[talk-au] Blanchetown
I've just put in some of Blanchetown SA I believe it has a grid of streets but my survey doesn't actually line up into a neat grid Then there is a random lot of roads near the Murray. Any mapper going near Blanchetown, turn off the highway and improve on the town please. Liz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Blanchetown
I should be there sometime during the Tour Down Under, if no-one else gets the opportunity before then. But a quick look around suggests there's a lot to be done all the way from Renmark. John Liz wrote: I've just put in some of Blanchetown SA I believe it has a grid of streets but my survey doesn't actually line up into a neat grid Then there is a random lot of roads near the Murray. Any mapper going near Blanchetown, turn off the highway and improve on the town please. Liz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Blanchetown
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, John Henderson wrote: I should be there sometime during the Tour Down Under, if no-one else gets the opportunity before then. But a quick look around suggests there's a lot to be done all the way from Renmark. John There is a lot of empty space in real life in that district. I've still got stuff I haven't dealt with properly from Oct 08 for example this set http://www.billiau.net/zoph/photos.php?album_id=23_order=date_off=1140 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Database licence
There has been a great number of mails on osmf-talk about an upcoming vote on the database licence. Sadly, I'd like to say that I will not be supporting the proposed new licence. It is designed around European law, and gives database protection which is not a legal concept which is likely to apply here, after the recent High Court case Nine vs IceTv, when the database was not afforded protection. I've been thinking about the imports from ABS and the Qld government. That data is licensed CC-by-SA and would have to be *removed* from OSM as we cannot negotiate with ABS and Qld for the new, non-existent licence with no basis in Australian law. This would make a whacking hole in our data and make our map look like an empty shell. Only those who belonged to OSMF in Oct 09 will get a vote. Those who are 'merely' contributors will only get to be asked if they will relicense their data or not. Only data from people who agree to relicensing will go forward into the new licence. Liz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: There has been a great number of mails on osmf-talk about an upcoming vote on the database licence. But no notice on the site or wiki. I suppose it isn't official discussion. Sadly, I'd like to say that I will not be supporting the proposed new licence. It is designed around European law, and gives database protection which is not a legal concept which is likely to apply here, after the recent High Court case Nine vs IceTv, when the database was not afforded protection. Certainly we should make this case clear to the OSM community. Database protection always seemed to be a euro-centric ideal and not one that the new licence analysis seemed to respond to adequately. However, I believe that the ODbL constitutes both a licence and a contract (especially in jurisdictions where copyright protection is insufficient). So while you might not have a claim for copyright infringement in protecting OSM data, you would still be able to assert a breach of contract under one of the clauses such as the obligation to Share Alike. I've been thinking about the imports from ABS and the Qld government. That data is licensed CC-by-SA and would have to be *removed* from OSM as we cannot negotiate with ABS and Qld for the new, non-existent licence with no basis in Australian law. This would make a whacking hole in our data and make our map look like an empty shell. If we're working on the assumption that Nine vs. IceTV applies to geographical databases and there's no copyright protection for them, why do we have to care about licences at all in Australia anymore? Certainly, there was some discussion about those licences even being appropriate for releasing those databases (it was suggested that CC0 or public domain might be better). I wouldn't bet on Nine vs. IceTV applying to every collection of raw data and I agree that I would oppose a licence change that would lead us to have to renegotiate every data import... Only those who belonged to OSMF in Oct 09 will get a vote. Those who are 'merely' contributors will only get to be asked if they will relicense their data or not. Only data from people who agree to relicensing will go forward into the new licence. Oh dear. I thought it was going to be an active contributor vote (you had to have X edits in the last Y months) but looking at the threads on osmf-talk it looks like that disappeared. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: There has been a great number of mails on osmf-talk about an upcoming vote on the database licence. But no notice on the site or wiki. I suppose it isn't official discussion. It is official. The vote is for members of the OSM Foundation, not for ordinary contributors. The OSM Foundation can't force anyone to relicense their existing data but... ...the OSM Foundation owns the servers that run the site and if the change is approved then they will stop accepting contributions on that site unless you agree to the new terms (the OSMF Contributor Terms). This is likely to be disruptive. 