[OSM-legal-talk] Relicensing, PD, leverage and petitions
Hi all, It seems to me mapping contributors can primarily influence in outcome of the relicensing in two ways: their choice relicensing their own contributions in the project and their involvement after the switch. I was considering how those two factors can be used to encourage others to release as much data as possible as public domain. I won't bother covering the reasons in favor of PD here, but a significant number of mappers are against it, of course. Firstly, the pro-PD people could propose a strings attached deal to OSMF as a condition for relicensing their data. After relicensing, the pro-PD people have their leverage watered down by the contributor terms. Secondly, our involvement in OSM after the switch can have strings attached. If a significant minority unified on this, it would be very hard for OSMF to ignore. Of course, this only works if both sides in a deal have an amicable arrangement. I am not suggesting backmail! After all, the whole point of PD is that people can do what they want with the data. For the conditions for relicensing our individual contribution's, I propose the following. Each data object (either a node, way or relation) have one or more authors. For each data object, we will agree to relicense our data as ODbL, if all other authors agree to release their data as PD. Note that each data object is treated independently: if two authors both agree, all their shared data is relicensed as PD (and ODbL). If an anti-PD author refuses, none of the data shared in common with a pro-PD-person will be relicensed. This will encourage anti-PD people to release their data, particularly when it is in an area overlapping many other pro-PD users. The pro-PD people have a strong negotiating position if they have a few key mappers operating in a wide area. But pro-ODBL people also get what they want: the data will be relicensed as ODbL. Even if OSMF does not provided infrastructure to support a future PD fork, the data will still be there for use in local scale PD mapping projects. The biggest problem I can see is there is data that is derived from PD incompatible licenses. I guess what we really need to ask is people release their original work into PD and ensure they use correct source tags for incompatible data. This would provide a basis for a PD dataset, once the incompatible data is removed. Of course, that is a non-trivial task. It is likely that the ODbL relicensing will be faced with a similar filtering task as well, unless they get 100% agreement on relicensing imports. As for our continual involvement in the project, we can make it conditional on having a fork under some other license - I guess PD, or CC-BY-SA or similar. Given enough people, this would be a bargaining clip to get any concessions from OSMF. Of course, this has a greater risk of fracturing the community, so unreasonable demands should not be made. We are of course all participating in OSM by free choice, so many people might quit if we relicense. I am merely suggesting potential quitters get organised and, as a cohesive group, make their feelings known to OSMF. Of course, if OSMF claims to listen to contributor's concerns, everything will be fine (I hope). Also, the pro-ODbL people would be happy with a coexisting fork, as mappers would continue to contribute into the overall OSM project, and they can import PD data into ODbL OSM, if the benefit outweighs the effort. I guess the next step is to create petitions for the various possible concessions. Or possibly a doodle poll with the options my relicensing is conditional on this proposal, my future participation is conditional on this proposal, both, I support this proposal but I will continue regardless. This certainly gives us more information than the proposed relicensing yes/no question proposed by the LWG. Being a petition, it does not require a no option. There is a potential problem of spoof signatories - possibly people could confirm their position on their OSM profile. Petitions should not be used to change the overall direction of OSM - that would require an inclusive poll of contributors. But first, I wondered if anyone had thoughts on this? TimSC PS The background to my views is partly summarized here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-July/003523.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Relicensing, PD, leverage and petitions
On 18 July 2010 23:00, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: an amicable arrangement. I am not suggesting backmail! After all, the whole point of PD is that people can do what they want with the data. I fail to see how you can force people to dual license as PD, since you even acknowledge that is the point of PD even if it means the data becomes licensed at ODBL... Also this will fail in various regions of the planet, depending on sources of data and the amount of human resources available, for example the Nearmap Aerial imagery can only be licensed under a share alike license, they are also more likely at the current rate to cover a lot more of Australia than we have human resources on the ground to do it ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Relicensing, PD, leverage and petitions
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:00:30PM +0100, TimSC wrote: For the conditions for relicensing our individual contribution's, I propose the following. Each data object (either a node, way or relation) have one or more authors. For each data object, we will agree to relicense our data as ODbL, if all other authors agree to release their data as PD. The current contributor terms[1] state that “data objects” or the contents of the database will have the Database Content License (DbCL)[2] applied to them. I’m not pro‐PD while overly long copyright (and database right) periods exist (I’d rather see short copyright terms for all, so everything becomes PD after a reasonable amount of time), but the DbCL appears PD‐friendly in the face of copy/database rights in a similar vein to the WTFPL (Do What The Fuck you want to Public License). Individual PD‐like agreement would not have an effect on extraction from the database as a whole, which is what ODbL applies to. [1]: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms [2]: http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1-0/ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Relicensing, PD, leverage and petitions
Tim, TimSC wrote: Firstly, the pro-PD people could propose a strings attached deal to OSMF as a condition for relicensing their data. After relicensing, the pro-PD people have their leverage watered down by the contributor terms. Speaking as a pro-PD person, I think I am happy enough with what's on the table; I do not think I have to try to twist OSMF's (or the other contributors') arm(s). In fact, I think there are enough people proclaiming that unless OSMF does X I will not relicense. I'd rather not be seen joining that chorus now. I am happy that OSMF have added the PD option to the relicensing question, and I will try to convince as many mappers as possible to tick it. It makes no difference for the legal side of implementing ODbL but I hope that the Pro-PD outcome will be large enough to make a statement which may influence what happens in the future. I wouldn't ask for more at this time. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Relicensing, PD, leverage and petitions
On 19 July 2010 03:41, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I am happy that OSMF have added the PD option to the relicensing question, and I will try to convince as many mappers as possible to tick it. It makes no difference for the legal side of implementing ODbL but I hope that the Pro-PD outcome will be large enough to make a statement which may influence what happens in the future. Will people ticking that box understand the full implications? I'm not just talking about editing non-PD data, but people deriving from say Yahoo, is that information allowed to become PD? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Relicensing, PD, leverage and petitions
Hi, John Smith wrote: people deriving from say Yahoo, is that information allowed to become PD? Yes. Contrary to popular belief, Yahoo has never struck any special agreement with OSM. They have evaluated their own terms of service and concluded that tracing off their imagery is generally legal - not legal specifically for OSM and only if the license is X. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] User Juergenian vandalism
If you look at the history of edits that user in South Africa, there you will see absolutely the same story: 1) remove the correct data 2) adding bogus data 3) removal of their incorrect data So I do not think that the problem is that he did not read the message. 2010/7/17 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Hi, Aleksandr Dezhin wrote: I also tried to contact this user, but he ignores messages. Anthony has posted on the 13rd. Today is the 17th. The user has last been active on the 11th. Is it possible that he ignores messages because he's away from the computer? Has anyone actually contacted him before the 11th and got no reply? 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] Spatiallite
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 05:27, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: No, I'm not talking about Andril's talk. There was someone who had created a small app using Spatialite and a GTK frontend during the conference. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map_2010/Lightning_Talks it was Enrico Zini, see bottom of the page. -- -S ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Spatiallite
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: Someone gave a lightening talk at sotm about using Spatiallite with osm. He wrote a blog post about Spatiallite: http://www.enricozini.org/2010/tips/osm-search-nodes/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Hi, On 17 July 2010 10:34, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Michael Barabanov wrote: 1. OSMF does change the license without any regard; people who are against ODBL get pissed off and stop contributing (lost for OSM?). No data loss from the database. 2. OSMF does not do that; contributions of people who are against ODBL are deleted, people who are against ODBL stop contributing anyway. Potential data loss. This is true but I am pretty convinced that (1) would lead to people saying: Ah, OpenStreetMap, those guys that re-licence their stuff at will. - We would be thrown in with people like CDDB. Ironically I wouldn't mind if OSMF did that, this way taking the blame for it on itself. Me and other mappers in my area have spent man-months of work adapting and merging somebody else's CC-By-SA map data and none of us will be able to accept the Contributor Terms. So if OSMF takes the burden of telling the people who collected that data sorry, your license wasn't valid, then all the better for us :) (some background) AFAIK the majority of data currently in OSM in Poland comes from that other project, which still has lots more contributors than OSM here. Because of this, and the license limbo state, most OSM mappers in Poland are currently spinning on idle unsure of whether all their work will soon be removed from osm and will only be available in an old planet snapshot, unusable for users of the data who would have to join the two dataset (new osm and old osm). Any new edits are also based on that data so mostly anything you do is bound to be removed. There's lots of uncertainty on the forums, some people keep on adapting and importing more data, then on the other hand some of the users registered after May 12 are being told that they in particular can't use this data for their own area because they have signed up on different license conditions than older users and may be infringing on that other project's license if they did (but then maybe not). Yet other users would be happy to register a new user account and already start wiping out Poland and start mapping from scratch just so we can plunge forward instead of waiting indefinitely. This is not helped by the legal working group not answering to these mappers' questions, several people on the polish forum said they had mailed the legal alias about lwg's opinion on this By-SA data to never get a response. I tried raising the question on the legal list at least once and also never got any reply (other than a RichardF's unhelpful comment that the other project's license is invalid then). Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18 July 2010 20:31, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Is it totally hopeless to contact these contributors and ask them for their agreement? It kind of rubs me the wrong way when anyone brings up problems and the first response (and usually the only one) is to always fob off the work and expect those effected the most to be doing all the leg work to clean up the mess this license change over is causing or going to cause. Especially when the new Contributor Terms aren't even attribution or share alike compatible, which means that only CC0/PD and relicensed data will be compatible. Beyond the government imported data in Australia (about 1/4 to 1/3rd the current data) we also have Nearmap Aerial imagery, while they might agree with ODBL, they may not agree with Contributor Terms, at present their terms explicitly state derived data can only be licensed under cc-by-sa, they have been asked about ODBL and may agree to it but they haven't commented about the contributor terms, I sent them an email about this but I'm waiting to hear back. If they balk at either that would mean everything mapped from their imagery, which in several rural and regional areas is considerable, would disappear as well. This is before we figure out how much other data won't be transferred across due to non-responses or people that disagree with the new license. I can't see this ending well, it'll completely devastate and demoralise the Australian community. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18 July 2010 21:07, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: but they haven't commented about the contributor terms, I sent them an email about this but I'm waiting to hear back. If they balk at either that would mean everything mapped from their imagery, which in several rural and regional areas is considerable, would disappear as well. I just received a reply, Nearmap will only allow derived data to be licensed under a share alike license, which means any data derived from their imagery, while compatible with ODBL, isn't compatible with the new CTs. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] fact-based vote?
