Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping party in Lille/Rijsel 31th july
Le lundi 19 juillet 2010 à 18:14 +0200, Marc Coevoet a écrit : Philippe Pary schreef: Hello, A mapping party will happen in Lille/Rijsel on 31th july. It will be about micro-mapping the town zoo (which is free) and try to have the same quality render as Berlin's zoo :-) Les Francais du Nord, sont ils au courant?? Oui, via la liste talk-fr et via la liste locale (http://lists.linux62.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstreetmap) L'événement est également indiqué sur wiki.openstreetmap.org Philippe ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Mapping party in Lille/Rijsel 31th july
Philippe Pary schreef: Hello, A mapping party will happen in Lille/Rijsel on 31th july. It will be about micro-mapping the town zoo (which is free) and try to have the same quality render as Berlin's zoo :-) Les Francais du Nord, sont ils au courant?? Marc -- What's on Shortwave guide: choose an hour, go! http://shortwave.tk 700+ Radio Stations on SW http://swstations.tk 300+ languages on SW http://radiolanguages.tk ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed replacement licence. It's my understanding that once someone breaches contract with OSM-F (or whoever) and say pushes the data via ftp or p2p or ... and the data is outside Europe where the database directive doesn't apply isn't the only form of protection still copyright? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 19 July 2010 11:13, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed replacement licence. It's my understanding that once someone breaches contract with OSM-F (or whoever) and say pushes the data via ftp or p2p or ... and the data is outside Europe where the database directive doesn't apply isn't the only form of protection still copyright? Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map providers are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:13:02 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed replacement licence. It's my understanding that once someone breaches contract with OSM-F (or whoever) and say pushes the data via ftp or p2p or ... and the data is outside Europe where the database directive doesn't apply isn't the only form of protection still copyright? This is why the ODbL has the triple whammy of not just relying on database right, copyright or (sigh) contract law but using all three. Where one doesn't apply, hopefully the others will. If copyright and DB right apply, I don't think you can strip them by geographically exporting and importing them. And if someone is breaching the contract, they can hopefully be stopped from doing so. This means that the ODbL covers (c) and (DB) where they apply, and contract law as much as it can. That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on the bus. :-/ (I am not a lawyer etc.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 19 July 2010 21:04, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: If I follow that analogy, I can then use data from TeleAtlas if someone breaches the contract, which is not the case. The licence is found on their data. Since when does contract law work that way? The difference here is companies like Teleatlas would sue someone for massive damages if the contract was breached in the first place, which would be OSM-F's only relief, OSM-F won't have a contract with any 3rd party that may download data from (I like Rob's example better) picking up a copy left on a bus. This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given Contracts aren't licenses, they don't transfer like copyright does... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 19 July 2010 21:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on the bus. :-/ Which is what I'm curious about, what makes ODBL copyright stick if cc-by-sa copyright isn't applicable? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:30:22 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The difference here is companies like Teleatlas would sue someone for massive damages if the contract was breached in the first place, which would be OSM-F's only relief, OSM-F won't have a contract with any 3rd party that may download data from (I like Rob's example better) picking up a copy left on a bus. The FSF have found that people almost always prefer complying with licences to being sued for damages and compliance. I don't see why it would be different for OSM(F). This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given Contracts aren't licenses, they don't transfer like copyright does... Yes, a lot of our experience and assumptions based on copyright licences don't apply to thinking about contract-based licences. A licence gives you extra permission that you would not otherwise have. So if I find a copy of (for example) Wikipedia or GNU/Linux on a bus, I do not under copyright law have permission to do very much with it. My only legal defence for copying or adapting it beyond the limits of fair use/fair dealing is the copyright licence accompanying it. By comparison a contract imposes extra restrictions on you if you agree to it. In the absence of Copyright or Database Right on a data(base) dump that I receive, I would be able to do whatever I like with it including using contract law to prevent anyone else from doing whatever they like when they receive it from me. (I am not a lawyer, etc.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:33:44 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 21:30, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on the bus. :-/ Which is what I'm curious about, what makes ODBL copyright stick if cc-by-sa copyright isn't applicable? That's different from the bus example. Where copyright doesn't apply it doesn't apply and neither the ODbL nor BY-SA will stick in that jurisdiction (assuming they claim to apply to the same, uncopyrightable, thing). But the copyright will apply wherever copyright applies, and cannot be stripped by geographically exporting and re-importing the copyrighted work. Project Gutenberg is a good example of a project that contains material which is legitimately in the public domain in some jurisdictions but under copyright in others. Where the copyright doesn't stick, the database right will (where that applies). Where the BD right doesn't apply the contract element will (bus schedules allowing). The ODbL is a legal switch statement / montage / triple whammy. (Not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 15:58:25 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 July 2010 15:18, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote: On 15/07/10 14:34, John Smith wrote: How many governments can change a constitution without less than 50% voting, Of the people? The US and the EU, to name but two. When did EU member nations agree to become a country? You know that's a sore point in the EU. ;-) But the EU does have a government. - Rob ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:04 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 16, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Rob Myers wrote: Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases no they go much further, they say it shouldn't and that all databases should be PD. Just imaging if Creative Commons had been an organisation saying that copyright shouldn't apply to photographs or something, how far would they have got? That's a great strawman, Steve. Er, no, it's a totally valid comparison in the stands that SC and CC have taken. CC is pretty reasonable, gives you a ton of options. SC have thrown the toys out the pram and declared the law of the land just wrong and we all 'should' be PD. That's not very flexible and won't get very far. Your replies to my emails seem to be 'disagree with Steve for the sake of it' rather than having any content. Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 19, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote: On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:13:02 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed replacement licence. It's my understanding that once someone breaches contract with OSM-F (or whoever) and say pushes the data via ftp or p2p or ... and the data is outside Europe where the database directive doesn't apply isn't the only form of protection still copyright? This is why the ODbL has the triple whammy I like 'triple whammy' but prefer the 'three pillars of government' analogy :-) of not just relying on database right, copyright or (sigh) contract law but using all three. Where one doesn't apply, hopefully the others will. If copyright and DB right apply, I don't think you can strip them by geographically exporting and importing them. And if someone is breaching the contract, they can hopefully be stopped from doing so. This means that the ODbL covers (c) and (DB) where they apply, and contract law as much as it can. That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on the bus. :-/ (I am not a lawyer etc.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45:46AM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map providers are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights. Just because everyone else does it, it doesn't mean OSM should. 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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:04:55PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given with the data. They are still obliged to follow the contract even if they didn't sign for it. I would be amazed that such a loophole exists in the first place. To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case. 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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 19 July 2010 22:07, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:45:46AM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: Or contract law. It has been pointed out previously that all map providers are using contract law to restrict their data not copyrights. Just because everyone else does it, it doesn't mean OSM should. My point was to mention that the licence is using contract law as one of the mechanism when no other are present, not to use other map providers as a reference or an example to follow. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 19 July 2010 22:16, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case. To the best of my knowledge, violating a contract and making the data available doesn't make the data public domain. Richard Fairhurst pointed out some legal issues about this. To quote him from higher up in the thread: Under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a person who is not a party to a contract (a 'third party') may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if... the term purports to confer a benefit on him. A quick talk with a friend who is a lawyer made abundantly clear that third parties don't have the right to access the data in the first place, since the data was stolen through a contract breach in the first place. It would be very very difficult to plead good faith in this case. Then again, we are talking about one aspect of the licence which may be used since it depends on your jurisdiction and the sets of law governing your jurisdiction. It will be very different in France where the concept of moral rights cannot be removed from someone. Copyrights and other intellectual property mechanisms will vary very strongly between countries. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote: To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case. A good example is shrink-wrap licences which are one-sided contracts. Some countries do not accept that they have any validity, others do. Where I live a contract has to be agreed to by both parties, is not valid if signed under duress and is not transferable without agreement. So the copy left on a train (popular with UK politicians) has no contract when i pick it up and use it, but any copyright it has is preserved. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 09:17:43AM +1000, Liz wrote: On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Simon Ward wrote: To my knowledge the contract isn’t automatically transferred, although it occurs to me that it could be a condition of the licence that the contract is also adhered to. I’m not sure this is the case. A good example is shrink-wrap licences which are one-sided contracts. I don’t believe they are a good example… Some countries do not accept that they have any validity, others do. …for this very reason. Where I live a contract has to be agreed to by both parties, is not valid if signed under duress and is not transferable without agreement. This is my (basic) understanding of a contract: It involves two (at least) parties agreeing, not just passively. So the copy left on a train (popular with UK politicians) has no contract when i pick it up and use it, but any copyright it has is preserved. Makes sense. -- 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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:58:34PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: My point was to mention that the licence is using contract law as one of the mechanism when no other are present, not to use other map providers as a reference or an example to follow. Why do we need contract law at all? I know some reason why people think we need it: Because database rights are drastically different to non‐existent across different jurisdictions, so we feel the need to “balance” it out by enforcing the same for everyone using contract law. I don’t agree with it. 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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:53 AM, Simon Ward wrote: On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:58:34PM +0100, Emilie Laffray wrote: My point was to mention that the licence is using contract law as one of the mechanism when no other are present, not to use other map providers as a reference or an example to follow. Why do we need contract law at all? I know some reason why people think we need it: Because database rights are drastically different to non‐existent across different jurisdictions, so we feel the need to “balance” it out by enforcing the same for everyone using contract law. I don’t agree with it. Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea: maybe they're right? Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea: maybe they're right? I don’t have the same unconditional love. 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] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 20 July 2010 09:21, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Of course not. But if the data is *already* public domain, then violating a contract and making the data available doesn't take it out of the public domain either. Isn't breach of contract the method that was used to put the tiger data into the public domain? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 20 July 2010 10:22, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea: maybe they're right? I don’t have the same unconditional love. I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:28 AM, John Smith wrote: On 20 July 2010 10:22, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea: maybe they're right? I don’t have the same unconditional love. I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers... Go ask on odc-discuss? Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:22 AM, Simon Ward wrote: Apparently lawyers with real law degrees think we do. Here's a crazy idea: maybe they're right? I don’t have the same unconditional love. You could pay your own lawyer to check it then? Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 20 July 2010 10:38, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers... Go ask on odc-discuss? Is there much point if I'm only likely to get a biased answer? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On 19 July 2010 13:48, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.comwrote: 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 I believe that as long as the licence must be share-alike (for a given definition of share-alike), that should work, yes. Seems to me also that would address the concerns of a number of other contributors to the discussion, but I don't pretend to have followed in the exhaustive detail to know if the LWP had a good reason not to write it that way from the start :) Cheers b -- Ben Last Development Manager (HyperWeb) NearMap Pty Ltd ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] User Juergenian vandalism
Hi, Toby Murray wrote: There are two new changesets today on the northern coast of Russia. Looks like he deleted 7 ways. I have blocked the user temporarily and asked him to explain what he is doing: http://www.openstreetmap.org/blocks/25 Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Looking for participants to test OSM-based audio maps
Am 18.07.2010 01:23, schrieb Esther Loeliger: For a screenshot and further information, see the project website, http://team.sourceforge.net. Despite a screenshot I don't see any information on this page - not what the project is about nor who's working on. So I don't know what it is really about. I can walk around and hear due the stereo signal when a park is on the right and a bar on the left but I don't really know what the destination is. As I'm not blind I'd love to see the map in background so I can see what the audio signal tries to describe to me. The Program tells me that it will record my keystrokes, bu it does not tell which one (only inside the program or also this mail which I'm typing in another program) and what it does with them (send them over internet? not really..) I also regularly get could not load / save and xml parser error as it seems to write them to system directories. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Looking for participants to test OSM-based audio maps
On 19/07/2010 09:28, Peter Körner wrote: Am 18.07.2010 01:23, schrieb Esther Loeliger: For a screenshot and further information, see the project website, http://team.sourceforge.net. Despite a screenshot I don't see any information on this page - not what the project is about nor who's working on. Hi Peter, There's a small flash-player on the right hand side of the project website, for visually impaired users a transcript of the clips is offered, since Sourceforge doesn't seem to allow to add .mp3 clips in a more accessible way. So I don't know what it is really about. I can walk around and hear due the stereo signal when a park is on the right and a bar on the left but I don't really know what the destination is. For my project I have set up five small levels. The first, a tutorial level, informs the player what the game is about. The wording is rather similar to the audio clips I have put on the website. TEAM can be used as an audio maps system on its own too, you can download maps, change the zoomfactor (or step size), also pan the map. If used as a system, outside the levels I have set up, the map is visible by default - can be switched off though. If you first download a map or just use the defaultTeamMap, you can set up routes (Ctrl+F12, or via the settings menu (settings dialog). You can also right-click on the map and mark a coloured Point of interest as a start / end point of a route you want to walk along. Then press Alt+D, Alt+A or Alt+Z, in order to show the route, go to its start or endpoint - these commands can be found via the navigate menu. TEAM will offer you a guided-route walk. As I'm not blind I'd love to see the map in background so I can see what the audio signal tries to describe to me. The Program tells me that it will record my keystrokes, bu it does not tell which one (only inside the program or also this mail which I'm typing in another program) and what it does with them (send them over internet? not really..) TEAM only logs the player's keystrokes during the game, and it only logs TEAM relevant data (the player's x and y coordinate, its bearing, and which TEAM commands the player uses, sonar, step ahead, turn left...). After the levels, a feedback dialog pops up that asks a few questions. The player's answers to those questions are also logged - but only if the player presses 'OK'. A typical line of the comma-separated values that are logged, looks like this: username levelID follow_route 411 506 390 0 Sun_Jul_18_11:04:26_2010 street_with_name_blah forward It's then sent, via the internet, to the project's password-protected database only I have access to. Outside game mode, if TEAM is used as a program to load and listen to audio maps, no data is logged. I also regularly get could not load / save and xml parser error as it seems to write them to system directories. Do you get these messages when you play the levels I set up, or when you try to download other maps? Thank you very much for your comments and questions, Best wishes, Esther 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 19/07/10 03:07, Nathan Edgars II wrote: SteveC-2 wrote: And I'll try to imagine your parents basement where you toil endlessly on such counts. 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. Name calling is the least of our problems at this stage! I don't think Steve was speaking in an official OSMF capacity on this one. But I do think we need to balance the power of OSMF and the contributors. It reminds me of Greek vs. modern political philosophy - the former considered who should rule?, the later considers how do we tame the rulers?. 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 Mon, 19 Jul 2010, you wrote: 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 I don't find this sort of reply advances the arguments at all. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Hi again! I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little - at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of ODBL). Is it doable? Yes, No? If no, why? Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 06:33:48 +0100, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 07/17/2010 04:13 PM, 80n wrote: What's your source for the assertion that we shouldn't rely on creativity? I didn't assert that we *shouldn't*. I know you didn't. But somebody did. What's your source for the statement The outcome wasn't to rely on creativity. Who was it who gave this advice? My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed replacement licence. I agree that there must be a reason for this, and that this is relevant to the discussion, but I do not remember it and I'm not OSMF. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 19 July 2010 20:05, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Hi again! I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little - at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of ODBL). To be compatible with cc-by, so we can at least keep existing cc-by data, it would need need attribution+share alike, not just share alike... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discu ssion more inclusive?
