percentage of Australia, even now, and I've done some overseas editing as well.. Nearmap is not the only source I've used which is no longer compatible, but I do know what I used, and where. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
David Murn wrote: > So, can you tell from every edit you did, whether you used nearmap as > a reference while doing the edit? If so, you must be one of the very > small percentage of people who tagged 100% every change they made or one of the very large percentage of people not from Australia. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Objects-versions-ready-for-ODbL-tp5847855p5855515.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] Objects versions ready for ODbL
[Also posted to legal-talk, I suggest follow-ups go there.] In short… On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +, DavidD wrote: > On 20 December 2010 10:25, Simone Cortesi wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope wrote: > >> I must admit, however, that basically handing the keys to the OSMF, […] > > this is no way different from GPL released software: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html > > Reading the link it looks like a very different situation. It’s different. > The OSMF clearly are not using the CT for the same reasons the FSF > require copyright assignment. To OSMF it seems to be largely a vehicle to prevent them from being able to change the licence. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:25:05AM +0100, Simone Cortesi wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope wrote: > > I must admit, however, that basically handing the keys to the OSMF, > > which is what the new CT's amount to, is not filling me with joy > > considering their track record to date. I'm willing to do a certain > > amount of work to make sure the data I've provided over the years > > isn't lost, but if they jerk me around too much or make it too hard > > I'll just write it off as a loss and spend my free time somewhere it's > > appreciated. > > this is no way different from GPL released software: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html That’s not a requirement for using the GPL to license software. That article talks about why they think copyright assignment is a good idea (but not any cons), and that it is required for projects under the umbrella of the FSF, such as the GNU Project. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 19:00 +1000, Stephen Hope wrote: > On 20 December 2010 12:53, David Murn wrote: > > Because of the impossibility to be able to distinguish whats what, any > > user who has ever made a change in this situation will have to have all > > their edits removed from the system, to avoid any possibility that one > > edit might infringe the rights of another source. > > Well, no actually. In my case I've been around doing this for long > enough that a lot of my work was from before nearmap showed up. And > even after then, I've kept a good record of what I did with and > without them, in the changeset notes, and also because I know where > I've been, and what I did while editing those areas. If I'm unsure, > I'd throw it away, but I've got a lot of good data I'd like to keep. So, can you tell from every edit you did, whether you used nearmap as a reference while doing the edit? If so, you must be one of the very small percentage of people who tagged 100% every change they made, including even just shifting a node or realigning a single node on a way. Also as I said, its fine knowing where youve been, I know where Ive been too, from my GPS traces. However, when I used GPS traces, I then used nearmap imagery often to improve the accuracy of my mapping, so even data i have GPX traces of, I cant be sure whether or not I have improved the accuracy of it with other sources. This means that if you have even one single node moved in your edits, based on a nearmap image (unless you can find exactly what node that is and exclude it) you dont have the right to relicence 100% of your contributions. This is my problem. Sure, I can say all edits before nearmap became available can be relicenced, but like many others, the fact that Ive used a source like this, means I would be in breach of my licence to NearMap if I agreed to the CTs. As OSM and OSMF have no direct care or concern with whether I breach my agreement with a 3rd party, they have no interest in protecting nearmaps rights or the rights of any other group who have shared CC-BY-SA data with the project. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On 20 December 2010 20:25, Simone Cortesi wrote: > this is no way different from GPL released software: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html Actually, it's quite different. The FSF tell you upfront what the requirements are. The OSMF let you spend years working on the project, then change their minds. Then they tell you that because you've done part of your work in a (now incompatible) licence, all your work must go. Then they say, no, we'll let you split it up, but that seems to have gone away again. It's not the end result I object to, it's the mushroom treatment. Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