Liz schrieb: On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: there is no loss of data! It has always been said that the old data will remain available under the old license. If you take somewhere between one third and one quarter of the data for a well defined area and lock it up from further edits on OSM what will those mappers do? Anythere I already said, that I gave my work for a spreading project, not for a shrinking one ... Will they continue with OSM and remap those missing bits will they give up altogether Some ones already said, that it make fun to fill gaps. Yes I had fun to fill gaps ... where no one before mapped I also have fun to expand data with better tags and so on But clean up ruins left by lawyers is no fun for me, such things will make me angry ... -- good bye or will they fork? I don't want to make my work twice in both projects But I also don't want the risk to back the wrong horse -- good bye This is not a philosophical question - this is our first estimate on data loss for one substantial area of the globe. There are working to much philosophers and lawyers on the process ... Mueck ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 09:19:53PM +1000, John Smith wrote: On 18 July 2010 21:07, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: but they haven't commented about the contributor terms, I sent them an email about this but I'm waiting to hear back. If they balk at either that would mean everything mapped from their imagery, which in several rural and regional areas is considerable, would disappear as well. I just received a reply, Nearmap will only allow derived data to be licensed under a share alike license, which means any data derived from their imagery, while compatible with ODBL, isn't compatible with the new CTs. Is this an issue with the third (licensing/relicensing/sublicensing) clause? I never fully agreed with it in the first place. If it is changed to allow relicensing to another share alike license (probably quite difficult to describe legally without, uh, writing a license) with the 2/3 majority would that be acceptable? If the alternative licenses are completely removed from the contributor terms would that fix it? Is there an issue with using the DbCL for the contents of the database? 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving data from Nearmap. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18 July 2010 21:43, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: Is this an issue with the third (licensing/relicensing/sublicensing) clause? I never fully agreed with it in the first place. Yup, the license could be changed to a non-share alike license in future, and some people are trying to push things toward PD/CC0 licenses. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 09:54:36PM +1000, John Smith wrote: It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving data from Nearmap. This also shows that simply asking if contributors will allow their contributions to come under the ODbL is not enough. I imagine many have done both their own surveys, the data from which they might be happy to relicense, and derivatives of other data (Nearmap, Yahoo!, etc), which they may not be able to relicense. 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18 July 2010 22:19, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: This also shows that simply asking if contributors will allow their contributions to come under the ODbL is not enough. I imagine many have That may be ok, but the CTs go a step further and have future licenses as being fairly open ended, which makes your next point valid: done both their own surveys, the data from which they might be happy to relicense, and derivatives of other data (Nearmap, Yahoo!, etc), which they may not be able to relicense. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
John, John Smith wrote: It kind of rubs me the wrong way when anyone brings up problems and the first response (and usually the only one) is to always fob off the work and expect those effected the most to be doing all the leg work to clean up the mess this license change over is causing or going to cause. It was an honest question - I don't know the Polish project Andrzej was talking of and it may just be possible to somehow email the contributors and ask them. It didn't sound like a project where they have imported tons of stuff from commercial/government providers like you have in Australia, it sounded more like you'd be working with human beings. I can't see this ending well, it'll completely devastate and demoralise the Australian community. Did imports and Nearmap tracing in Australia start before the relicensing effort, or were you simply not aware of it, or did you not take it seriously? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Summary of differences between old and new licenses
Is there a summary available, in layman's language, of the differences between the old license and the proposed new license? I am still a bit unclear on the net effects, other than a sizable amount of the data being moved from the OSM database to a different database. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Summary of differences between old and new licenses
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:58 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Is there a summary available, in layman's language, of the differences between the old license and the proposed new license? I am still a bit unclear on the net effects, other than a sizable amount of the data being moved from the OSM database to a different database. Have a look at these as well. http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17/07/10 20:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Michael Barabanov wrote: A poll could be something like: Would you find a it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss. It should really be Would you find it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODbL without asking for consent from individual contributors, thereby making sure that there is no data loss, but disregarding individuals who might be against the change? If OSMF were to do that, they would likely be sued by a number of principled objectors; we'd have to factor in a legal budget to deal with that. It should not be too much because those legal advisers that have told us that the CC-BY-SA would likely not hold in court would simply have to tell the judge the same ;) Problem is, the principled objectors could also decline to sue OSMF and instead threaten to sue users of OSM data that contains their contributions. *We* believe such threats to be empty, but consider our users - one of the reasons for ODbL is to achieve a legal certainty about using our data. Would all this not lead to people *again* shying away from OSM for fear of some poisoned bits of data? I don't think that Michael was actually proposing that we actually do this, more just use it to get an idea of if people agree to the principle of moving to ODbL if the data loss issue wasn't an issue. I think that the majority would, there will be a few exceptions but IMHO ODbL is a much better license. From what I can tell most of the current descent is around what to do about CC-BY-SA data imports where the provider can't or won't relicense, or contributers that we can't contact. Cheers Chris -- e: m...@chrisfleming.org w: www.chrisfleming.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org wrote: On 17/07/10 20:40, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Michael Barabanov wrote: A poll could be something like: Would you find a it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss. It should really be Would you find it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODbL without asking for consent from individual contributors, thereby making sure that there is no data loss, but disregarding individuals who might be against the change? If OSMF were to do that, they would likely be sued by a number of principled objectors; we'd have to factor in a legal budget to deal with that. It should not be too much because those legal advisers that have told us that the CC-BY-SA would likely not hold in court would simply have to tell the judge the same ;) Problem is, the principled objectors could also decline to sue OSMF and instead threaten to sue users of OSM data that contains their contributions. *We* believe such threats to be empty, but consider our users - one of the reasons for ODbL is to achieve a legal certainty about using our data. Would all this not lead to people *again* shying away from OSM for fear of some poisoned bits of data? I don't think that Michael was actually proposing that we actually do this, more just use it to get an idea of if people agree to the principle of moving to ODbL if the data loss issue wasn't an issue. I think that the majority would, there will be a few exceptions but IMHO ODbL is a much better license. From what I can tell most of the current descent is around what to do about CC-BY-SA data imports where the provider can't or won't relicense, or contributers that we can't contact. Cheers Chris I dont think this is getting more inclusive at all, though the subject of the message suggests so. For OSM users like me, who are only interested in contributing GPS tracks and sketching JOSM tracks and not at all bothered about the legalese, this is absolute nonsense. For one, I dont care if my data gets used by anyone and everyone else, much like Frederik Ramm. So, if someone could, in real layman terms explain to me what all this means, I would appreciate. And I assume and hope, there are many more users like me. Cheers, Shalabh -- e: m...@chrisfleming.org w: www.chrisfleming.org ___ 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] fact-based vote?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 02:56:57PM -0400, Richard Weait wrote: Limiting a hypothetical (what should it be called? referendum?) to just active contributors might exclude some who have just agreed to the license upgrade. Is this the right thing to do? Should the hypothetical referendum(?) be open to any person who responded to the license upgrade question? Or to any person with an OSM account? The more we have, the more informed we can be. We could poll _all_ users, and still summarise answers according to whether they have ever contributed, and whether they are “active”. The ultimate agreement (or not) should be from anyone who has contributed anyway, and we don’t want to dissuade new users so we’d like to know how they feel too. 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] User Juergenian vandalism
Aleksandr Dezhin wrote: As I know Anthony (one_half_3544) tried to contact this user on July 8 [1]. Yes, I've mailed him on 8th, and since he uses potlatch, he should have seen my message. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 17 July 2010 20:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: snip It should really be Would you find it acceptable if OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODbL without asking for consent from individual contributors, thereby making sure that there is no data loss, but disregarding individuals who might be against the change? If OSMF were to do that, they would likely be sued by a number of principled objectors; we'd have to factor in a legal budget to deal with that. It should not be too much because those legal advisers that have told us that the CC-BY-SA would likely not hold in court would simply have to tell the judge the same ;) I would rather we just relicensed and if contributors object then we delete their contributions. That way I would think it unlikely anyone would get sued and we'd lose the absolute minimum of data, rather than deleting loads of data just because some contributors haven't kept their email addresses up-to-date even though they would probably agree to the change if we could contact them. We could ask everyone upfront if they were likely to object to the change and so remove most of the uncertainty there might be. I don't think this is like the CDDB case at all as they had less honourable motives as I understand them. Kevin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 17, 2010, at 12:06 PM, 80n wrote: In other words, we were wrong, we chose the wrong license out of ignorance. Shit happens. Yeah, shit happens, OSM becomes outrageously successful and nobody abuses the spirit of the license. What kind of shit is that? People abuse it all the time, cf Nike and many others. I'm not surprised it's low level anyway right now, the amount of abuse will be a function of the completeness of the data. We're not really a routable dataset just yet and most of the planet is missing address data. As we approach these points fast, the amount of abuse will go up with it. Anyway. Let me make two points: My take on the idea of having a vote on whether we'd theoretically move to the ODbL so long as everyone else does... is that it's basically just a vote on whether to have a vote. It's also without any consequences. The consequences part: Because nothing will really happen either way if the majority of this proposed step vote yes or no, that means that the incentives to vote yes or no are vastly different than saying yes or no to the actual license change. That means that people will vote differently and perhaps to the extent that it will be uncorrelated with an actual license change decision. In other words, your reasons for voting yes or no 'theoretically' are very different to voting yes or no in actuality. If anyone here has a degree in economics or psychology they'd be able to wave around all kinds of textbooks showing how hard it is to measure things like this when you have no real incentives - for example asking people if they'd pay for and go to a gym to get fit - we all know people say they'd like to do those