80n Sadly, I'd like to say that I will not be supporting the proposed new licence. It is designed around European law, and gives database protection which is not a legal concept which is likely to apply here, after the recent High Court case Nine vs IceTv, when the database was not afforded protection. Certainly we should make this case clear to the OSM community. Database protection always seemed to be a euro-centric ideal and not one that the new licence analysis seemed to respond to adequately. However, I believe that the ODbL constitutes both a licence and a contract (especially in jurisdictions where copyright protection is insufficient). So while you might not have a claim for copyright infringement in protecting OSM data, you would still be able to assert a breach of contract under one of the clauses such as the obligation to Share Alike. I've been thinking about the imports from ABS and the Qld government. That data is licensed CC-by-SA and would have to be *removed* from OSM as we cannot negotiate with ABS and Qld for the new, non-existent licence with no basis in Australian law. This would make a whacking hole in our data and make our map look like an empty shell. If we're working on the assumption that Nine vs. IceTV applies to geographical databases and there's no copyright protection for them, why do we have to care about licences at all in Australia anymore? Certainly, there was some discussion about those licences even being appropriate for releasing those databases (it was suggested that CC0 or public domain might be better). I wouldn't bet on Nine vs. IceTV applying to every collection of raw data and I agree that I would oppose a licence change that would lead us to have to renegotiate every data import... Only those who belonged to OSMF in Oct 09 will get a vote. Those who are 'merely' contributors will only get to be asked if they will relicense their data or not. Only data from people who agree to relicensing will go forward into the new licence. Oh dear. I thought it was going to be an active contributor vote (you had to have X edits in the last Y months) but looking at the threads on osmf-talk it looks like that disappeared. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
On 05/12/2009, at 10:29 PM, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir wrote: Certainly we should make this case clear to the OSM community. Database protection always seemed to be a euro-centric ideal and not one that the new licence analysis seemed to respond to adequately. However, I believe that the ODbL constitutes both a licence and a contract (especially in jurisdictions where copyright protection is insufficient). So while you might not have a claim for copyright infringement in protecting OSM data, you would still be able to assert a breach of contract under one of the clauses such as the obligation to Share Alike. Databases in Australia actually have more protection than in somewhere like the US, because they have their own inherent copyright. But that protection is *very* different to what EU database rights are, particularly in light of the High Courts ruling on what is substantial. The biggest problem is that no-one knows exactly how it works any more, and how much of Desktop Marketing was reversed - lawyers are divided and we won't know until we get more court rulings based on the fall-out. Oh dear. I thought it was going to be an active contributor vote (you had to have X edits in the last Y months) but looking at the threads on osmf-talk it looks like that disappeared. No, the vote whether to re-license is only for OSMF members. Future re-licensing done under the powers granted by the proposed contributor terms will require a vote of OSMF members and a vote of active contributors. Non-members do have some say though, you can refuse to agree to the re-licensing and contributor terms - if enough people reject them or can't be contacted, then I believe that the OSMF board might consider keeping CC in use, but that would require a fairly large amount of people to do so. As I understand if you reject the ODbL+terms, then any way/POII/whatever you have ever touched will be removed or reverted to the oldest non-acceptor's edit. I have no idea how they're planning on tracing the history through way merges and splits, but apparently that's how it's going to work. Unless we get close to 100% acceptance (which isn't likely, or maybe even possible) then it's going to severely screw up the data. The biggest problem I see is not with the ODbL itself (although I have reservations about it, particularly around the use of contract law), but the contributor terms. Currently: * We can import data licensed CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, for example most/all of data.australia.gov.au stuff * We may not be able to use data from derived databases, because (arguably) CC-BY-SA isn't enforceable With ODbL+contributor terms: * We won't be able to import CC-BY(-SA) data unless the copyright holder agrees to the terms letting us relicense it without their approval * We may not be able to use data from derived databases, because even though people have to release it, they don't have to agree to the terms. I fail to see how there is any benefit from moving to ODbL, and so will be voting against it too. My 2c. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