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes: My take on the idea of having a vote on whether we'd theoretically move to the ODbL so long as everyone else does... 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 Yes, and that's exactly the point. If you have a free choice: should we change the licence or not (or should we move assuming everyone else agrees), then you will vote according to what you believe is best. On the other hand, if you are offered the very different choice of 'say yes, or have your data deleted from the project'... That is not a vote at all. 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. This assumes that the growth rate of the project would be unaffected by the loss of good reputation caused by deleting contributors' work. 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. I do think that's rather the situation here. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM-to-PostGIS issues
Yes, sorry, here is the command and error message: http://www.prodevelop.es/files/fm/public/downloads/wxp_console.png Regards, Juan Lucas --- On Mon, 7/19/10, Graham Jones grahamjones...@googlemail.com wrote: From: Graham Jones grahamjones...@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM-to-PostGIS issues To: Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio juan_lucas...@yahoo.com Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 12:42 PM Juan Lucas,I think you attached the wrong link - you have not attached the error message? I have not used osm2pgsql on windows, but on my linux machine I have seen errors if I have not used 'slim' mode (-s parameter). Graham. On 19 July 2010 11:33, Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio juan_lucas...@yahoo.com wrote: Hello, list: I've tried to export a 9.5 GB (150 GB uncomp.) planet to a PostGIS DB @ localhost on a Windows XP machine (1.5 GB RAM). I have tuned the DB parameters like this: shared_buffers = 256MB checkpoint_segments = 20 maintenance_work_mem = 256MB autovacuum = off postgresql.conf file here: http://www.prodevelop.es/files/fm/public/downloads/postgresql.conf.txt but I still get the same error message I got in the previous attempt (with no DB tuning). See command parameters and error message here: http://www.prodevelop.es/files/fm/public/downloads/postgresql.conf.txt. Any ideas why this happens? Not enough RAM? osm2pgsql is not Windows-friendly? DB tuning needs double-checking? Anybody has done this on WXP? Regards, Juan Lucas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Dr. Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK email: grahamjones...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 17/07/10 10:00, 80n wrote: On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org mailto:m...@chrisfleming.org wrote: Although the intent of ODBl is to provide the protections we thought we were getting with CC-BY-SA; if we were to go to something *completely* different then I can image these discussions getting *really* nasty. Chris Do try to pay attention and keep up with the thread ;) opps :) Just reading that now. Diane Peters of Creative Commons posted the following statement in this thread a few hours ago: There are a number of fundamental differences between CC's licenses and ODbL that at least from CC's point of view make the two quite different. ODbL is something completely different. In addition the content license and the contributor terms have no parallel with CC-BY-SA. Structurally there are big differences. I don't disagree, I think that I was just trying to make the point that the *intent* in terms of having a Share Alike component and having some form of Attribution is present in both licenses? Admittedly in a very different way. Anyway, it looks like it's stopped raining outsite so I going to go out and do some mapping :) Cheers Chris -- e: m...@chrisfleming.org w: www.chrisfleming.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] Why are some companies in favour of PD? (was: ...licences discussion more inclusive)
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes: 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) Hang on a minute. Weren't we all told that the current licence is totally unworkable and doesn't enforce share-alike terms? If so, why does it make any difference to these companies whether we change to PD or not? On the other hand, if the current licence is enforceable enough to make these firms (some of whom must have sharp-toothed lawyers and a good idea of what they can get away with) think twice before appropriating OSM data, what is the evidence for the claim that the current licence is broken? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why are some companies in favour of PD? (was: ...licences discussion more inclusive)
On 19 July 2010 22:02, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: they can get away with) think twice before appropriating OSM data, what is the evidence for the claim that the current licence is broken? I think SteveC mentioned Nike, but how's that different from someone in breach of GPL, didn't anyone talk to Nike and/or pursue this issue further, because as far as I'm concerned the only proof that matters that the current license is broken would be a judgment/precedent against OSM(F). However as Anthony pointed out, it's unlikely most major companies would take things that far because then they risk having that precedent used against them by their competitors... ___ 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 6:29 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: 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. And how will ODbL stop that? Nike hasn't taken any notice of CC-BY-SA and presumably wouldn't have taken any notice of ODbL either. I suppose you could argue that what they did would be permitted under ODbL, but that's a slightly different argument. Your point was that the ODbL would somehow stop license abuse. 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. Indeed. That is the whole point of having such a vote. It allows people to express an unbiased view rather than being presented with an ultimatum. It's long been a criticism that the license change proposal is a gun to head. The LWG has chosen not to take any notice of that. No wonder there's an outcry at each step in the process. Please, put the gun away. 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. You're the one with the gun. What you say goes. 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 ... This is clearly a symptom of the problem. Perhaps they aren't doing the right thing or not doing it in the right way. Are we supposed to go along with what they say just because they've been working very hard on it. They should at least be trying to work on the right thing. 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Hi, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little - at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of ODBL). -1 I have heard people complain about many things but not about that section not enforcing SA for eternity. I don't think it would help the situation in anyway; it would only further alienate those who don't like SA. What's on the table right now is a delicate balance between different interests. Trying to take something away now will upset the balance. And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're the minority ;) 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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're the minority ;) I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will have been in vein exactly? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
John, John Smith wrote: I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by employing such hard line tactics, I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead with what is on the table now. you are literally risking an out right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will have been in vein exactly? I am not suggesting to reject ODbL. I am suggesting to accept the Contributor Terms exactly as they have been produced by the time and effort you mention. 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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Hi, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little - at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of ODBL). -1 I have heard people complain about many things but not about that section not enforcing SA for eternity. I don't think it would help the situation in anyway; it would only further alienate those who don't like SA. What's on the table right now is a delicate balance between different interests. Trying to take something away now will upset the balance. And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're the minority ;) That would indicate that PD lovin, SA hatin guys will try to stuffin committee method to push OSM in right direction? :) Harsh joke of course, but I really fail to see how after two very cut and clear SA licenses like CC-BY-SA and ODBL OSM suddenly will adapt non-SA license (in fact we have very short list for it here, because most data licenses are SA). And if I compare theoretical case in future with non-SA crowd, who suddenly got majority, and everyone wants PD (which practically non-SA means) with practical benefits with NOT loosing OSM data when doing conversation from CC to ODBL, I guess I have quite clear winner. Even more - why do you need such terms when you have ODBL, which have very painfully long history of creation? What is practical goal here? We will change license for OSM data every 5 years now? It would only further alienate those who don't like SA. Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA? So far I have only heard it from business people. And so far CC-by-SA and ODBL *both* are SA licenses and there is no indicator that it will change any other way soon. So it is already SA, why we can't clarify that next license (IF there ever be one) will be SA too? It won't change. In fact, all CT/CA situation is very strange - I really fail to see why we need them. More I listen, more I doubt their benefits for OSM as project and society. Let's adapt ODBL, change to it and be done. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: John, John Smith wrote: I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by employing such hard line tactics, I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead with what is on the table now. you are literally risking an out right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will have been in vein exactly? I am not suggesting to reject ODbL. I am suggesting to accept the Contributor Terms exactly as they have been produced by the time and effort you mention. Sorry, but as far as I remember CT suddenly appeared on the table. Before that there was just ODBL. I still haven't heard strong argument why CT are needed. CT practically says Ups, we didn't get ODBL as we wanted this time, here, sign over your rights, we will try to force another one later. Maybe it's not original intent meant by creators, but it really feels/sounds/looks like one. Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:30:22 +1000, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The difference here is companies like Teleatlas would sue someone for massive damages if the contract was breached in the first place, which would be OSM-F's only relief, OSM-F won't have a contract with any 3rd party that may download data from (I like Rob's example better) picking up a copy left on a bus. The FSF have found that people almost always prefer complying with licences to being sued for damages and compliance. I don't see why it would be different for OSM(F). Then I don't see what's wrong with CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 19 July 2010 23:38, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I am not employing hard line tactics, I am simply suggesting to go ahead with what is on the table now. Which many people cannot legally agree to, even if we do agree with the ODBL. It seems to be a mad dash to force people down this path, and I'm sure there will be plenty of data issues over looked, so much for the 'whiter than white' approach to copyright, this whole issue sticks of hypocrisy. To re-iterate, anyone that has vectorised anything from Nearmap imagery cannot agree to the new CTs because you would be in breach of Nearmap terms for the exact reason you point out, the data could be relicensed under a non-SA license. I am not suggesting to reject ODbL. I am suggesting to accept the Contributor Terms exactly as they have been produced by the time and effort you mention. As I've written several times, I can't agree to the new CT so as a direct result I can't agree to ODBL, along with many other people in Australia. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 19 July 2010 23:43, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Then I don't see what's wrong with CC-BY-SA. There is no proof there is anything wrong with it, just conjecture and speculation it might not be good enough. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Peteris Krisjanis wrote: Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Users_whose_contributions_are_in_the_public_domain (I reply merely to inform rather than to prolong the debate, as sticking my head into a grinder is already seeming like an appealing alternative to reading more of this stuff.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Suggestion-to-add-SA-clause-to-CT-section-3-describing-free-and-open-license-tp5311401p5312082.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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Hi, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: That would indicate that PD lovin, SA hatin guys will try to stuffin committee method to push OSM in right direction? :) The Contributor Terms have been carefully crafted to make sure that anyone who wants to push OSM in what they perceive is the right direction will have to have a large majority. Harsh joke of course, but I really fail to see how after two very cut and clear SA licenses like CC-BY-SA and ODBL OSM suddenly will adapt non-SA license I don't think it is likely either, but this coming license change is the first time we ever actually ask our mappers what they think about PD, so we have very little evidence to support any claim about this. and everyone wants PD (which practically non-SA means) No, there is, for example a large group of attribution licenses in between. Even more - why do you need such terms when you have ODBL, which have very painfully long history of creation? What is practical goal here? We will change license for OSM data every 5 years now? The LWG has come out clearly *for* having the contributor terms in spite of the problems they may cause in some ways, precisely because nobody has ever implemented ODbL on a grand scale and it is quite possible that doing so will uncover problems unthought of. A license change clause makes sure we can react if required. It would only further alienate those who don't like SA. Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA? Oh yes, just read these lists. Only two days ago someone suggested that all PD advocates make it a condition of their acceptance of ODbL that everyone else also accepts PD for the objects touched by PD advocates. A convoluted idea which I disliked, but which proves that there are indeed PD advocates whom we have to win over and who won't just go along with ODbL because they don't care. Some fight for a free as in PD cause much like others fight for free as in share-alike. So far I have only heard it from business people. Then where have you been the last years? There's not a day where you don't have somebody on the lists saying I wish it were PD that would be so much easier for everyone. It is an often-repeated story that businesspeople were licking their lips for us to go PD and then rip us off. I think that's scaremongering (easy enough to use our stuff and give nothing back even today!). Au contraire, some businesses, especially smaller ones, actually derive protection from a share-alike license because it makes sure they cannot easily be marginalised by the big fish. 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] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: 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 thought it was just a mindless attack, since I'm currently a stay-at-home father, not a stay-at-home son, and I don't even have a basement. When facts aren't on his side, SteveC likes to make up false shit and start hurling it around. Par for the course and not very surprising. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're the minority ;) We're the minority with the data at present. Future users can do what they like with stuff they add. But if they want to change what I've added, I feel like I should have a say. Personally, anything I add can be PD for all I care. But if I've based it on a BY_SA source, that source has a legitimate right to be concerned what happens to it in the future. From what I can tell, what we are saying to them in rough terms is: 1) We're currently BY-SA 2) We're planning to change to ODBL, which is BY-SA compatible. If you don't like the change, you can yank your data out now. 3) Oh, and any time in the future, we can change the licence again, and you can't take your data out that time if you don't like the new terms. Or in other words, - Trust us. We promise not to be evil (except of course it won't be us, because as you said, we'll be in the minority then). Why should they? Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Hi again! I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little - at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of ODBL). Hi Peter, The OSMF (i.e. the LWG) isn't likely to give you an answer in the timeframe you expect - they meet once a week and have a huge (growing?) amount of things to deal with. Even on a good day it might take 2-3 weeks for them to get you a response, and if it involves legal advice maybe even longer. I'm not trying to discourage you, just hoping that you realise these things can take a while, and hoping that you have the patience to wait! Cheers, Andy ___ 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 Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: 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 thought it was just a mindless attack, since I'm currently a stay-at-home father, not a stay-at-home son, and I don't even have a basement. When I lived with my parents I stayed in the basement. Coincidentally when I started OSM'ing I moved out of my parents house and live with my wife now. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
2010/7/19 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: .. Ok, Frederik, I understand (but don't accept) your arguments here, but to push discussion in more practical way: what to do with data providers like Nearmap? How to convince them? Does OSMF have clear plans to convince such data providers to subscribe to planned CT regime? Is there communication going on? Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
2010/7/19 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com: On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Hi again! I still haven't heard from SteveC or others from OSMF official answer wouldn't adding SA clause to section 3 in CT help situation a little - at least it would give contributors a promise that if there another license change is needed, license still will be SA (in a spirit of ODBL). Hi Peter, The OSMF (i.e. the LWG) isn't likely to give you an answer in the timeframe you expect - they meet once a week and have a huge (growing?) amount of things to deal with. Even on a good day it might take 2-3 weeks for them to get you a response, and if it involves legal advice maybe even longer. I'm not trying to discourage you, just hoping that you realise these things can take a while, and hoping that you have the patience to wait! Andy, I don't have problem to wait - I and probably lot of other mappers just want to hear straight and honest answer. 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?