things and never do. Based on the theoretical vote being wildly inaccurate and also not really affecting anything, I say the LWG should just push ahead with the plan. If everyone catastrophically says 'no' to the ODbL (which I doubt, but hey) then they can go back to the drawing board with a concrete result. If we all agree, then we can just get on with mapping. But going back to the drawing board with a proxy to a vote - a vote on whether to have a vote - is incredibly flimsy and will just pull out everyone on the other side of the argument who'll charge that it was an invalid vote. In sum, having a vote on whether to have a vote just slows us all down for no particular reason. Therefore, just put the voluntary license change thing out there (so people can change if they want to) and continue with the rest of the plan. If it turns out to be awful and we lost lots of people (which I doubt) then you can consider things at that stage. Oh and by the way, as a thought experiment - if 50% of people drop out due to the license change then you only have to wait a few months for the data to be put back in by other new people - go and look at the user growth and data growth graphs. It's really not as bad as it looks, even under a bad scenario like 50%. My second point - have a think on what affect you're all having on the people in the LWG. They've now been working on this for _years_ meeting every week. That's a huge amount of effort and investment. These are good people doing their best to find a way forward. But, every time they do something, the mailing lists fill up with new things they should do which leads to a steady state - they complete one task and then are given a new one to do without actually approaching the goal. They have to balance this with a fair number of people complaining that it's taking them forever to get anywhere. That's not a fun situation to be in. For years. Very few of us here with all these opinions and time on the mailing list - whether they are good, bad or ugly opinions - have the time, whatever our position for or against the license etc, to sit through this stuff week after week in the working group and push this stuff forward. I'm worried that we're going to burn the guys on the LWG out. They must feel like they're in some kafka-esque dialogue with no upside for them. They chose to be on the working group and do all this work of course, but the worst thing that could happen is that they conclude that it will take another couple of years to get anywhere and decide to go and do something more useful with their time. I know for a fact that some of them don't even read some of these mailing lists anymore because of it. So why don't we just cool off a bit and give them a nod of thanks before diving on with this stuff - whatever direction it goes in. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 2:59 PM, John Smith wrote: On 18 July 2010 22:51, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Did imports and Nearmap tracing in Australia start before the relicensing effort, or were you simply not aware of it, or did you not take it seriously? Most likely ODBL is fine, it's the CTs that is the biggest hurdle. Allowing one company or organisation to dictate the projects license or direction isn't a good idea. It's similar to those people saying that we should do whatever Google says we should do, so they can just use our data. Why? Because the project is growing very fast and attracting more data all the time. If Google or Nearmap don't want to play ball that's fine - just look at the hundreds of other companies and organisations that do, like Bing and MapQuest's announcements at SOTM for example. Is it really a valid argument that we should do whatever Google or Nearmap say we should do, when all of their competitors are happy to work with us? I agree it might be bad in the short term that we lose some aerial imagery (but I posit that would only happen because you give nearmap the impression that the community will do whatever they say, if you ask them to join us from the position that this is the direction we're going, I posit they would be more positive). But in the longer term I guarantee we'll have lots of other sources of data and imagery. It will be a temporary setback, even if it happens. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Defining critical mass...
this made my day :-) As OSM has gone on I've found more and more that I'm attacked when people simply don't listen (I got flames in David Earls talk at SOTM when I said 'tag equivalences were going to be part of the original tagging system', people flamed me saying they thought that me hating tag equivalences was really bad, not listening that I said they were probably a good idea and part of the original ideas for the system!) so it's good to finally be attacked for my fake self's pronouncements. The next logical step is for someone to start posting to the list with my email address. At least then it's deniable when I change my mind :-) On Jul 14, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: Am 14.07.2010 11:08, schrieb Andy Allan: On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Ulf Lampingulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December 2009: http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html That wasn't written by Steve Coast, the fake blog is written by other people and is supposed to be satirical, but in this case is clearly attacking other members of the community. One of the characters is clearly based on you. I don't find it very funny or constructive. Steve Coast actually posts at the following blogs: http://www.opengeodata.org/ (with others) http://blog.stevecoast.com/ Deep apologies to Steve C that I accused him about things he didn't do. It's really not my style to falsely accuse people - seems I really got a wrong impression about that blog. I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same elitist behaviour from the inner circle as before - very sad to see :-( It's a shame that you feel there's an inner circle. It's worth bearing in mind that when a project grows to be more than 30-40 people that not everyone can be involved in everything all the time (and we have around 30-40 *thousand* people involved now). But there's no intention to create an inner circle or, by corrollary, exclude other people. What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive? For example remember positions like Richard Fairhursts in the thread (I know that it's not an official OSMF/LWG position): Of course, not everyone is a member of OSMF, but if you don't choose to get involved in the running of the project then you can't really complain if decisions are taken that aren't to your liking. I have choosen to get involved in the running of the project by mapping a lot of stuff, organising a local regular mapping group, helping in several german OSM activities and whatnot. Now telling me to shut up about decisions when I'm not a member of the OSMF is, well, disgusting IMHO. Remember: There are a lot of active OSM activists around the world that are not OSMF members, a lot of them might not even speak english. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Why? Because the project is growing very fast and attracting more data all the time. If Google or Nearmap don't want to play ball that's fine - just look at the hundreds of other companies and organisations that do, like Bing and MapQuest's announcements at SOTM for example. Nearmap isn't dictating any terms, other than you can only use their data under a share alike license so no need to lump them in with Google. However I have a fairly good idea how much information has been added in regional areas that wouldn't exist otherwise. I agree it might be bad in the short term that we lose some aerial imagery (but I posit that would only happen because you give nearmap the impression that the community will do whatever they say, if you ask them to join us from the position that this is the direction we're going, I posit they would be more positive). But in the longer term I guarantee we'll have lots of other sources of data and imagery. It will be a temporary setback, even if it happens. You go on and on about how if 50% disappear wait a short time and it'll magically appear within a short period of time, I call BS, if the tiger data was dumped from OSM how long exactly would it take to regather it? How demoralising would it be on the people that fixed up the tiger data? Combined with people that don't respond or don't agree it would set the Aussie community back to the stone age effectively, and it will actively turn away new contributors because they won't want the same thing to happen to their efforts. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: It's similar to those people saying that we should do whatever Google says we should do, so they can just use our data. Since you're bringing up Google, what about Yahoo, any official word from them on ODBL or the new CTs? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 7:46 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Why? Because the project is growing very fast and attracting more data all the time. If Google or Nearmap don't want to play ball that's fine - just look at the hundreds of other companies and organisations that do, like Bing and MapQuest's announcements at SOTM for example. Nearmap isn't dictating any terms, other than you can only use their data under a share alike license so no need to lump them in with Google. However I have a fairly good idea how much information has been added in regional areas that wouldn't exist otherwise. I agree it might be bad in the short term that we lose some aerial imagery (but I posit that would only happen because you give nearmap the impression that the community will do whatever they say, if you ask them to join us from the position that this is the direction we're going, I posit they would be more positive). But in the longer term I guarantee we'll have lots of other sources of data and imagery. It will be a temporary setback, even if it happens. You go on and on about how if 50% disappear wait a short time and it'll magically appear within a short period of time, Could you point to where I go on and on about it? I'm aware of only mentioning it once, in the above email? I call BS, if the tiger data was dumped from OSM how long exactly would it take to regather it? How demoralising would it be on the people that fixed up the tiger data? Combined with people that don't respond or don't agree it would set the Aussie community back to the stone age effectively, and it will actively turn away new contributors because they won't want the same thing to happen to their efforts. John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things - that 1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could happen at any point. 1) I think their mind could be changed, maybe by giving them a more positive view on the process that led to this license, the people behind it and so on. Perhaps they have been given a dystopian view of the license? 2) I don't think anyone wants to start relicensing any time soon after the odbl gets implemented or rejected. I think everyone would want a holiday. And anyway, you're comparing it to an absolute situation of status quo - that we all just hum along on CCBYSA because nearmap won't work with us. We can't do that. We all (well nearly all) know that CCBYSA just doesn't work, so you're saying no to the ODbL, no to PD too (because nearmap wont like that either as its not SA)... You can't go through life being a big bag of 'no' like this because nothing will ever happen. The LWG is trying to make a bunch of reasonable decisions that will inevitably disenfranchise some people. They are trying to minimise the number of people disenfranchised and the amount of it, and if you just say 'no' to everything you just look like an unreasonable extremist and risk nobody spending time on your otherwise reasonable points. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 7:48 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: It's similar to those people saying that we should do whatever Google says we should do, so they can just use our data. Since you're bringing up Google, what about Yahoo, any official word from them on ODBL or the new CTs? We had this discussion years ago now and they were fine with it. As with everything else, they weren't allowed by legal to say anything publicly and were just waiting for the actual changeover. Perhaps naively I told them it wouldn't take too long :-) Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Hi, I am a complete outsider regarding the licensing debate (and, to be honest, to the whole OSM project... I barely started mapping a few hiking trails). That being said, here is the main thing I wonder about : **Is the license change a real choice or a kind of legal obligation ?