2009/12/5 80n 80n...@gmail.com: The OSM Foundation can't force anyone to relicense their existing data For clarity... the OSM Foundation is not some evil group... The OSMF is open, anyone from the community can join. The OSMF Board is democratically elected from the OSMF membership. OSMF Board: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Officers_%26_Board Disclosure: I am an OSMF member, part of the sysadmin team and a Licensing Working Group member. (And failed being elected to the board 2 years ago.) snip ...the OSM Foundation owns the servers that run the site and if the change is approved then they will stop accepting contributions on that site unless you agree to the new terms (the OSMF Contributor Terms). This is likely to be disruptive. Unfortunately any licensing change would be disruptive. Some of the reasons why we which to move away from CC BY-SA: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
2009/12/5 Liz ed...@billiau.net: Sadly, I'd like to say that I will not be supporting the proposed new licence. It is designed around European law, and gives database protection which is not a legal concept which is likely to apply here, after the recent High Court case Nine vs IceTv, when the database was not afforded protection. The ODbL does not require European Database Directive protection. Section 2 of the license defines the 3 pillars used; Copyright, EU Database Directive and Contract Law. http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
On 05/12/2009, at 11:30 PM, Grant Slater wrote: For clarity... the OSM Foundation is not some evil group... The OSMF is open, anyone from the community can join. The OSMF Board is democratically elected from the OSMF membership. If anyone who isn't a OSMF member wants to read the discussion, it's available in the archives, with two posts at the end of November and everything so far this month: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/ As expected, there is a fair amount of disagreement on whether the ODbL is good, whether the contributor terms are good, whether pro-ODbL people are trying to push it though before things have been sorted out, and whether anti-ODbL people are full of stop-energy and just like to complain. Some of the reasons why we which to move away from CC BY-SA: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable For reference, the two links that are going to be sent to us, which anyone can edit, are: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Blanchetown
Liz wrote: There is a lot of empty space in real life in that district. True, but compare these for an example of what I mean: http://www.whereis.com/sa/waikerie?id=21ADA5CC8AE6F4 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.1803lon=140.017zoom=14layers=B000FTF John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Blanchetown
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, John Henderson wrote: There is a lot of empty space in real life in that district. True, but compare these for an example of what I mean: http://www.whereis.com/sa/waikerie?id=21ADA5CC8AE6F4 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.1803lon=140.017zoom=14layers=B000F TF John yes I took a circuit around Waikerie once - that's the loop. I also went around some back streets, but it was in the pen and paper recording days and i can't make sense of the trace and the notes. This Christmas Peter and I will be visiting Adelaide, so if we make one trip via the Sturt we could map one town / village reasonably well. Pre-plan and we'll have a virtual mapping party on the Sturt Highway. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Boundary ways/relations
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, James Livingston wrote: On 05/12/2009, at 7:10 AM, Ben Kelley wrote: In places where this is the case, and there is no good survey data for the creek, I generally re-use the way to be the creek as well. This is what I've been doing. If I know there is a currently unmapped creek/river which roughly follows the boundary, I'll re-use the boundary because I don't have anything better, but I'm wary of moving anything that is already mapped, because it might not be the same as the boundary. This is what we are doing, but if everything attributed ABS2006 was removed from the database, we're up the creek without a paddle. I feel very strongly about this, and vague reassurances that OSMF will talk to people like the AU government to get the stuff under an alternate licence belongs in la-la land. I've met those bureaucrats (in general). They are nice people, but even if they were agreeable I would estimate 5 years for relicensing. If they were not agreeable it would be filed forever. James has pointed out that the Au guvmint decision to license the geo-data under CC-by-SA is good evidence that the licence is not broken in Australia. Liz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL
On 05/12/2009 21:31, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: The proposed licence is not a benefit to Australians in my view. You have generously qualified this with in my view and I should point out that I disagree with all the force I can muster. I spent about two hours this morning writing a pretty detailed e-mail, with all the case law citations you could want, explaining how the recent Australian High Court judgement followed Rural v Feist in the US, and therefore required the contract approach of ODbL rather than the copyright-only approach of CC-BY-SA. I don't think you have at all answered the points in that, and therefore I stand by the viewpoint that in Australia, ODbL has the best chance of any open, non-clickwrap licence of protecting OSM's data. CC-BY-SA will not protect it at all. The e-mail is here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000479.html I don't mind that your vote is lost; but I hope that others will look into the law and the references cited, rather than taking either yours, or my, interpretations on trust. Apologies for the cross-post, but you have raised this same point on all three lists. For anyone good enough to read and reply, please do trim the follow-ups. Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
2009/12/5 Liz ed...@billiau.net: Only those who belonged to OSMF in Oct 09 will get a vote. Those who are 'merely' contributors will only get to be asked if they will relicense their data or not. Only data from people who agree to relicensing will go forward into the new licence. I wonder if this will be the final straw that leads to the data being forked. There generally seems to be 2 camps in most debates like this, you have the idealists, and the pragmatists eg Debian=idealists, Ubuntu=Pragmatists. I'm generally not that overly concerned with the rest of the world, but will be really upset with how this will push Australia backwards, the ABS data and other datasets recently released by the verious Australian governments has been very good in helping to push things forward in low denisty areas and there is a lot of data that will just up and vanish if they enforce this. I'm not an OSMF member and have been getting more and more annoyed with the way things are headed by the idealists. I have the resources (hardware/bandwidth) at my disposal to do something if I absolutely have to about Australia. I am really hoping it won't need to come to that outcome because it will fork resources considerably as the camps diverge. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, John Smith wrote: 2009/12/5 Liz ed...@billiau.net: Only those who belonged to OSMF in Oct 09 will get a vote. Those who are 'merely' contributors will only get to be asked if they will relicense their data or not. Only data from people who agree to relicensing will go forward into the new licence. I wonder if this will be the final straw that leads to the data being forked. There generally seems to be 2 camps in most debates like this, you have the idealists, and the pragmatists eg Debian=idealists, Ubuntu=Pragmatists. I'm generally not that overly concerned with the rest of the world, but will be really upset with how this will push Australia backwards, the ABS data and other datasets recently released by the verious Australian governments has been very good in helping to push things forward in low denisty areas and there is a lot of data that will just up and vanish if they enforce this. I'm not an OSMF member and have been getting more and more annoyed with the way things are headed by the idealists. I have the resources (hardware/bandwidth) at my disposal to do something if I absolutely have to about Australia. I am really hoping it won't need to come to that outcome because it will fork resources considerably as the camps diverge. I too am seeing a fork in Australia as a result of this. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Fwd: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
-- Forwarded message -- From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org Date: 2009/12/6 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started To: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net Cc: t...@openstreetmap.org Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: The ODbL is overseen by a board which, as well as Jordan, Charlotte and Clark, also includes Lucie Guibault, a professor of copyright from the Netherlands, and Andres Guadamuz, a lecturer in E-Commerce Law and consultant to the World Intellectual Property Organisation. Do you have any evidence that these latter two have actually read the license? Because if not then it might be questionable to list them here, whereas if yes, I'd love to hear what they had to say. There have been some independent reviews of ODbL. One relatively positive review by Axel Metzger, a German Law Professor, which I have partly translated here: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-August/000181.html There has been a slightly more critical review of an earlier version of the license by a lawyer contracted by ITO: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ITO_World/ODbL_Licence_0.9_legal_review_for_ITO And there's a review in Dutch by an Internet lawyer of which I cannot say whether it's good or bad: http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabanklicentie-versie-10 Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Blanchetown
Liz wrote: This Christmas Peter and I will be visiting Adelaide, so if we make one trip via the Sturt we could map one town / village reasonably well. Pre-plan and we'll have a virtual mapping party on the Sturt Highway. If you zoom in on the whereis map, you'll see two roads whose names are legendary in the area. I'm surprised no-one has named them. I speak of Holder Top Road and Holder Bottom Road. :) John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
