Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On 16 September 2010 02:12, Richard Weait wrote: > NearMap have requested that their imagery not be available in > Potlatch, and have changed their license on their web site to remove > explicit permission for OpenStreetMap. That is their right and their > decision. > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Emilie Laffray wrote: > > Nearmap withdrew their support for the people using the new contributor > terms. The OpenStreetMap foundation is currently working to resolve the > issue with Nearmap. Such a discussion happened yesterday evening with Ben > last Just to clarify; we haven't actually *changed* anything at all in our licence terms; the licence has remained the same since we first launched. It states that you can derive work from our PhotoMap images, you own that work and can distribute it under CC-BY-SA (which at the time we lauched, made it compatible with OSM). When the new CTs were introduced, we had to remove the asscoiated statements on the licence page that referenced OSM because the new CTs mean that our licence is no longer compatible. As Richard W and others say, we're in discussions to try and find a solution; I very much appreciate the opportunity to talk with the LWG and hope the discussions continue. I asked Richard F to remove NearMap support from Potlatch, since we didn't want to encourage anyone to add data to OSM which might be, or become, incompatible with the CTs. That's all; there is no "block". > The fact is that NearMap don't want OSM users using their imagery right > now. So > we shouldn't. > Again to clarify; we do actually want very much to make it possible for OSM'ers to use our PhotoMaps. But right now there's a licence incompatibility issue, which we hope we can solve. Regards Ben -- Ben Last Development Manager (HyperWeb) NearMap Pty Ltd ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
Some datasets are ok to use, what the CT fails to mention is the fact that the OSMF can made the decision on weather or not to accept a dataset. Specifically because the humble contributor cannot guarantee that they represent or have the exact 'direct permission' as it could have been just a coffe chat "sure you can use it" (when the actual dataset copyright holder doesnt fully understand the CT, nor has hired a lawer to answer the question 'officially'. *** You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder (to the extent the Contents include any copyrightable elements). You represent and warrant that You are legally entitled to grant the licence in Section 2 below and that such licence does not violate any law, breach any contract, or, to the best of Your knowledge, infringe any third party’s rights. If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents, You represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the licence below. ** However, if the OSMF authorizes a working group who can act on behalf of the Foundation, they can approve of data sets, and directly do the conversion, so then the overall community does not need to be concerned. And just wait for the OSMF to announce that data is available as small .osm files hosted on the osmf server so the community can work at copying the data in. Like many other datasets, we have direct permission to use it. (Someone from NRCan gave direct permission and wants OSM to use the map data) Plus the OSMF voted in favour to use it. (back in 2008) Therefore, this sets a president for all other datasets with a similar license, that if it receives 1 - a positive vote from the OSMF AND 2 - Direct permission (in writing) from someone who can act on behalf the source. Then it's ok to use. (So the actual text of the license doesn't matter when the 1st 2 points are provided). So then a vote can happen for if OSMF wants to retain whatever tainted data they choose to accept. I have already specifically requested the OSMF to have a Imports Working group, so then can look at all of the datasets and vote on each. Thus, fulfilling the requirements of "Formal Discussion Required" [1] Unfortunately, it seems that the OSMF is not interested in directly ensuring the quality of the database as a 'pure odbl' dataset. The work required to create a new empty dataset, and directly copy in all of the 'Officially supported' data, can be simply crowd-sourced. Tagging can be fixed with the more correct tags, and there will be no duplicate nodes, and no messy imported data, as all datasets will require the OSMF to approve it (and probably should be only the OSMF appointed people to copy in the bulk data directly). This will ensure 100% compliance. (this is an obvious solution, that everyone can be happy with), so those who choose not to accept ODbl can continue and work on another project (outside of OSM) with a minimal interruption for actual mapping for everyone (whatever 'actual' means to the contributors). :) The final planet.osm file will be made available, where users can copy in data that has approval. (and even trace over the old map, (where the non-compliant data is removed kept in another planet.osm file for others to use) The alternate, is that after the changeover, the OSM map will be a tainted dataset with no way to filter out the data. My toonie, Cheers, Sam p.s. here's the chart i mention in the below message. (it's open access editing) https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Am70fsptsPF2dERHb1RkcXIwMUU1TDR3NF9NbWQxS3c&hl=en&output=html [1] -- Forwarded message -- From: Sam Vekemans Date: Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:09 AM Subject: imports working group To: board Board Hi, Does OSM Foundation not have an 'Imports Working Group', where this commitee can have the final say in any data that can be used in OpenStreetMap? I am creating a database chart, for just this purpose, and can include a column 'OSM Foundation approved' with a link. This way, there will be no question on if a dataset is Ok ... regardless of the licence... the OSMF has the power to make a decision on the datasets. since OSMF owns the api and main servers. Unlike small-time contributor edits .. bulk data (of any size) should go through the OSMF - imports working group... and pubmit it to the board for an approval vote for each dataset. ... ps. this is why i recommend converting the data to .osm 1st... then let the community look at it an examine it. We did this for CanVec and geobaseNHN and statscan... and it works just fine. Thanks, Sam -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: samvekemans IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room) @Acrosscanadatrails *** On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:03 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > On W