** The reason I ask is because, by looking at this thread, I feel like some people view it as important, and others see how depressing it is for the mapping community... But do we have the choice ? If the move is for pure theoretical, GNU/Stallman-like ideology, then it is likely to create way more damage than it would save. However, if the move is about saving the project from a legal perspective, then it's probably better to start tackling the issue now rather than having a court shut down the project 5 years from now when most of the planet is mapped... regards, Sami Dalouche On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 03:46 +1000, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 03:36, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Why? Because the project is growing very fast and attracting more data all the time. If Google or Nearmap don't want to play ball that's fine - just look at the hundreds of other companies and organisations that do, like Bing and MapQuest's announcements at SOTM for example. Nearmap isn't dictating any terms, other than you can only use their data under a share alike license so no need to lump them in with Google. However I have a fairly good idea how much information has been added in regional areas that wouldn't exist otherwise. I agree it might be bad in the short term that we lose some aerial imagery (but I posit that would only happen because you give nearmap the impression that the community will do whatever they say, if you ask them to join us from the position that this is the direction we're going, I posit they would be more positive). But in the longer term I guarantee we'll have lots of other sources of data and imagery. It will be a temporary setback, even if it happens. You go on and on about how if 50% disappear wait a short time and it'll magically appear within a short period of time, I call BS, if the tiger data was dumped from OSM how long exactly would it take to regather it? How demoralising would it be on the people that fixed up the tiger data? Combined with people that don't respond or don't agree it would set the Aussie community back to the stone age effectively, and it will actively turn away new contributors because they won't want the same thing to happen to their efforts. ___ 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 03:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things - that 1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could happen at any point. The email I received from their CEO was fairly definite about the map data being share alike. 1) I think their mind could be changed, maybe by giving them a more positive view on the process that led to this license, the people behind it and so on. Perhaps they have been given a dystopian view of the license? I never said they didn't agree to the ODBL, but that the new CTs, specifically section 3, wasn't going to be compatible, even if ODBL is. 2) I don't think anyone wants to start relicensing any time soon after the odbl gets implemented or rejected. I think everyone would want a holiday. Some people are threatening to have the license changed to CC0 already, how serious they are about that is another matter. And anyway, you're comparing it to an absolute situation of status quo - that we all just hum along on CCBYSA because nearmap won't work with us. We can't do that. We all (well nearly all) know that CCBYSA just doesn't work, so you're saying no to the ODbL, no to PD too (because nearmap wont like that either as its not SA)... You can't go through life being a big bag of 'no' like this because nothing will ever happen. The LWG is trying to make a bunch of reasonable decisions that will inevitably disenfranchise some people. They are trying to minimise the number of people disenfranchised and the amount of it, and if you just say 'no' to everything you just look like an unreasonable extremist and risk nobody spending time on your otherwise reasonable points. I'm not just saying no any more, I'm already past that, if the CTs aren't amended we are prepared to fork the aussie data, there is just too much data going to be lost and suddenly things go from OSM having a whiter than white respect to copyright, to being overly messy, either cc-by-sa is valid or it isn't and in which case the existing data carries on. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 04:02, Sami Dalouche sko...@free.fr wrote: If the move is for pure theoretical, GNU/Stallman-like ideology, then it is likely to create way more damage than it would save. However, if the move is about saving the project from a legal perspective, then it's probably better to start tackling the issue now rather than having a court shut down the project 5 years from now when most of the planet is mapped... You have it backwards, it's about people trying to prevent companies taking advantage of OSM, and OSM getting them shut down if it needed to go that far. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 03:56, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: We had this discussion years ago now and they were fine with it. As with everything else, they weren't allowed by legal to say anything publicly and were just waiting for the actual changeover. That covers current licenses, what about if OSM goes CC0/PD like some would like and which the current CTs would allow more easily? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:01 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 03:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things - that 1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could happen at any point. The email I received from their CEO was fairly definite about the map data being share alike. 1) I think their mind could be changed, maybe by giving them a more positive view on the process that led to this license, the people behind it and so on. Perhaps they have been given a dystopian view of the license? I never said they didn't agree to the ODBL, but that the new CTs, specifically section 3, wasn't going to be compatible, even if ODBL is. Do you think nearmap are being reasonable? I don't think they are. There are a variety of downsides with working with open communities - one of them is that they are flexible and change over time with many different opinions. A bunch of people here wanted that change in section 3 (do you agree that was reasonable?). I don't think we can change OSM sufficiently to cater to nearmaps terms of interaction if they are that static - or the hundreds of other companies who will then have their own demands and terms of interaction. Someone, somewhere (namely the LWG) has to make a balance between those who want nearmap and those who want those CT changes. I think they should probably go with the new CTs sadly rather than go with nearmap. It's not a nice choice but I don't see any alternatives, do you? Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:05 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 03:56, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: We had this discussion years ago now and they were fine with it. As with everything else, they weren't allowed by legal to say anything publicly and were just waiting for the actual changeover. That covers current licenses, what about if OSM goes CC0/PD like some would like and which the current CTs would allow more easily? I think all the individuals that I spoke to then have since left Y! The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'd count the second group as the brighter ones. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 04:08, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Do you think nearmap are being reasonable? I don't think they are. Why are we changing to another share alike license if this isn't reasonable? I fail to see the logic here. There are a variety of downsides with working with open communities - one of them is that they are flexible and change over time with many different opinions. A bunch of people here wanted that change in section 3 (do you agree that was reasonable?). I don't think we can change OSM sufficiently to cater to nearmaps terms of interaction if they are that static - or the hundreds of other companies who will then have their own demands and terms of interaction. As I said before, anyone who has used Nearmap imagery will not legally be able to agree to the current CT because it would breach their contract with Nearmap, on the other hand is it reasonable of OSM to force people into an open ended agreement about what an open and free license might be 10 years from now? Someone, somewhere (namely the LWG) has to make a balance between those who want nearmap and those who want those CT changes. I think they should probably go with the new CTs sadly rather than go with nearmap. It's not a nice choice but I don't see any alternatives, do you? This is the unfortunate conclusion that seems to be occurring, so basically there will be a fork and as unfortunate as it will be the new CT is too unreasonable to my pragmatic goals of build an open map of Australia, as I said before it would be about the same as removing the Tiger data and any data derived from it from the US, where would the US end up? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 04:11, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'm not talking about end users of the data, but companies suppling either aerial imagery or other data, like AND for example, how would they feel if all attribution was stripped from their contributions to OSM? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18/07/10 19:11, SteveC wrote: The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'd count the second group as the brighter ones. And yet BSD continues to be maintained and updated, while coexisting with a similar share-alike project (Linux). So that shows how much most companies know. I don't see BSD as much more or less fragmented than linux (given the whole Google/Android kernel branch being left to rot.) Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to produced works - that would encourage companies to give back. TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to produced works - that would encourage companies to give back. Judging by a same straw poll, very few people cared about SA extending to produced works, and the ODBL has been drafted specifically to avoid this. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000753.html Most cared mostly about attribution and share alike on the data only. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Changeset 5057715
Changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5057715 added an apostrophe to every name St Johns Street in the northern hemisphere. It seems to me that this was a very unselective edit and conversation with the editor leaves me unconvinced of its value. I am therefore wondering whether this edit is best reverted whole. -- Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:01 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 03:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: John, you're painting a dystopian view based on a couple of key things - that 1) nearmap would never change their mind and 2) the 'same thing' could happen at any point. The email I received from their CEO was fairly definite about the map data being share alike. And under ODbL the map data is share alike. 1) I think their mind could be changed, maybe by giving them a more positive view on the process that led to this license, the people behind it and so on. Perhaps they have been given a dystopian view of the license? I never said they didn't agree to the ODBL, but that the new CTs, specifically section 3, wasn't going to be compatible, even if ODBL is. Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical situation that you have created. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 05:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical situation that you have created. I'm not the only one, since some people are already proposing to push a change to CC0 after the CTs are agreed to. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What if I don't care about tedious license discussions?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Sami Dalouche sko...@free.fr wrote: Hi, I am a complete outsider regarding the licensing debate (and, to be honest, to the whole OSM project... I barely started mapping a few hiking trails). Hi Sami, Welcome to OSM. We love mapping and hiking trails and beautiful cartography and sometimes we get caught up in other topics. That being said, here is the main thing I wonder about : **Is the license change a real choice or a kind of legal obligation ?** The reason I ask is because, by looking at this thread, I feel like some people view it as important, and others see how depressing it is for the mapping community... But do we have the choice ? Some view it as important. Some enjoy vigorous discussion of any topic. ;-) I summarized the license upgrade process a while back. It aims to be a fife-minute introduction so you can decide how informed you want to be, or if you just want to go with the flow. http://weait.com/content/openstreetmap-license-change-progress Best regards, Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 05:17, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 05:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical situation that you have created. I'm not the only one, since some people are already proposing to push a change to CC0 after the CTs are agreed to. This keeps bringing up the issue of OSM's whiter than white copyright policy, and what happens if the license does change in future to non-share alike, do we start purging more data from the main data base, how many times would this be acceptable before people stopped contributing? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 3:20 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 05:17, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 05:12, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical situation that you have created. I'm not the only one, since some people are already proposing to push a change to CC0 after the CTs are agreed to. This keeps bringing up the issue of OSM's whiter than white copyright policy, and what happens if the license does change in future to non-share alike, do we start purging more data from the main data base, how many times would this be acceptable before people stopped contributing? You are creating yet another theoretical situation, John. Suddenly, in your perspective, the community is clamouring for the next license change and the next license change after that? I don't see it happening. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 05:37, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: You are creating yet another theoretical situation, John. Suddenly, in your perspective, the community is clamouring for the next license change and the next license change after that? I don't see it happening. If you are going to get picky at least use the right term, hypothetical, since theories can be tested and at this point in time they can't be, that doesn't mean they won't be in future, which is why section 3 of the new CTs in incompatible with existing data. If things are so certainly going to stay more or less as they are, what is the harm in defining 'free and open' more explicitly to include an attribution/share alike licenses only? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18 July 2010 12:31, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: andrzej zaborowski wrote: AFAIK the majority of data currently in OSM in Poland comes from that other project, which still has lots more contributors than OSM here. Is it totally hopeless to contact these contributors and ask them for their agreement? That's kind of what I'd like to do when we know exactly what we want them to agree to. Currently we don't. However my current thinking is for these contributors to be able to opt out, rather than opt in. I know that is not legally the right way to do it, but since this whole situation is legally blurred and I'd feel morally okay that way, I can probably take the risk of somebody getting upset on me. Technically I can't contact all of the authors because the project I talked about takes anonymous contributions through their bugzilla, and even if it didn't, they don't have per-object history, their repository is a CVS of text files with 9 years of commit history. We also know they had some amount of imports but documentation is scarce (mostly in the form or forums). Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'd count the second group as the brighter ones. That's interesting, because last time you commented on it, you said it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the other companies. Glad to see you're being more honest about it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset 5057715
On 18 July 2010 19:56, Andrew wynnd...@lavabit.com wrote: Changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5057715 added an apostrophe to every name St Johns Street in the northern hemisphere. It seems to me that this was a very unselective edit and conversation with the editor leaves me unconvinced of its value. I am therefore wondering whether this edit is best reverted whole. I've contacted Welshie and reverted the changeset. Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18/07/10 19:39, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSCmapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to produced works - that would encourage companies to give back. Judging by a same straw poll, very few people cared about SA extending to produced works, and the ODBL has been drafted specifically to avoid this. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000753.html Most cared mostly about attribution and share alike on the data only. It's not a question of OSMF member support, I am talking about how share-alike encourages business to share data with OSM. TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 06:18, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: On 18/07/10 19:39, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSCmapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to produced works - that would encourage companies to give back. Judging by a same straw poll, very few people cared about SA extending to produced works, and the ODBL has been drafted specifically to avoid this. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000753.html Most cared mostly about attribution and share alike on the data only. It's not a question of OSMF member support, I am talking about how share-alike encourages business to share data with OSM. Then why mention produced work, since ODBL and cc-by-sa both encourage sharing the underlying data? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
I never said they didn't agree to the ODBL, but that the new CTs, specifically section 3, wasn't going to be compatible, even if ODBL is. Only if a later license change were to go non-SA. An hypothetical situation that you have created. I know you like to have personal flame war, but in nutshell ODBL is share alike, so no problems here. I have two questions though: 1) Why we need CT in first place 2) What section 3 is about Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 18/07/10 21:22, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 06:18, TimSCmapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: On 18/07/10 19:39, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 04:30, TimSCmapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Also, if we really cared about share-alike, we would have it apply to produced works - that would encourage companies to give back. Then why mention produced work, since ODBL and cc-by-sa both encourage sharing the underlying data? Share-alike of the underlying data is a separate issue from share-alike produced works (obviously). I am aware that ODbL doesn't do produced work share-alike because certain parties want to layer proprietary data with OSM data. I am saying that share-alike produced works would also encourage the sharing of data. Any data that is encorprated into a share-alike produced work can then be rolled back into OSM, not to mention making the rendering and colours available for reuse. This is the intention of the current license (although how effective it is is a separate controversy). What I fail to see is if share-alike is good one one case, why not in the other? TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 19 July 2010 06:18, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: It's not a question of OSMF member support, I am talking about how share-alike encourages business to share data with OSM. Then why mention produced work, since ODBL and cc-by-sa both encourage sharing the underlying data? ODbL doesn't even cover the underlying data. And so far no one has answered the question as to how produced works aren't a huge loophole. If someone creates a produced work with the data and licenses the produced work under CC-BY, what stops someone else from taking that produced work, extracting the data, and now having the data under CC-BY? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 06:27, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: I know you like to have personal flame war, but in nutshell ODBL is share alike, so no problems here. I have two questions though: 1) Why we need CT in first place 2) What section 3 is about http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms 3. 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. Which other free and open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. An active contributor is defined as: a natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 12 months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time); and has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 weeks. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
2010/7/18 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 19 July 2010 06:27, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: I know you like to have personal flame war, but in nutshell ODBL is share alike, so no problems here. I have two questions though: 1) Why we need CT in first place 2) What section 3 is about http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms 3. 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. Which other free and open license is chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors. An active contributor is defined as: a natural person (whether using a single or multiple accounts) who has edited the Project in any 3 calendar months from the last 12 months (i.e. there is a demonstrated interest over time); and has maintained a valid email address in their registration profile and responds within 3 weeks. So, problem is, while ODBL is fine as SA license (for data that is), CT requires to give OSMF rights to republish data under license which so far by CT can be also non-share-alike, right? Will it be a problem to add small addition to this section 3 or another share alike free and open license? Or it will destroy someone's dream about publishing those data under BSD like or PD some day? :) Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 06:44, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: So, problem is, while ODBL is fine as SA license (for data that is), CT requires to give OSMF rights to republish data under license which so far by CT can be also non-share-alike, right? The CT is also likely to conflict with cc-by data... Will it be a problem to add small addition to this section 3 or another share alike free and open license? Or it will destroy someone's dream about publishing those data under BSD like or PD some day? :) If people were being honest they wouldn't try to sneak things in like this... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] User Juergenian vandalism
There are two new changesets today on the northern coast of Russia. Looks like he deleted 7 ways. On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Anthony onehalf3...@gmail.com wrote: Aleksandr Dezhin wrote: As I know Anthony (one_half_3544) tried to contact this user on July 8 [1]. Yes, I've mailed him on 8th, and since he uses potlatch, he should have seen my message. ___ 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote: Did imports and Nearmap tracing in Australia start before the relicensing effort, or were you simply not aware of it, or did you not take it seriously? We started imports a while ago, with the first I recall in 2007. In 2007 I was not aware of an attempt to relicense OSM, but it was probably started by then. What I read on signup was CC-by-SA, and no talk of any future change. Then ODBL was presented, with a fanfare, and later the Contributor Terms crept out, more quietly. At the stage of announcement of ODBL we were already using CC-by-SA data from the Australian government. At a later date this data was changed to CC-by, and we would be able to retain it under ODBL, but not with the Contributor Terms which had by then been published. Nearmap chose to make their orthophotos available to OSM under the current licence, CC-by-SA. The email to a few of us yesterday indicated firmly that Share-Alike was very important to NearMap, and that there is no possibility of the share alike being removed at a later stage. So ODBL contributor terms which preserve share-alike would possibly be acceptable. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'd count the second group as the brighter ones. That's interesting, because last time you commented on it, you said it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the other companies. Glad to see you're being more honest about it. Hi Of course it would be better - then CM and everyone else could do what they like without having to deal with emails like this one. There's nothing new or complicated here - it's very simple. The best thing for CloudMade would be to have complete and free access to the data. The best thing for OSM and the community as a whole, including commercial vendors like CM, is to have share-alike provisions which keep everyone contributing and honest. Just basic game theory. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:18 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 04:11, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'm not talking about end users of the data, but companies suppling either aerial imagery or other data, like AND for example, how would they feel if all attribution was stripped from their contributions to OSM? Okay - you're saying that nearmap's concern is attribution? Here's another scenario - You could say to nearmap that when we switch over to odbl they switch off the aerial imagery but allow us to keep using the data so far under the odbl. When things have settled down in X number of months and they see we're not going to jump license again any time soon then they can start letting us use the imagery again? Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Hi, On 18 July 2010 19:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: And anyway, you're comparing it to an absolute situation of status quo - that we all just hum along on CCBYSA because nearmap won't work with us. We can't do that. We all (well nearly all) know that CCBYSA just doesn't work, so you're saying no to the ODbL, no to PD too (because nearmap wont like that either as its not SA)... You can't go through life being a big bag of 'no' like this because nothing will ever happen. The LWG is trying to make a bunch of reasonable decisions that will inevitably disenfranchise some people. They are trying to minimise the number of people disenfranchised and the amount of it, and if you just say 'no' to everything you just look like an unreasonable extremist and risk nobody spending time on your otherwise reasonable points. Maybe when you say ODbL you mean ODbL + CT, but I'll just point out that John didn't seem to oppose ODbL, perhaps the opposite, just opposing to the text of the CT. The CT is also what nearmap is not accepting and what I would have trouble accepting. If the LWG is trying to minimise the number of people unhappy with the changeover process, they're doing a bad job (see poll below). The have not asked (that I know) the community on the mailing list whether the CT should make the OSMF the licensing body and make the authors grant these rights to the OSMF. To any arguments that rose so far about this point, I've only seen the members of LWG explain for umpteenth time why they think it's important for OSMF to have these rights. Some people agree that it would be good for OSMF to be able to change the license in the future, some people don't. But nearly nobody thinks that this is so important as to sacrifice for example the ability to import ODbL licensed databases, and basically remove the SA of our license as John points out. Here's an old poll (not very widely publicised) that shows this and which I've never seen the LWG respond to: http://doodle.com/5ey98xzwcz69ytq7 Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:56 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 18, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'd count the second group as the brighter ones. That's interesting, because last time you commented on it, you said it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the other companies. Glad to see you're being more honest about it. Hi Of course it would be better - then CM and everyone else could do what they like without having to deal with emails like this one. There's nothing new or complicated here - it's very simple. The best thing for CloudMade would be to have complete and free access to the data. The best thing for OSM and the community as a whole, including commercial vendors like CM, is to have share-alike provisions which keep everyone contributing and honest. Just basic game theory. I guess I'll count you as one of the less bright ones. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 18, 2010, at 11:23 PM, Liz wrote: On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote: Did imports and Nearmap tracing in Australia start before the relicensing effort, or were you simply not aware of it, or did you not take it seriously? We started imports a while ago, with the first I recall in 2007. In 2007 I was not aware of an attempt to relicense OSM, but it was probably started by then. What I read on signup was CC-by-SA, and no talk of any future change. Then ODBL was presented, with a fanfare, and later the Contributor Terms crept out, more quietly. No... it slithered out from the 7th Circle of Hell, spawned by the Evil LWG and her commander Mike of Norse. The Brethren Thirteen (the Evil Number) hath rendered blah blah blah... Seriously - where do you guys get off with these dark mutterings? The CT's didn't 'creep out quietly', you just weren't paying attention. You don't have to cast these vague aspersions on the LWG to make your point. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 19, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 5:56 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 18, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The companies I talk to today come down in to two camps on PD. The first basically lick their lips and want us to go PD so they don't have to contribute anything (in effect make their business easier) and the second think it would be nuts because then the project wouldn't have long term growth potential and would probably die and fragment like BSD did etc etc etc. I'd count the second group as the brighter ones. That's interesting, because last time you commented on it, you said it would be much better to move OSM to PD or CC0 for CloudMade and all the other companies. Glad to see you're being more honest about it. Hi Of course it would be better - then CM and everyone else could do what they like without having to deal with emails like this one. There's nothing new or complicated here - it's very simple. The best thing for CloudMade would be to have complete and free access to the data. The best thing for OSM and the community as a whole, including commercial vendors like CM, is to have share-alike provisions which keep everyone contributing and honest. Just basic game theory. I guess I'll count you as one of the less bright ones. And I'll try to imagine your parents basement where you toil endlessly on such counts. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:06 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: [ snip ] Maybe when you say ODbL you mean ODbL + CT, but I'll just point out that John didn't seem to oppose ODbL, perhaps the opposite, just opposing to the text of the CT. The CT is also what nearmap is not accepting and what I would have trouble accepting. I don't recall seeing the nice folks from NearMap posting on this thread. I do recall an assertion from another poster that NearMap is firm on the map data being Share-Alike, as is will be under ODbL. But no quotations attributed to NearMap, nor posts from them here. I think it does a disservice to NearMap to presume that anybody other than their staff speak for them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 01:04, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:06 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: [ snip ] Maybe when you say ODbL you mean ODbL + CT, but I'll just point out that John didn't seem to oppose ODbL, perhaps the opposite, just opposing to the text of the CT. The CT is also what nearmap is not accepting and what I would have trouble accepting. I don't recall seeing the nice folks from NearMap posting on this thread. I do recall an assertion from another poster that NearMap is firm on the map data being Share-Alike, as is will be under ODbL. But no quotations attributed to NearMap, nor posts from them here. I think it does a disservice to NearMap to presume that anybody other than their staff speak for them. I meant it just in the same way somebody presented the position of Yahoo in this thread, and elsewhere we're saying don't trace from Google maps as their terms don't allow that even though possibly nobody from Google has said it in the given thread. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
SteveC-2 wrote: And I'll try to imagine your parents basement where you toil endlessly on such counts. Steve stevecoast.com If this is how the OSMF board conducts themselves, perhaps it's best to give them as little power as possible over the data and its license. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/What-could-we-do-to-make-this-licences-discussion-more-inclusive-tp5292284p5310435.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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 07:59, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Okay - you're saying that nearmap's concern is attribution? Surprisingly no, they don't require attribution, which is weird in and of itself, but do require any derived map data to be made available under a share alike license, so that they can make use of it. They give us free use of their imagery in return they get to use the data, which seems fair and equitable to me. Here's another scenario - You could say to nearmap that when we switch over to odbl they switch off the aerial imagery but allow us to keep using the data so far under the odbl. When things have settled down in X number of months and they see we're not going to jump license again any time soon then they can start letting us use the imagery again? We all have our own agendas and biases, but you can't say 2 or 3 years or even 6 months from now that the derived data won't suddenly be pushed under a different, non-share alike license. At that point there is no sections that cover incompatible license data, in fact just the opposite, the data continues under a different license if enough active contributors agree, which is why even cc-by data won't be compatible. Even with the most honourable intentions none of us can know what the future will bring, but I can only point and push for things in my interests, which at this stage section 3 of the new CTs ain't it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 09:04, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I don't recall seeing the nice folks from NearMap posting on this thread. I do recall an assertion from another poster that NearMap is firm on the map data being Share-Alike, as is will be under ODbL. But no quotations attributed to NearMap, nor posts from them here. I think it does a disservice to NearMap to presume that anybody other than their staff speak for them. I'll emailed them privately and asked them just like anyone else can, I didn't ask to republish their email but even if you don't believe me their current terms spell out their current position, that is a share alike license like CC-by-SA: http://www.nearmap.com/products/free-commercial-licence If you derive information from observing our PhotoMaps, and include that information in a work, you will own that work, and may distribute it to others under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 12:07, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: If this is how the OSMF board conducts themselves, perhaps it's best to give them as little power as possible over the data and its license. Just ignore the rants, some people are just venting frustration. I know how to vent frustration :) It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers, namely stay-at-home sons (and daughters?), are less equal than others. Perhaps this should not merely be implied, but written out in the bylaws. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 12:35, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers, namely stay-at-home sons (and daughters?), are less equal than others. Perhaps this should not merely be implied, but written out in the bylaws. I think it's a bit late to be talking about bylaws, OSM-F already exists, and there is likely to be too many self serving factions to push through such a fundamental change as this. Just look at how hard it is to go from one share alike license to another. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 10:18, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 09:04, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I don't recall seeing the nice folks from NearMap posting on this thread. I do recall an assertion from another poster that NearMap is firm on the map data being Share-Alike, as is will be under ODbL. But no quotations attributed to NearMap, nor posts from them here. I think it does a disservice to NearMap to presume that anybody other than their staff speak for them. I'll emailed them privately and asked them just like anyone else can, I didn't ask to republish their email but even if you don't believe me their current terms spell out their current position, that is a share alike license like CC-by-SA As John has, quite correctly, been polite enough not to share Stuart Nixon's email reply with the list, here it is below (release approved by Stuart): NearMap is keen to continue to support OSM with our PhotoMaps (noting that in the future we will be expanding to Europe and other areas). As our PhotoMaps are central to our business, we can only offer them under a CC-BY-SA (or similar) license, and the license must preserve this (e.g. not take away these rights at a later date). It is critical to us that the license is Share Alike, so it must be CC-BY-SA style, not CC-BY style. In a separate email (to Liz Dodd, cc John), Stuart added: We are watching what is going on with some concern. I'm not sure what we will do if OSM splinters; as you may know there are already other groups working on street maps, and we don't support them as we would rather work with a single open community. Perhaps you could contact Yahoo to see what their view is on where OSM is going; I would guess they would have similar requirements to ourselves. If OSM became aware of the issues a non-CC-BY-SA style license, or one that can change in the future, causes for commercial groups trying to support OSM, then perhaps they can tune the process to continue to encourage commercial support. It is worth noting that in the longer term NearMap plans to cover much more of the world's population, and we do hope we can continue to work with OSM. It's probably also worth quoting from our Copyright and Credits page ( http://www.nearmap.com/legal/copyright), which sets out our point of view: Copyrights and credits We hope you enjoy using our website and our PhotoMaps. We’ve worked very hard to bring them to you. Use of the NearMap website and PhotoMaps is governed by our licence terms/products/licence and community guidelines /products/community-guidelines. You may also refer to our Terms of Use /legal/terms-of-use for other related information. From this publication date, our website and all the images and PhotoMaps are copyrighted works that belong to NearMap Pty Ltd. [image: CC-BY-SA] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/We specifically encourage creation of Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ licensed information derived from our PhotoMap content, so that everyone can share and build a greater understanding of our planet. Credit where it is due! In creating this website, we are very grateful for the additional information from the following sources, which is provided subject to their respective copyrights and licences. OpenStreetMap We support the sharing of information and knowledge. “OpenStreetMap http://www.openstreetmap.org/ is an editable map of the whole world. It is made by people like you. OpenStreetMaphttp://www.openstreetmap.org/ allows you to view, edit and use geographical data in a collaborative way from anywhere on Earth. OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways.” — Source: http://www.openstreetmap.org Visit OpenStreetMap http://www.openstreetmap.org/ to take part in the collaboration or read more about OSM, their disclaimers and applicable terms of use. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki You can also take it as read that many of us here at NearMap are enthusiastic mappers and OSM contributors. We're also working hard on ways to allow more people to more easily contribute data to OSM. Cheers Ben -- Ben Last Development Manager (HyperWeb) NearMap Pty Ltd ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussionmore inclusive?