I'll only answer the technical part: no, the tool doe consider all the edits of a person in the same way (based on their presence in the list published hourly by the OSMF) ;) PS: Austria is now proccessing correctly ;) -- Fabio Alessandro Locati Home: Segrate, Milan, Italy (GMT +1) Phone: +39-328-3799681 MSN/Jabber/E-Mail: fabioloc...@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: 5525 8555 213C 19EB 25F2 A047 2AD2 BE67 0F01 CA61 Involved in: KDE, OpenStreetMap, Ubuntu, Wikimedia ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On 20 December 2010 10:25, Simone Cortesi wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope wrote: >> I must admit, however, that basically handing the keys to the OSMF, >> which is what the new CT's amount to, is not filling me with joy >> considering their track record to date. I'm willing to do a certain >> amount of work to make sure the data I've provided over the years >> isn't lost, but if they jerk me around too much or make it too hard >> I'll just write it off as a loss and spend my free time somewhere it's >> appreciated. > > this is no way different from GPL released software: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html Reading the link it looks like a very different situation. The FSF want copyright assignment because it makes the legal process of copyright enforcement more effective and efficient. The CT don't even result in copyright assignment to the OSMF do they? So how is this in no way different? The OSMF clearly are not using the CT for the same reasons the FSF require copyright assignment. It's probably also worth noting that the majority of GPL projects do not assign copyright to the FSF or require copyright assignment at all. It makes contributors uncomfortable and makes it much more difficult to share code between different projects. -- DavidD ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
Fabio Alessandro Locati schrieb: On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote: Hmm, is Austria not in Europe any more? Or possibly some problem with your script that there is no entry for it? Sorry, forgot to do it. Now I'm extracting Austria and soon will be present :) Thanks very much! :) Robert Kaiser ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:25:05 +0100 Simone Cortesi wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope wrote: > > I must admit, however, that basically handing the keys to the OSMF, > > which is what the new CT's amount to, is not filling me with joy > > considering their track record to date. I'm willing to do a certain > > amount of work to make sure the data I've provided over the years > > isn't lost, but if they jerk me around too much or make it too hard > > I'll just write it off as a loss and spend my free time somewhere > > it's appreciated. > > this is no way different from GPL released software: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html > GPL may be either way - all code contributed to a project is copyrighted to the project, or copyright remaining with the author. Just to check the Linux Kernel where both types are represented http://www.kernel.org/legal.html Copyright 1997-2007 The Linux Kernel Organization, Inc. Distributed software is copyrighted by their respective contributors and are distributed under their own individual licenses. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope wrote: > I must admit, however, that basically handing the keys to the OSMF, > which is what the new CT's amount to, is not filling me with joy > considering their track record to date. I'm willing to do a certain > amount of work to make sure the data I've provided over the years > isn't lost, but if they jerk me around too much or make it too hard > I'll just write it off as a loss and spend my free time somewhere it's > appreciated. this is no way different from GPL released software: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html -- -S ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On 20 December 2010 12:53, David Murn wrote: > Because of the impossibility to be able to distinguish whats what, any > user who has ever made a change in this situation will have to have all > their edits removed from the system, to avoid any possibility that one > edit might infringe the rights of another source. Well, no actually. In my case I've been around doing this for long enough that a lot of my work was from before nearmap showed up. And even after then, I've kept a good record of what I did with and without them, in the changeset notes, and also because I know where I've been, and what I did while editing those areas. If I'm unsure, I'd throw it away, but I've got a lot of good data I'd like to keep. I must admit, however, that basically handing the keys to the OSMF, which is what the new CT's amount to, is not filling me with joy considering their track record to date. I'm willing to do a certain amount of work to make sure the data I've provided over the years isn't lost, but if they jerk me around too much or make it too hard I'll just write it off as a loss and spend my free time somewhere it's appreciated. Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On 20 December 2010 12:53, David Murn wrote: > Because of the impossibility to be able to distinguish whats what, any > user who has ever made a change in this situation will have to have all > their edits removed from the system, to avoid any possibility that one > edit might infringe the rights of another source. That would be the moral and legal thing to do, I don't get the feeling this will be the case on data already in the system. Judging by comments made on the subject it seems that things will be done in a pretty haphazard manner, and the strict stance on respecting other people's copyright has been thrown out the window where it suits. What should have happened if the choice of contributors was being respected to relicense and preventing, or at least limiting any potential copyright issues, and in the case of Nearmap potential breaches of contract, would be to create a new database and any suitable data copied across. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 11:28 +1000, Stephen Hope wrote: > I cannot sign every edit I've ever done over, because I don't have the > rights to do so. I can OK many of them, however, that were based > purely on my own work, and not CC-BY-SA sources. I suspect this is a big issue. Pretty much any mapper who set their potlatch to use nearmap (ever, even just to move one node) is in the same boat. Even when I did use my own GPS traces and saved POI data, I used aerial imagery to improve the accuracy when mapping into OSM. This means that even work I have done myself, I dont know if I have the rights to sign over, because when adding something to the map I had both my traces and aerial imagery overlayed. Because of the impossibility to be able to distinguish whats what, any user who has ever made a change in this situation will have to have all their edits removed from the system, to avoid any possibility that one edit might infringe the rights of another source. David > On 18 December 2010 19:36, Fabio Alessandro Locati > wrote: > > Hi guys :), > > I've written a tool to check the amount of object versions available > > for relicensing. > > You can find the data here: http://repo.grimp.eu/osm . > > At the moment, only Europe is there, but I have a couple of computers > > working while I'm writing to make available all the other countries > > too ;). > > Each nation is in it's continent folder, and has two files '_status' > > and '_not_accepted'. > > The first one is a quick summary of the actual situation of that > > country, while the second is an ordered list (based on the versions > > they own) of the people who have not already agreed with CT/ODbL. > > You can find the same two files for each continent too ;). > > > > PS: There are two known bugs: > > - Cyprus seems to have 0 edits (I think this is a problem with CM polygon;)) > > - Ireland and Europe miss of the last two lines of the _status file. > > The problem is somewhere in the Irish list (I guess a user has a name > > that my script does not appreciate), but is transfered also to the > > Europe one. > > -- > > Fabio Alessandro Locati > > > > Home: Segrate, Milan, Italy (GMT +1) > > Phone: +39-328-3799681 > > MSN/Jabber/E-Mail: fabioloc...@gmail.com > > > > PGP Fingerprint: 5525 8555 213C 19EB 25F2 A047 2AD2 BE67 0F01 CA61 > > > > Involved in: KDE, OpenStreetMap, Ubuntu, Wikimedia > > > > ___ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
I'm probably in the same state. I suspect the only honest thing to do is to request that all my data be removed. It seems a bit extreme but could that be done? Yes I did agree to the ODBL change but that was taking advice from some one who I now realise was bias and I didn't go through the implications. I suspect that for some of my data I didn't really have the right to agree to it and I can't recall exactly at the moment the origins of every bit of data I've put in OSM so the only safe way is to remove it all then start again. Thanks John On 19 December 2010 20:28, Stephen Hope wrote: > Fabio, > > I cannot sign every edit I've ever done over, because I don't have the > rights to do so. I can OK many of them, however, that were based > purely on my own work, and not CC-BY-SA sources. There was some talk > of a tool being made available that would let me specify which were OK > by changeset. Does your tool take this into account? > > Does anybody know if that tool has even been made? If I'm supposed to > go through every changeset I've ever done and sort them out before > March, I'll need to start soon. > > > Stephen > > On 18 December 2010 19:36, Fabio Alessandro Locati > wrote: > > Hi guys :), > > I've written a tool to check the amount of object versions available > > for relicensing. > > You can find the data here: http://repo.grimp.eu/osm . > > At the moment, only Europe is there, but I have a couple of computers > > working while I'm writing to make available all the other countries > > too ;). > > Each nation is in it's continent folder, and has two files '_status' > > and '_not_accepted'. > > The first one is a quick summary of the actual situation of that > > country, while the second is an ordered list (based on the versions > > they own) of the people who have not already agreed with CT/ODbL. > > You can find the same two files for each continent too ;). > > > > PS: There are two known bugs: > > - Cyprus seems to have 0 edits (I think this is a problem with CM > polygon;)) > > - Ireland and Europe miss of the last two lines of the _status file. > > The problem is somewhere in the Irish list (I guess a user has a name > > that my script does not appreciate), but is transfered also to the > > Europe one. > > -- > > Fabio Alessandro Locati > > > > Home: Segrate, Milan, Italy (GMT +1) > > Phone: +39-328-3799681 > > MSN/Jabber/E-Mail: fabioloc...@gmail.com > > > > PGP Fingerprint: 5525 8555 213C 19EB 25F2 A047 2AD2 BE67 0F01 CA61 > > > > Involved in: KDE, OpenStreetMap, Ubuntu, Wikimedia > > > > ___ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