Where is all this bitterness and anger coming from 80n? You took everything I said and twisted it 180 degrees. Gun to your head? I'm not even on the LWG. Quashing discussion? All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG. There are a hundred ways you could contribute meaningfully to this and yet you pick bitter dissent. That's not the 80n I remember, where's it coming from? Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:17 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:29 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: 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. And how will ODbL stop that? Nike hasn't taken any notice of CC-BY-SA and presumably wouldn't have taken any notice of ODbL either. I suppose you could argue that what they did would be permitted under ODbL, but that's a slightly different argument. Your point was that the ODbL would somehow stop license abuse. 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. Indeed. That is the whole point of having such a vote. It allows people to express an unbiased view rather than being presented with an ultimatum. It's long been a criticism that the license change proposal is a gun to head. The LWG has chosen not to take any notice of that. No wonder there's an outcry at each step in the process. Please, put the gun away. 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. You're the one with the gun. What you say goes. 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 ... This is clearly a symptom of the problem. Perhaps they aren't doing the right thing or not doing it in the right way. Are we supposed to go along with what they say just because they've been working very hard on it. They should at least be trying to work on the right thing. with new things
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 20 July 2010 00:26, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, Frederik, I understand (but don't accept) your arguments here, but to push discussion in more practical way: what to do with data providers like Nearmap? How to convince them? You also have both the Australian and New Zealand (no doubt others too) that released under cc-by, cc-by isn't compatible with the new CTs, how much time and effort is going to be spent trying to convince all these entities to agree to the new CTs exactly? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM-to-PostGIS issues
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio juan_lucas...@yahoo.com wrote: Yes, sorry, here is the command and error message: http://www.prodevelop.es/files/fm/public/downloads/wxp_console.png Slim uses 800MB of ram as a cache by default (change with -C) Postgresql is configured to use 256MB of shared ram plus 256MB of working memory. That gives you a peak usage of at least 1312MB on a 1536MB machine during index creation (it will actually be a little higher) leaving about 200MB for the entire rest of windows. -- Brian ___ 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 20 July 2010 00:41, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Gun to your head? It certainly feels like it from my point of view... All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG. There is definitely communications problems here, not to mention conflicting agendas at work, you can't please everyone all the time, but it seems to be a priority to try and please people in future at the expense of people in the present moment. There are a hundred ways you could contribute meaningfully to this and yet you pick bitter dissent. That's not the 80n I remember, where's it coming I don't know about 80n, but since I started looking into how much data will possibly be not carried over it's become very disheartening that there will be a lot of hard work simply disappear. As others have pointed out this whole relicensing thing is holding OSM back, people don't want to potentially waste more time and effort if in the end it will no longer be allowed in OSM's main DB. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM-to-PostGIS issues
Am 19.07.2010 12:33, schrieb Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio: Hello, list: I've tried to export a 9.5 GB (150 GB uncomp.) planet to a PostGIS DB @ localhost on a Windows XP machine (1.5 GB RAM). That's very low memory. WinXP takes at least 523 MB so only 1 GB is avail. for the planet import. In general I'd suggest at least 4 GB of memory: 1 GB cache for osm2pgsql, 2 GB for Postgres and 1 GB for the OS (file cache co.). With 32 GB RAM you need to run with --slim parameter. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're the minority ;) I love the stats that get thrown about within OSM, if I remember correctly about this time last year people were spouting about how they expected the number of users to be around a million accounts by now, instead we only have about 100k more, although the real number of accounts that have actually been used to make edits is closer to about 70k in total... As for numbers of active users, it's a little more difficult to figure out since the graphs on the wiki stats page only shows it as a percentage, however I highly doubt this to keep increasing exponentially, just like the number of user accounts didn't keep increasing exponentially and this was a completely unreal expectation. Unless there is a massive publicity campaign to keep the number of active editors increasing, I expect the percentage of active editors to keep declining although at some point it will plateau as well. If you want realistic expectations take a look at wikipedia, active editors has been decreasing, and not just as a percentage, last I heard, and the barrier to entry into wikipedia is a lot lower, although the kinds of things that can be mapped is potentially a lot higher, the majority of people mostly care about the road networks most of the time and these tend to be the easiest things to map. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Announcing the Open Brewpub Map
Hi there, one of the big advantages of OSM is IMO the open tagging scheme. Thus I thought why not start a trivial project called Open Brewpub Map. This is in fact a connection of two of my hobbies (brewing and mapping) in some way :) As my experience in the OSM project shows people are mapping only stuff which is shown in a map somewhere. This is why I did not start the project without creating a map first. It is avaliable on: http://brewpubs.openstreetmap.de/ Currently the map is centered around the south western part of germany (where I live) and filled mostly with pubs where I have been myself but I hope this will change very soon now. Tagging is easy. Just add microbrewery=yes to the node or building area object of your local brewpub. This tagging Scheme has been added to the Wiki as well. Sven -- If you don't make lower-resolution mapping data publicly available, there will be people with their cars and GPS devices, driving around with their laptops (Tim Berners-Lee) /me is gig...@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM-to-PostGIS issues
Hello, Are you taking into account Windows XP's virtual memory (4 GB, I think)? I meant 1.5 GB of physical memory. Regards Juan Lucas --- On Mon, 7/19/10, Brian Quinion openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk wrote: From: Brian Quinion openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM-to-PostGIS issues To: Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio juan_lucas...@yahoo.com Cc: Graham Jones grahamjones...@googlemail.com, talk@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 4:47 PM On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio juan_lucas...@yahoo.com wrote: Yes, sorry, here is the command and error message: http://www.prodevelop.es/files/fm/public/downloads/wxp_console.png Slim uses 800MB of ram as a cache by default (change with -C) Postgresql is configured to use 256MB of shared ram plus 256MB of working memory. That gives you a peak usage of at least 1312MB on a 1536MB machine during index creation (it will actually be a little higher) leaving about 200MB for the entire rest of windows. -- Brian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM-to-PostGIS issues