This is a common insult, used to imply that the person in question is too inept to make it on their own. I am not certain where the basement portion of the stereotype comes from, unless it is to imply the person can't even get along their parents. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussionmore inclusive? From :mailto:nerou...@gmail.com Date :Sun Jul 18 21:35:52 America/Chicago 2010 On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:22 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 12:07, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: If this is how the OSMF board conducts themselves, perhaps it's best to give them as little power as possible over the data and its license. Just ignore the rants, some people are just venting frustration. I know how to vent frustration :) It seems to me that Steve's post is not just a harmless rant, but contains an implication, whether purposeful or not, that some mappers, namely stay-at-home sons (and daughters?), are less equal than others. Perhaps this should not merely be implied, but written out in the bylaws. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] User Juergenian vandalism
His own or old ones? 2010/7/19 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com: There are two new changesets today on the northern coast of Russia. Looks like he deleted 7 ways. On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Anthony onehalf3...@gmail.com wrote: Aleksandr Dezhin wrote: As I know Anthony (one_half_3544) tried to contact this user on July 8 [1]. Yes, I've mailed him on 8th, and since he uses potlatch, he should have seen my message. ___ 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
Would specifying that the new license must be not just open/free but specifically an SA-like license in contributor agreement solve this particular issue? ODBL looks like SA in spirit. Further changing of licenses could be a separate discussion, when/if there's a new need. Michael. On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 10:18, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 09:04, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I don't recall seeing the nice folks from NearMap posting on this thread. I do recall an assertion from another poster that NearMap is firm on the map data being Share-Alike, as is will be under ODbL. But no quotations attributed to NearMap, nor posts from them here. I think it does a disservice to NearMap to presume that anybody other than their staff speak for them. I'll emailed them privately and asked them just like anyone else can, I didn't ask to republish their email but even if you don't believe me their current terms spell out their current position, that is a share alike license like CC-by-SA As John has, quite correctly, been polite enough not to share Stuart Nixon's email reply with the list, here it is below (release approved by Stuart): NearMap is keen to continue to support OSM with our PhotoMaps (noting that in the future we will be expanding to Europe and other areas). As our PhotoMaps are central to our business, we can only offer them under a CC-BY-SA (or similar) license, and the license must preserve this (e.g. not take away these rights at a later date). It is critical to us that the license is Share Alike, so it must be CC-BY-SA style, not CC-BY style. In a separate email (to Liz Dodd, cc John), Stuart added: We are watching what is going on with some concern. I'm not sure what we will do if OSM splinters; as you may know there are already other groups working on street maps, and we don't support them as we would rather work with a single open community. Perhaps you could contact Yahoo to see what their view is on where OSM is going; I would guess they would have similar requirements to ourselves. If OSM became aware of the issues a non-CC-BY-SA style license, or one that can change in the future, causes for commercial groups trying to support OSM, then perhaps they can tune the process to continue to encourage commercial support. It is worth noting that in the longer term NearMap plans to cover much more of the world's population, and we do hope we can continue to work with OSM. It's probably also worth quoting from our Copyright and Credits page ( http://www.nearmap.com/legal/copyright), which sets out our point of view: Copyrights and credits We hope you enjoy using our website and our PhotoMaps. We’ve worked very hard to bring them to you. Use of the NearMap website and PhotoMaps is governed by our licence termshttp://products/licence and community guidelines http://products/community-guidelines. You may also refer to our Terms of Use http://legal/terms-of-use for other related information. From this publication date, our website and all the images and PhotoMaps are copyrighted works that belong to NearMap Pty Ltd. [image: CC-BY-SA] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/We specifically encourage creation of Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ licensed information derived from our PhotoMap content, so that everyone can share and build a greater understanding of our planet. Credit where it is due! In creating this website, we are very grateful for the additional information from the following sources, which is provided subject to their respective copyrights and licences. OpenStreetMap We support the sharing of information and knowledge. “OpenStreetMap http://www.openstreetmap.org/ is an editable map of the whole world. It is made by people like you. OpenStreetMaphttp://www.openstreetmap.org/ allows you to view, edit and use geographical data in a collaborative way from anywhere on Earth. OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways.” — Source: http://www.openstreetmap.org Visit OpenStreetMap http://www.openstreetmap.org/ to take part in the collaboration or read more about OSM, their disclaimers and applicable terms of use. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki You can also take it as read that many of us here at NearMap are enthusiastic mappers and OSM contributors. We're also working hard on ways to allow more people to more easily contribute data to OSM. Cheers Ben -- Ben Last Development Manager (HyperWeb) NearMap Pty Ltd
Re: [OSM-talk] User Juergenian vandalism
New ones by this user. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Juergenian/edits On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Kirill Bestoujev bestou...@gmail.com wrote: His own or old ones? 2010/7/19 Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com: There are two new changesets today on the northern coast of Russia. Looks like he deleted 7 ways. On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Anthony onehalf3...@gmail.com wrote: Aleksandr Dezhin wrote: As I know Anthony (one_half_3544) tried to contact this user on July 8 [1]. Yes, I've mailed him on 8th, and since he uses potlatch, he should have seen my message. ___ 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk-nl] Mapping party Utrecht
Hoi, Zoals iedereen ongetwijfeld weet, is Utrecht een stad met een lange geschiedenis. Het biedt voor elk wat wils, van toerist tot shopper tot concertganger. Om dit beter inzichtelijk te maken, wil ik graag wat doen aan het lage aantal points of interest (POIs). Dit is ook een uitstekende gelegenheid om meer mappers in en om Utrecht te ontmoeten. Dus, hierbij de aankondiging van een mapping party! Info: Locatie: Stairway to Heaven, Mariaplaats, Utrecht. Paar honderd meter loopafstand van Utrecht CS. Ze hebben free wifi, wat wij voor data upload kunnen gebruiken. OSM: http://osm.org/go/0E6JG5TwW-- Tijd: 13:00u Doel: mappen van points of interest, zoals (meer) kroegen met free wifi wink, etc. Ook huisnummers, voetpaden, etc. GPS niet vereist. Voor Walking Papers wordt gezorgd, of je kunt je eigen uitdraai meenemen. Als je zin hebt om mee te doen, laat het dan hier weten: http://doodle.com/fp8gawxu6gwdt9xp . Hier kun je tevens je voorkeur(en) voor de datum opgeven. Opties: 7, 8, 14, 15, 21 of 22 augustus. Groeten, Frank ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [talk-au] Nearmap coverage plan
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: That said, having had a look at the new coverage in the Hunter Valley, there is a huge amount of detail you can get from Nearmap that would be practically impossible with surveying. I've also been finding the opposite. It's almost impossible to follow a signposted walking track from Nearmap. Even when you have a fair idea where the track goes, there are all kinds of red herrings that look just as visible from the air. Not to mention the difficulty of even seeing singletrack through dense bush. It is however great for getting the rough fire-trail network in the bush. I've done a lot of these around sedgwick and kinglake in victoria. All of which gives me a strange sense of pleasure, and more motivation to go out and map. It just means that my surveying efforts will be very much focused on this kind of thing, rather than roads, towns etc. I'm with you Steve. I love mapping things which are not on google maps. So for me I get real pleasure of mapping bush walks, mountain biking trails, location of postboxes, rivers, etc., etc. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less than a share alike license, while the ODBL may be compatible, the new Contributor Terms (CTs) aren't so on top of all the cc-by data going bye bye, all the Nearmap data will disappear as well. So unless the CTs change to accommodate these issues, we're looking at a very dismal and demoralising map, especially in some rural areas that recently became mapped out extensively, or we're going to need to serious start working on building up the needed infrastructure to be in a position to fork when the license change over occurs. I wish I could be more optimistic but at this stage I doubt that the CTs will be updated to accommodate us or anyone else in our position. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving data from Nearmap. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 18 July 2010 12:53, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving data from Nearmap. Why? Are their new created work somehow inferiour to other created works? / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 18 July 2010 22:10, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 18 July 2010 12:53, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving data from Nearmap. Why? Are their new created work somehow inferiour to other created works? The new CTs aren't limited to relicensing under a non-share alike license and Nearmap Terms and Conditions only allow their imagery to be used to derive data under a share alike license, although at present it can only be cc-by-sa until or if they update to some other license. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
Where do we vote against the ODBL? Im sure not going to start again. Markus. -Original Message- From: talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-au-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of John Smith Sent: Sunday, 18 July 2010 9:06 PM To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach... I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less than a share alike license, while the ODBL may be compatible, the new Contributor Terms (CTs) aren't so on top of all the cc-by data going bye bye, all the Nearmap data will disappear as well. So unless the CTs change to accommodate these issues, we're looking at a very dismal and demoralising map, especially in some rural areas that recently became mapped out extensively, or we're going to need to serious start working on building up the needed infrastructure to be in a position to fork when the license change over occurs. I wish I could be more optimistic but at this stage I doubt that the CTs will be updated to accommodate us or anyone else in our position. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3012 - Release Date: 07/18/10 04:05:00 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On 18 July 2010 22:19, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 18 July 2010 12:36, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less than a share alike license, while the ODBL may be compatible, the new Contributor Terms (CTs) aren't so on top of all the cc-by data going bye bye, all the Nearmap data will disappear as well. Why would the CC-BY data go bye bye? The Licensing Working Group is still working with the lawyer regarding this and as far as I know nobody with any legal sense has made any statement why CC-BY would be a problem under OdbL. Did you even read what I wrote, the problem is with the Contributor Terms, specifically section 3, however everyone seems to think cc-by is compatible with the ODBL, but cc-by-sa isn't even though they are both share alike licenses they are some significant differences that make them incompatible. And regardless... I used a PD data sets for creating the OSM coastline of Africa. It took me 3 months in 2006. I imagine if for example the much quoted CC-BY coastline of Australia was removed tomorrow it could be rebuilt within a week from new data with community assistance. Yes I am aware there are other CC-BY imported datasets too. Liz simplified things too much, this isn't just about coast lines, there is a lot of other information derived from other cc-by and/or cc-by-sa data. John care to join us on the Licensing Working Group calls? Or alternatively let us know what should be changed. Maybe we can adjust time to better suit your timezone. In short, ODBL is probably ok, but the CTs, specifically section 3 isn't compatible with cc-by or Nearmap... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Lake Illawarra