Fabio, I cannot sign every edit I've ever done over, because I don't have the rights to do so. I can OK many of them, however, that were based purely on my own work, and not CC-BY-SA sources. There was some talk of a tool being made available that would let me specify which were OK by changeset. Does your tool take this into account? Does anybody know if that tool has even been made? If I'm supposed to go through every changeset I've ever done and sort them out before March, I'll need to start soon. Stephen On 18 December 2010 19:36, Fabio Alessandro Locati wrote: > Hi guys :), > I've written a tool to check the amount of object versions available > for relicensing. > You can find the data here: http://repo.grimp.eu/osm . > At the moment, only Europe is there, but I have a couple of computers > working while I'm writing to make available all the other countries > too ;). > Each nation is in it's continent folder, and has two files '_status' > and '_not_accepted'. > The first one is a quick summary of the actual situation of that > country, while the second is an ordered list (based on the versions > they own) of the people who have not already agreed with CT/ODbL. > You can find the same two files for each continent too ;). > > PS: There are two known bugs: > - Cyprus seems to have 0 edits (I think this is a problem with CM polygon;)) > - Ireland and Europe miss of the last two lines of the _status file. > The problem is somewhere in the Irish list (I guess a user has a name > that my script does not appreciate), but is transfered also to the > Europe one. > -- > Fabio Alessandro Locati > > Home: Segrate, Milan, Italy (GMT +1) > Phone: +39-328-3799681 > MSN/Jabber/E-Mail: fabioloc...@gmail.com > > PGP Fingerprint: 5525 8555 213C 19EB 25F2 A047 2AD2 BE67 0F01 CA61 > > Involved in: KDE, OpenStreetMap, Ubuntu, Wikimedia > > ___ > 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] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Hmm, is Austria not in Europe any more? Or possibly some problem with your > script that there is no entry for it? Sorry, forgot to do it. Now I'm extracting Austria and soon will be present :) > Robert Kaiser Fabio Locati -- Fabio Alessandro Locati Home: Segrate, Milan, Italy (GMT +1) Phone: +39-328-3799681 MSN/Jabber/E-Mail: fabioloc...@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: 5525 8555 213C 19EB 25F2 A047 2AD2 BE67 0F01 CA61 Involved in: KDE, OpenStreetMap, Ubuntu, Wikimedia ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
Fabio Alessandro Locati schrieb: Each nation is in it's continent folder, and has two files '_status' and '_not_accepted'. Hmm, is Austria not in Europe any more? Or possibly some problem with your script that there is no entry for it? Robert Kaiser ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Stephan Knauss wrote: > On 18.12.2010 10:36, Fabio Alessandro Locati wrote: >> >> I've written a tool to check the amount of object versions available >> for relicensing. > > Is this using a full history as a source? What assumptions do you take to > declare an element "ready"? Yes, it use full history. I'm not speaking of objects, but versions, so I do not take any assumption over the 'readiness' of an object, I only count how many objects versions did any user and sum them up ;). > Statistics based on a current dump are already available a while. Original > script by Hanno Hecker, some improvements from my side produces a statistic > like this: > http://downloads.osm-tools.org/check-odbl-th-20101211.html I know there are different tools for this (there is also the colored map ;)), but my tool does divide people based on where the edit are. This is useful to say like: if XYZ will accept CT/ODbL, my area will be ok :). I'm now working on other countintents and to be able to provide more geographically limited data. Like based on administrative border 4/6. My tool is aiming to make easier to understand how is majorly making the ODbL map [1] red in a given state ;). PS: Maybe we could create a wiki-page to collect all this tools :) [1] http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/ -- Fabio Alessandro Locati Home: Segrate, Milan, Italy (GMT +1) Phone: +39-328-3799681 MSN/Jabber/E-Mail: fabioloc...@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: 5525 8555 213C 19EB 25F2 A047 2AD2 BE67 0F01 CA61 Involved in: KDE, OpenStreetMap, Ubuntu, Wikimedia ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On 18.12.2010 10:36, Fabio Alessandro Locati wrote: I've written a tool to check the amount of object versions available for relicensing. Is this using a full history as a source? What assumptions do you take to declare an element "ready"? Statistics based on a current dump are already available a while. Original script by Hanno Hecker, some improvements from my side produces a statistic like this: http://downloads.osm-tools.org/check-odbl-th-20101211.html The script is in the same directory. Originally appeared on the mailing list, my version was announced here: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=10316 Stephan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Steve Doerr wrote: > If I have not accepted the new CT and my name is not in the list for my > country, is that a bug, or is there some other reason why a mapper would not > be on the list? (Maybe I don't 'own' any 'versions', whatever that means.) > My username is sdoerr. Yeah, I guess you found the third bug. I'll look into this :). Btw: you own 6646 objects versions, and 6462 are in UK ;) -- Fabio Alessandro Locati Home: Segrate, Milan, Italy (GMT +1) Phone: +39-328-3799681 MSN/Jabber/E-Mail: fabioloc...@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: 5525 8555 213C 19EB 25F2 A047 2AD2 BE67 0F01 CA61 Involved in: KDE, OpenStreetMap, Ubuntu, Wikimedia ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Objects versions ready for ODbL
On 18/12/2010 09:36, Fabio Alessandro Locati wrote: Each nation is in it's continent folder, and has two files '_status' and '_not_accepted'. The first one is a quick summary of the actual situation of that country, while the second is an ordered list (based on the versions they own) of the people who have not already agreed with CT/ODbL. You can find the same two files for each continent too ;). If I have not accepted the new CT and my name is not in the list for my country, is that a bug, or is there some other reason why a mapper would not be on the list? (Maybe I don't 'own' any 'versions', whatever that means.) My username is sdoerr. -- Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