Hi Juan, On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Juan Lucas Domínguez Rubio juan_lucas...@yahoo.com wrote: Hello, Are you taking into account Windows XP's virtual memory (4 GB, I think)? I meant 1.5 GB of physical memory. I'm pretty sure they were talking about physical memory. Using virtual memory helps with some things, but recall how it works -- it is using your had disk to offload physical memory. Every time you dip into that mechanism, something in physical RAM has to be written to disk, then something else has to be read from disk into RAM. So, you incur 2 very slow (from RAM/CPU point of view) operations. With a memory footprint of 4GB, your 1.5 is more then twice overcommited (almost 3x). That means the process I described above will happen quite often, if not constantly. This is called swapping, and can take something that should take a few seconds and make it last minutes. If the overall operation is supposed to last 5-10 minutes, it can be hours. I think you see the point here. With RAM prices so inexpensive, if you are looking to work on this data on an ongoing basis, it makes sense to upgrade. (If this is a one-shot deal, see if you can rent/borrow a box with the requisite amount of RAM). You'll be much happier with the results on a machine with adequate RAM. Thanks, Gerald. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 7/19/10, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: [...] Is there any actual mapper who strictly don't like SA? So far I have only heard it from business people. I do. I used be in the SA camp, until I realized that SA is probably hurting people who are doing creative stuff and would like to mix OSM data with works under different SA/copyleft licenses like the GPL. The new license is probably better for business people, who can afford a lawyer that is able to tell them what they are able to do with OSM data, but I'm afraid that most creative hobbists will be left with data that may or may not be used, and is better left alone. Of course there is still big value in plain printed maps and in routing data under any free license, and this is why I'm still contributing to the project; I would just be happier with a BSD/CC-BY like permissive license, or failing that PD -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' homepage: http://www.trueelena.org email: elena.valha...@gmail.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 Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Where is all this bitterness and anger coming from 80n? You took everything I said and twisted it 180 degrees. So, really, you agree with me, but I've just twisted it so that it appears that you disagree with me? ;) If I've mis-interpreted what you said then please clarify your meaning. Gun to your head? This objection was made by Ulf Lamping in December 2009 [1]. The LWG has failed to address this issue. The LWG is directed by OSMF and, you, the chairman of OSMF have just said I say the LWG should just push ahead with the plan. The LWG appears to listen to your comments more closely than Ulf's. They have chosen to ignore this issue. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg24450.html Quashing discussion? Your attitude is well documented, for example: http://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg24483.html All I said is maybe we could be nicer to people in the LWG. What you said was But, every time they do something, the mailing lists fill up ... What I thought was maybe there's a reason for that. There are a hundred ways you could contribute meaningfully to this and yet you pick bitter dissent. That's not the 80n I remember, where's it coming from? Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:17 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:29 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com st...@asklater.com wrote: 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. And how will ODbL stop that? Nike hasn't taken any notice of CC-BY-SA and presumably wouldn't have taken any notice of ODbL either. I suppose you could argue that what they did would be permitted under ODbL, but that's a slightly different argument. Your point was that the ODbL would somehow stop license abuse. 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. Indeed. That is the whole point of having such a vote. It allows people to express an unbiased view rather than being presented with an ultimatum. It's long been a criticism that the license change proposal is a gun to head. The LWG has chosen not to take any notice of that. No wonder there's an outcry at each step in the process. Please, put the gun away. 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. You're the one with the gun. What you say goes. 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
Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, 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 thought it was just a mindless attack, since I'm currently a stay-at-home father, not a stay-at-home son, and I don't even have a basement. When facts aren't on his side, SteveC likes to make up false shit and start hurling it around. Par for the course and not very surprising. Oh bollocks, you just want to be able to throw insults my way and not have me respond. If I respond in kind then you act surprised and upset and try to hide the fact that you were the one throwing insults in the first place. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're the minority ;) I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will have been in vein exactly? I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the license. Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
2010/7/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com: On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're the minority ;) I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will have been in vein exactly? I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the license. Steve, can you instead of flaming back give me stright answer what do you think about suggestion I mentioned in the first post of this thread? Already thanks for answer, Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're the minority ;) I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will have been in vein exactly? I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the license. So why are you afraid of putting it to a vote? Why have you felt the need to coerce 30,000 newbies by not giving them a choice? Not, even linking to the license that they are being asked to agree to? My experience off list is clearly different to yours. 80n Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Come on that wasn't a flame - now any reasonable point is a flame? Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my phone) Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:30 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/7/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com: On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're the minority ;) I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will have been in vein exactly? I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the license. Steve, can you instead of flaming back give me stright answer what do you think about suggestion I mentioned in the first post of this thread? Already thanks for answer, Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
We did have a vote, remember? You just disagree with the outcome an the remit the OSMF has. Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:31 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're the minority ;) I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will have been in vein exactly? I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the license. So why are you afraid of putting it to a vote? Why have you felt the need to coerce 30,000 newbies by not giving them a choice? Not, even linking to the license that they are being asked to agree to? My experience off list is clearly different to yours. 80n Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
2010/7/19 SteveC st...@asklater.com: Can you restate the question as I don't have mail archives etc here (on my phone) Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could agree with ODBL (as it still have SA and Attribution), but are uneasy about clarification of point 3 in CT. Already thanks for answer, cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote: We did have a vote, remember? You just disagree with the outcome an the remit the OSMF has. Your mentioned vote didn't have /any/ statistical relevance, not even a vote under the top contributors. But actually in The Netherlands we did :) With again surprising results. Stefan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we voted the right way. I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I could not see what the problem was - ODBL looked so much like CC-BY-SA for data that it did not seem like an issue. I can't even remember if I took much notice of the contributor terms I heard the arguments from a number of people warning of loss of data but made the judgement that individual contributors are unlikely to object to the change, and that the proposers of the new licence must have assured themselves that contributions based on large datasets such as nearmap must be compatible. It sounds to me that that judgement may have been flawed, so I should have taken more care. The way I look at it is that if we will really have to remove large parts of the map of Australia (never mind other parts of the world - I don't think I have seen confirmation that the UK Ordnance Survey OpenData is compatible yet?) then moving to a new licence would be the wrong thing to do. I just do not see the existing situation as being broken enough to be worth the pain - this debate has used up a huge amount of people's time and effort which could have been used on something more constructive. This probably brings us back to where this long email debate started - just how much data do we expect to lose, and what would we consider acceptable? My personal tolerance of loss of data is extremely small (maybe 1%). Once you start to talk about losing of the order 10% or more of a country, I have a lot of sympathy with the contributors in that area talking about forking the project. Regards Graham. On 19 July 2010 19:47, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: We did have a vote, remember? You just disagree with the outcome an the remit the OSMF has. Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:31 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:05 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM, John Smith wrote: On 19 July 2010 23:19, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org frede...