I'm wondering how to fix up Lake Illawarra? http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.5213lon=150.8437zoom=13 This does not render as blue water in the OSM Australia maps when viewed in MapSource or my Garmin GPS. I suspect this is because the inlet is not closed off; also the northern side of the inlet and part of the eastern edge of the lake is made up of the coastline tag extended inland. There is also some coastline tag on the south-western edge. The remainder of the lake outline appears to be only the ABS boundary. Should it be the case that the coastline tag should only be on the actual coast (and should also be used to close off the inlet)? Then should the actual lake entrance and lake itself be outlined using the natural=water tag (going clockwise)? If so, should the lake outline be separate from the ABS boundary? Ken. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Lake Illawarra
On 18 July 2010 23:29, Ken Bosward kbosw...@bosward.net wrote: I'm wondering how to fix up Lake Illawarra? Does it need to be fixed, or does pre-processing software need to be fixed? Should it be the case that the coastline tag should only be on the actual coast (and should also be used to close off the inlet)? Then should the actual lake entrance and lake itself be outlined using the natural=water tag (going clockwise)? If so, should the lake outline be separate from the ABS boundary? If it renders correctly in other rendering software than this is specific to the software that pre-processes garmin files and it needs some bugs filed against it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Grant Slater wrote: I used a PD data sets for creating the OSM coastline of Africa. It took me 3 months in 2006. I imagine if for example the much quoted CC-BY coastline of Australia was removed tomorrow it could be rebuilt within a week from new data with community assistance. Yes I am aware there are other CC-BY imported datasets too. This is a vastly simplified view of the world. If the new data was not superior, why did OSM contributors spend months moving from the PGS derived coastline (which also took months to make) to the ABS derived coastline? Why do we want to take better data and then throw it out? My personal survey mapping efforts extend over a vast geographical area. I'd like to be able to show you what the OSM map would look like without this, but there aren't any tools yet available. (One mapper is trying to work one out). My gut feeling is that I have drawn in the main roads, the rivers, the minor roads, and the streets over the major part of a piece of planet Earth. I am not in favour of the licence change, and my work will have to be removed. No one yet can sort out exactly how this will be removed - I don't think that a minor change by me makes it my work, or vice versa. There is still time for compromise. Some people are not in favour of any form of compromise, and insist that their way is the only way. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Nearmap coverage plan
On 17 July 2010 13:02, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I've also been finding the opposite. It's almost impossible to follow a signposted walking track from Nearmap. Even when you have a fair idea where the track goes, there are all kinds of red herrings that look just as visible from the air. Not to mention the difficulty of even seeing singletrack through dense bush. I know what you mean :) I'm not big on bushwalking (hey, I'm a Brit, it'll take time) but I have found NearMap very useful for looking out tracks in the parks and beach areas near where I live, which I can then later check out on foot to see where they really run (as opposed to what it looks like from the air). Cheers b -- Ben Last Development Manager (HyperWeb) NearMap Pty Ltd ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-de] Garmin eTrex HCx und große Speicherka rten
Also ich habe das bei meinem alten Vista ausprobiert, Firmware 3.20 drauf, Ladezeit endlos lang, wieder 3.0 drauf, schnelle Ladezeit. Muss ich aber erst mit meinem neuen testen, damit ich das bestätigen kann. Liebe Grüße Benni On Sa, 2010-07-17 at 22:41 +0200, Bernd Weigelt wrote: Am Samstag 17 Juli 2010, 21:34:41 schrieb Benjamin Lebsanft: glaube aber, dass dadurch der Ladevorgang stark verlangsamt wird seit Firmware 3.20. Vorher war ein Warmstart in paar Sekunden erledigt, jetzt dauert jeder Start etwa ne Minute. Das mit der verlängerten Ladezeit bei großen micro-SD-Karten kann ich bestätigen, glaube aber nicht das es nur mit der 3.20-Firmwareversion zusammenhängt, da ich das auch schon vorher beobachtet habe. Ladezeiten bei neuerstellten Deutschland-Karten (Velomap mit OSB und Fixme, ca 1,1 GiB) 2 GiB 20 - 30 Sekunden 4 GiB 60 - 90 Sekunden 8 GiB deutlich über 2 Minuten Bei der 4er und 8er-SD ist wesentlich häufiger ein kompletter Neustart erforderlich, Batterie raus, damit überhaupt eine Karte angezeigt wird. Jede verwendete 2 GiB funktioniert ohne Probleme. Erstaunlicherweise loggt der ETrex auf die SD-Karte, auch wenn keine Karte sichtbar ist. Es liegt also wahrschinlich nicht an den SD-Karten. Bernd ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Relation für relationale Struktur
Ist es ok, mit Relationen eine relationale DB-Struktur zu simulieren? Also Objekte zu Klassen zusammenzufassen? Beispielsweise alle Tankstellen? Und in weiteren Relationen die Netze von BP, Esso, etc? Oder je alle Autogas und Strom-Tankstelle? Ich meine mich zu erinnern, dass das nicht erwünscht sei? kann hier aber nichts darüber finden: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Relations Und wenn ich das richtig verstehe, wird hier explizit eine Klasse von Objekten zusammengefasst: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement und hier empfohlen: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations#Proposed_uses_of_relations Gruss, Markus ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Garmin eTrex HCx und große Speicherkart en
Am 18.07.2010 08:24, schrieb Benjamin Lebsanft: Also ich habe das bei meinem alten Vista ausprobiert, Firmware 3.20 drauf, Ladezeit endlos lang, wieder 3.0 drauf, schnelle Ladezeit. Ich habe den Eindruck, d.h. Benchmarks habe ich nicht gemacht, als ob die 3.20 dafür mit einer fixeren Kartendarstellung aufwartet, insbesondere beim Herauszoomen. So als ob da ein zusätzlicher Cache im Arbeitsspeicher (o.Ä.) vorbefüllt worden wäre. Muss ich aber erst mit meinem neuen testen, damit ich das bestätigen kann. Dann aber BITTE mit weniger TOFO, o.k.? -jha- ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel-Bauchscmerzen
Hallo, Am 18.07.2010 um 00:43 schrieb Frederik Ramm: Das ist aber nicht das einzige Problem mit der CC-BY-SA: Es ist nicht nur so, dass Leute die Daten nutzen koennen, ohne sich an die Lizenz zu halten, es ist umgekehrt auch so, dass die, die sich an die Lizenz halten moechten, trotzdem nie sicher sind, ob ihnen nicht doch mal jemand ans Bein pinkelt (Stichwort Namen aller Autoren nennen und so). (..) Es stimmt zwar, dass unsere Daten dadurch nicht weniger frei werden, wenn irgendjemand sie sich krallt und verwendet, aber es gibt eine gewisse Gefahr, dass das Projekt uebernommen werden koennte - stell Dir vor, eine grosse Firma schnappt sich die Daten und bietet viel coolere Editoren und besser funktionierende Kartenseiten und so weiter an, und wirbt unsere Community ab (macht doch lieber hier bei FreeStreetMap mit, da funktioniert alles besser und wir haben bezahlte Mitarbeiter, die Vandalen rauswerfen und Newbies einweisen... ach ja, alle Daten, die ihr beitragt, gehoeren natuerlich uns, aber ihr kriegt ein kostenloses Mauspad, wenn ihr mehr als 1000 Edits habt, ist das nicht toll?). Das ist das Haupt-Argument der PD-Kritiker. Gut. Diese Gefahren leuchten mir ein. Wobei ich der Überzeugung bin sie sind längst nicht so dramatisch wie sie sich zunächst anhören. Denn was ist es denn was unser Projekt am Leben hält? Ist es nicht eine Kombination aus freiheitlichem Geist (Selbstbestimmung), selbstlosem Einsatz für eine höhere Sache (sinnstiftendes ehrenamtliches Engagement) und dem praktischen Nutzen, den jeder selbst aus unserem Werk zieht? Sollte nur einer dieser Faktoren entfallen, oder besser gesagt sollte es nur danach riechen, ist die Community weg, und zwar von heute auf morgen. Diesen Effekt konnte man bspw. bei dem OpenSource-Projekt Mambo beobachten. Mambo wurde seinerzeit teilkommerzialisiert und - schwups - wandte sich ein Großteil der Entwickler laut schimpfend ab - nur um sich im nächsten Moment wieder zusammenzuschließen. Seitdem gibt es bekanntlich Joomla. Am 17.07.2010 um 23:43 schrieb Heiko Jacobs: Die neue Lizenz ist an sich nicht schlecht. Und ist nach Meinung einiger tatsächlich angeraten. Sie haben vemrutlich Recht, ich bin aber kein Jurist o.ä. Das, was kein Mensch braucht, sind nur die Kollateralschäden durch Datenverluste für das aktive Projekt. Solange diese (und NUR solange diese) im Raum stehen, bevorzuge ich es, bei CC zu bleiben. Sobald wir ohne Kollateralschäden hinkommen, fix rüber zur ODBL o.ä. Ich bin exakt dieser Meinung. Drohende Kollateralschäden durch Datenverluste wiegen für mich bei weitem schwerer. Das würde IMO die aktiven Mapper vor Ort demoralisieren mit der Folge, dass sich viele enttäuscht für immer verabschieden. Mach mal jemandem, der nur mappt und der sich sonst keine Gedanken macht, begreiflich, dass seine ehrenamtliche(!) Arbeit der letzten anderthalb Jahre umsonst war, weil irgendwelche Juristen herausgefunden haben das Lizenzierungsmodell sei nicht wasserdicht. Und noch was: Vor dem Hintergrund der drohenden Umstellung müsste man (als Befürworter des neuen Modells) beim Mappen jetzt schon anders vorgehen. Alle Objekte die man selber anfasst löschen und durch eigene ersetzen. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Relation für relationale Struktur
Am 18. Juli 2010 08:45 schrieb Markus liste12a4...@gmx.de: Ist es ok, mit Relationen eine relationale DB-Struktur zu simulieren? Also Objekte zu Klassen zusammenzufassen? Beispielsweise alle Tankstellen? Und in weiteren Relationen die Netze von BP, Esso, etc? Oder je alle Autogas und Strom-Tankstelle? Das sind Dinge, die ich im API über amenity=fuel, operator=Aral suchen kann. Wozu noch eine Relation? Die wird nie vollständig sein, hat extra Pflegeaufwand und keinen Mehrwert. Grüße, jens ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Relation für relationale Struktur
On 07/18/2010 09:35 AM, Jens Frank wrote: Am 18. Juli 2010 08:45 schrieb Markus liste12a4...@gmx.de: Ist es ok, mit Relationen eine relationale DB-Struktur zu simulieren? Also Objekte zu Klassen zusammenzufassen? Beispielsweise alle Tankstellen? Und in weiteren Relationen die Netze von BP, Esso, etc? Oder je alle Autogas und Strom-Tankstelle? Das sind Dinge, die ich im API über amenity=fuel, operator=Aral suchen kann. Wozu noch eine Relation? Die wird nie vollständig sein, hat extra Pflegeaufwand und keinen Mehrwert. Siehe http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories Also Relations sind keine Sammlungen von Daten mit den selben Eigenschaften. Dann könnte man ja auch alle secondary Straßen in Deutschland in einer Relation zusammen fassen etc. Mehrwert ist wie Jens sagt gleich null. Grüße Tilmann ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Suche Audio-Karten-Tester fuer mein Masterprojekt
Hallo, im Laufe des letzten Jahres habe ich von den 'OSM users Germany' einige wertvolle Tipps bekommen, fuer die ich mich noch einmal sehr herzlich bedanken moechte. Nun ist mein Uni-projekt fertig und ich suche Leute, die meine Audio-Karten testen wollen. Wer einfach so gucken moechte, wie sich OSM-Daten anhoeren koennen, ist ebenfalls herzlich dazu eingeladen. Viele Gruesse, Esther -- Dear all As part of my Master's project at Queen Mary, University of London, I'm looking for participants to take part in a game centred on wayfinding challenges in urban audio maps. The game should take no longer than 20 minutes to complete and there will be a prize draw with a total of ten £10 Amazon vouchers (or the international equivalent) to be won. To play the game, please download the installer from https://sourceforge.net/projects/team/. It should install without problems on Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 (32-bit and 64-bit). After you have installed and started TEAM, press Ctrl+Enter to play. For a screenshot and further information, see the project website, http://team.sourceforge.net. The game has been designed with accessibility in mind, so blind and partially sighted participants are very much encouraged to take part. I'd be delighted if you'd be happy to play the game. If you have any questions about the game or the research on which it is based, please don't hesitate to contact me. With kind regards, Esther [ec09500 at eecs dot qmul dot ac dot uk] --- http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=90441#p90441 ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