@remote.org wrote: And honestly, if at any future time two thirds of active OSM contributors want to change to a non-SA license, why should we keep them from it? In one or two years, two thirds of active contributors will be a greater number of people than all of us today. Who are we to tell them what to do? We're the minority ;) I wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will have been in vein exactly? I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under the plan, and there are about 20 people here slugging it out. From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the license. So why are you afraid of putting it to a vote? Why have you felt the need to coerce 30,000 newbies by not giving them a choice? Not, even linking to the license that they are being asked to agree to? My experience off list is clearly different to yours. 80n Steve http://stevecoast.comstevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.orgtalk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Dr. Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK email: grahamjones...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Hi, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could agree with ODBL (as it still have SA and Attribution), but are uneasy about clarification of point 3 in CT. 1. Who are these big data contributors? 2. Is it clear that they have issues with the CT or are you only guessing? 3. Is it clear that these issues will vanish by what you propose or are you only guessing? 4. Is their contribution so important to OSM that OSM will let them decide what licenses are acceptable for us? 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-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:58 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 17, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 3:04 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 16, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Rob Myers wrote: Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases no they go much further, they say it shouldn't and that all databases should be PD. Just imaging if Creative Commons had been an organisation saying that copyright shouldn't apply to photographs or something, how far would they have got? That's a great strawman, Steve. Er, no, it's a totally valid comparison in the stands that SC and CC have taken. And what's the comparison, exactly? Geodata is nothing like photographs. Furthermore, you seem to be incorrect about SC saying that copyright shouldn't apply to databases or that all databases should be PD. They have said this about informational databases, such as educational or scientific database, but as far as I can tell, never about all databases. Your replies to my emails seem to be 'disagree with Steve for the sake of it' rather than having any content. C'mon Steve, you've made a ridiculous comment and I called you out on it. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@googlemail.com wrote: It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we voted the right way. I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I could not see what the problem was - ODBL looked so much like CC-BY-SA for data that it did not seem like an issue. I can't even remember if I took much notice of the contributor terms IIRC, the contributor terms changed significantly *after* the vote took place. This probably brings us back to where this long email debate started - just how much data do we expect to lose, and what would we consider acceptable? My personal tolerance of loss of data is extremely small (maybe 1%). Once you start to talk about losing of the order 10% or more of a country, I have a lot of sympathy with the contributors in that area talking about forking the project. The only way I can imagine the data loss being less than 10% is if the contributions of inactive users are forcibly relicensed without their consent (*). Hasn't at least 10% of the map been touched by users who are no longer contributing? Should I run the numbers on that one, or can someone else run them for me? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 19 July 2010 22:06, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: 4. Is their contribution so important to OSM that OSM will let them decide what licenses are acceptable for us? It's similar to the compiler warnings, sometimes you don't want to change your code just because the compiler can't understand it and you have to turn them off but often they point out an actualy issue in the code, which is more likely the case here. Maybe contributors should have a choice of whether they want to allow the OSMF to publish their contributions under CC0, a free and open license decided by active contributors, ODbL 1+ or ODbL 1.0. Other mappers need to be contacted if you want to use their data under license X. That way OSM-derived data could be re-imported using accounts set up with the ODbL-only CT. It's an issue for many programmers in oss to allow their code used under licenses they don't know yet, it's the same for mappers. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Frederik (and Steve, and LWG), Rather than receiving questions back, some actual answers to direct questions about adding SA-like requirement to CT would be nice. Regarding the questions: taking NearMap as an example (copied from another thread, see there for more details): On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: On 19 July 2010 13:48, Michael Barabanov michael.baraba...@gmail.comwrote: 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 I believe that as long as the licence must be share-alike (for a given definition of share-alike), that should work, yes. Seems to me also that would address the concerns of a number of other contributors to the discussion, but I don't pretend to have followed in the exhaustive detail to know if the LWP had a good reason not to write it that way from the start :) Cheers b -- Ben Last Development Manager (HyperWeb) NearMap Pty Ltd NearMap looks quite important for Australia. Michael. On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could agree with ODBL (as it still have SA and Attribution), but are uneasy about clarification of point 3 in CT. 1. Who are these big data contributors? 2. Is it clear that they have issues with the CT or are you only guessing? 3. Is it clear that these issues will vanish by what you propose or are you only guessing? 4. Is their contribution so important to OSM that OSM will let them decide what licenses are acceptable for us? 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:05:58PM +0200, SteveC wrote: wonder if you realise the fine line you are walking here by employing such hard line tactics, you are literally risking an out right rejection of ODBL because of this. How much time and effort will have been in vein exactly? I think you're overblowing the numbers here with 'risking a out right rejection'. 200,000 people, or whatever, will be asked about the ODbL under the plan, That is just a part of the problem: The only question that is being asked is if we agree to the ODbL. We also need to take into account at least: * Do you agree to license your data under the DbCL? * Do you agree to the contributor terms? 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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Am 19.07.2010 22:31, schrieb Anthony: IIRC, the contributor terms changed significantly *after* the vote took place. http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsdiff=326oldid=204 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:55:42PM +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: Ok, there it goes: I suggest to add SA clause and Attribution clause as requirement for any new open and free license in CT point 3. It would help to ease problems with big data contributors which could agree with ODBL (as it still have SA and Attribution), but are uneasy about clarification of point 3 in CT. +1 Or remove the relicensing ability totally. 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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 08:31:42PM +0100, Graham Jones wrote: It is true that we had a vote, but I am becoming less convinced that we voted the right way. I voted in favour of the change on the basis that at the superficial level the existing and proposed licences seemed so similar that I could not see what the problem was - ODBL looked so much like CC-BY-SA for data that it did not seem like an issue. I can't even remember if I took much notice of the contributor terms I certainly voted based on the license only and not on the contributor terms, with which I later recalled disagreeing too on one of these mailing ilsts. 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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote: Am 19.07.2010 22:31, schrieb Anthony: IIRC, the contributor terms changed significantly *after* the vote took place. http://www.osmfoundation.org/index.php?title=License/Contributor_Termsdiff=326oldid=204 Yeah, that's as I recall it. and any party that receives Your Contents was removed, and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database. Both of which are huge changes. Well, one of which is a huge change, and the other of which was a huge question which was left up in the air. (And both of which I recall asking about at the time of the vote.) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Am 19.07.2010 22:42, schrieb Michael Barabanov: NearMap looks quite important for Australia. The LWG has stated that specific contributor terms will be considered on a case by case basis for external data sources. If NearMap are happy with the ODbL but not with the Contributor Terms then maybe that should be done here. ___ 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?
Am 17.07.2010 05:07, schrieb Michael Barabanov: 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone. The OSMF has a contractual relationship with its contributors. So if there is no copyright protection on the CC-BY-SA licensed dataset that does not mean the OSMF can do anything it wants with the data. Moral issues aside... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Hi, Michael Barabanov wrote: Rather than receiving questions back, some actual answers to direct questions about adding SA-like requirement to CT would be nice. Well I have already said that I am against it, and I have given the reasons. We have a large PD community in OSM - exactly how large is unclear. The whole relicensing process has never even considered letting the user base decide to switch to a PD, or attribution-only license; it was clear from day one that we'd be looking for share-alike. That is a thorn in the side of many PD advocates (not the fact that OSM is not going PD, but the fact that OSMF hasn't even bothered to find out what contributors want), and there are enough for them to make a fuss, if not derail the license change process altogether. The proposed license change makes two concessions to the PD advocates. One is that you get a (symbolic) chance of officially declaring your contribution PD. This does not have legal relevance, as you cannot extract PD data from an ODbL protected database without triggering ODbL's share-alike, but at least the PD faction can make their voices heard. The other is that the contributor agreement does not completely rule out moving to PD at a later time, if a large enough majority of OSM contributors should favour that. These two concessions are really minor and are a long way from actually making anything in OSM PD. They are certainly not a victory for the PD faction, but they are a token of respect towards them, and they will make many a PD advocate accept the new license. These concessions are about building consensus, they are the result of people sitting around a (virtual) table and trying to find a way forward together that can be carried by everyone. If you now want to remove even that smallest bit of respect towards a large number of contributors, you risk upsetting the delicate balance that has been found. Faced with cementing SA forever, PD advocates will demand a proper vote (do you (a) want to go PD, (b) go ODbL, (c) not go anywhere) instead of the current version. I strongly advise anyone not to re-open that can of worms. If NearMap imagery is so important for OSM in Australia - and there are countries which have been mapped very well without aerial imagery of note - then let's make an exception for NearMap, let's include their data without them signing the CT. This would mean that if at any later time the license is changed, NearMap would have to be asked specifically if they like that license. I assume that this is something we will have to do for some other sources as well. No reason to drop or modify the CT for everybody because of that. 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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Ulf Möller o...@ulfm.de wrote: The LWG has stated that specific contributor terms will be considered on a case by case basis for external data sources. If NearMap are happy with the ODbL but not with the Contributor Terms then maybe that should be done here. So can these specific contributor terms be available for anyone who wants to contribute in Australia? At a guess, perhaps 90% of active mappers in Australia have used NearMap as one of their sources and are therefore unable to agree to the current contributor terms. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcing the Open Brewpub Map
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Sven Geggus li...@fuchsschwanzdomain.de wrote: Tagging is easy. Just add microbrewery=yes to the node or building area object of your local brewpub. Whee. Now, please define microbrewery and brewpub. Is this a microbrewery: http://www.jamessquirebrewhouse.net/melbourne/index.php Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 01:32:53AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: If NearMap imagery is so important for OSM in Australia - and there are countries which have been mapped very well without aerial imagery of note - then let's make an exception for NearMap, let's include their data without them signing the CT. This would mean that if at any later time the license is changed, NearMap would have to be asked specifically if they like that license. I assume that this is something we will have to do for some other sources as well. No reason to drop or modify the CT for everybody because of that. Not because of NearMap, no way would I just give in to some organisation who feels they can’t fit with our terms. However, I think the concerns are entirely reasonable, and if we say we are going to license our data under the ODbL + DbCL we should stick to it. Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike licenses? 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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: Sorry, but as far as I remember CT suddenly appeared on the table. Before that there was just ODBL. SteveC has already told me that either my memory was faulty or I wasn't paying attention for stating exactly that. Couldn't be bothered to look for the details, because I'm sure my memory is excellent. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote: From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the license. quash all discussion, move it out of sight, and proceed? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
Hi, Simon Ward wrote: Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike licenses? I'm not saying it is bad, I'm just saying that nobody has ever made an effort to find out what spirit most of the contributors would prefer; the fact alone that they are willing to participate in a SA project does not say anything. So either get a proper backing for whatever spirit you want to cement for all eternity - i.e. write to all contributors, explain to them what PD, BY, BY-SA is and what the problems and advantages of each are, and ask them what license they would like the project to be under, then start relicensing the project under whatever was favoured by the majority. (I think that an attribution-only ODbL variant has already been launched or is at least in the making.) Or, if you'd rather not do that now but go ahead with ODbL as proposed, at least do not rule out that option forever. (And it is safe to assume that any license change outside the corridor given by the CT is ruled out forever because it would mean repeating what we have now.) By at least theoretically allowing upgrades to any free and open licenses, and not just share-alike licenses, you effectively silence opposition from the PD people who would otherwise demand that a licence change to PD *now* would at least have to be investigated (which it hasn't been). 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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On 20 July 2010 08:10, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: Not because of NearMap, no way would I just give in to some organisation who feels they can’t fit with our terms. I'm not assuming that Simon was necessarily directing that at us, but I think it's worth saying here that NearMap are specifically *not,* in any way, trying to dictate or attempt to control the OSM process. This is a community effort, and it is not our place to be seen to be influencing it. We're just keen to make it clear that the *Share-Alike* part of the licence is key to us allowing our PhotoMaps to be used as the source of OSM data. That's not an arbitrary choice we make; it's important to the way we operate our business (our aims and our business model are publically available). 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] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:20 AM, Liz wrote: On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, SteveC wrote: From my experience off list with all the people frustrated both in email and in person, those 20 or so people here just don't represent everyone else who'd prefer all this discussion to go to legal-talk and just move on with the license. quash all discussion, move it out of sight, and proceed? Yes, quash all the discussion on 4 public mailing lists, don't have any public phone calls, don't have any consultation periods or working groups that anyone can join, don't have public minutes, don't convince large legal firms to donate time and effort. Keep the license all to ourselves rather than support it being hosted externally by OKFN. Yes, we've really clamped down on all that discussion so we can proceed! Tell me Liz, have you contributed anything positive to this entire process, ever, in any way? Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:43 AM, John Smith wrote: On 20 July 2010 10:38, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I'm left wondering if this problem is being over engineered by lawyers... Go ask on odc-discuss? Is there much point if I'm only likely to get a biased answer? You're right, much better to publicly bitch than to make an effort and ask them a simple question huh? Steve stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing free and open license
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:26:57AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Simon Ward wrote: Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike licenses? I'm not saying it is bad, I'm just saying that nobody has ever made an effort to find out what spirit most of the contributors would prefer; the fact alone that they are willing to participate in a SA project does not say anything. As discussed previously by others, any poll without real consequences invariably affects how one answers, and any determination of spirit is subjective at best. We need to proceed with the license change, but in doing so really need to allow more options than just a yay or nay to the ODbL. Any decision needs to take into account: * Direct contributor acceptance of the licenses (ODbL and DbCL) and contributor terms for existing data. * Whether import and derivative contribution sources accept the licenses and contributor terms. * Acceptance of licenses and contributor terms for future contributions. The current proposal doesn’t offer all combinations of those choices. Having all combinations would probaly also be quite overwhelming, so I see the advantage of a simple yes/no choice. However, this is currently very biased towards “the LWG/OSMF knows what’s good for you, do what they tell you”. It should instead be: “If you disagree with any part, say ‘no’”. If an absolute majority agrees, fine, let’s go ahead. Otherwise, we need to re‐evaluate some things, get more detail on what’s wrong so far. Can I help the LWG? For my part, I don’t fully agree with the contributor terms, and I suggest we start there because they are also what I’ve seen other people voice their dissent about. 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