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:20 PM, John Smith > wrote: > > On 16 September 2010 08:15, Richard Weait wrote: > >> It will take forever if you never start the discussion. ;-) > > > > I was under the impression the LWG was already talking to Nearmap, > > Sure. Aren't there AU gov't sources that would be nice to have > permission to use? > > > however I don't have a problem with the current license, so I don't > > see a point in wasting it to further the agenda of commercial > > entities... > > This bogeyman again? Which commercial entities? What agenda? Moving > to and Open Data License from an Open Creative Content License is the > right thing to do for an Open Data Project. Using CT to make adapting > to the future easier for the future OSM community is the right thing > to do for our future selves. > > >> That will vary by publisher. The permission from the Canadian > >> government took a couple of days but others might be faster. > > > > I'm suspicious that the data is going to be compatible with the CTs, > > but of course these little details are swept under the rug... > > Nope. Explicit permission to contribute to OSM with CTs. > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2010-August/003292.html > Richard, can you explain how section 4 of the Geogratis license [1] works with respect to the CTs please? My understanding is that 4.3 requires the Licensee to indemnify Canada against damages etc? Is this compatible with section 6.2 of the Contributor Terms? If I understand it right 6.2 excludes any liability. Isn't this contrary to Geogratis's stipulation in 4.3? Can you explain please? 80n [1] http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/en/licence.jsp > > ___ > 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] NearMap
On 16 September 2010 08:38, Richard Weait wrote: > Sure. Aren't there AU gov't sources that would be nice to have > permission to use? You keep seeming trying to divert attention from the major issue, the CTs won't allow anything other than PD data, almost no AU govt will accept anything less than guaranteed attribution, the 2 goals are completely in conflict. > This bogeyman again? Which commercial entities? What agenda? Moving Waze for one, and that is record in public mailing list archives... The agenda, make it easier to mix their own data with OSM data without being required to share back... > to and Open Data License from an Open Creative Content License is the > right thing to do for an Open Data Project. Using CT to make adapting > to the future easier for the future OSM community is the right thing > to do for our future selves. To bad the right thing to do by contributors is never given a second glance, too bad that what contributors really want is never properly asked... I want to be able to make the best maps possible, but this short sightedness will bind my hands so that we're left with a second rate map just so end users get all the benefits... So we'll go from having one of the best maps of metro and some rural parts of Australia to having a 2nd or 3rd rate map at best... Yes, too bad... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:20 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 16 September 2010 08:15, Richard Weait wrote: >> It will take forever if you never start the discussion. ;-) > > I was under the impression the LWG was already talking to Nearmap, Sure. Aren't there AU gov't sources that would be nice to have permission to use? > however I don't have a problem with the current license, so I don't > see a point in wasting it to further the agenda of commercial > entities... This bogeyman again? Which commercial entities? What agenda? Moving to and Open Data License from an Open Creative Content License is the right thing to do for an Open Data Project. Using CT to make adapting to the future easier for the future OSM community is the right thing to do for our future selves. >> That will vary by publisher. The permission from the Canadian >> government took a couple of days but others might be faster. > > I'm suspicious that the data is going to be compatible with the CTs, > but of course these little details are swept under the rug... Nope. Explicit permission to contribute to OSM with CTs. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2010-August/003292.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On 16 September 2010 08:15, Richard Weait wrote: > It will take forever if you never start the discussion. ;-) I was under the impression the LWG was already talking to Nearmap, however I don't have a problem with the current license, so I don't see a point in wasting it to further the agenda of commercial entities... > That will vary by publisher. The permission from the Canadian > government took a couple of days but others might be faster. I'm suspicious that the data is going to be compatible with the CTs, but of course these little details are swept under the rug... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On 16 September 2010 08:11, Richard Weait wrote: > This old saw again, "JohnSmith"? Every time the community is asked, > they support progress in the form of ODbL rather than the > inappropriate CC-By-SA. Here is the latest feedback for you. Yes and how many said they haven't even been asked when this came up on the legal talk list, and shared a similar sentiment to mine, most of those straw polls only include a few hundred participants at most, where as most data has been contributed by at least 12,500 people... Hardly indicative of what most people want, in fact this thread started off because people were unhappy they could no longer use Nearmap imagery in potlatch... > Would you like to contact a CC-By or CC-By-SA data publisher and > request permission to contribute their data to OSM under ODbL / CT? Which is a pointless activity, since the CTs prohibit anything but PD data, ODBL data is *NOT* compatible with the CTs. > Would you like to participate in the discussion of exactly how and > which data should be excluded when OSM proceeds? > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-August/020124.html I thought it would be pretty clear that the CTs exclude everything except PD sources... > Would you like to recommend to other mappers to avoid problematic > sources until things are settled in the long term? It seems my previous emails would suggest otherwise... > Would you like to meet with, coach and encourage new mappers? Sure, and at the same time I can tell them how foolish some people are being about relicensing just to appease commercial companies... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:05 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 16 September 2010 07:58, Richard Weait wrote: >> You overlook the obvious, that discussion can lead to additional >> rights grants from publishers. > > And how many years must we wait before they'll be concluded? It will take forever if you never start the discussion. ;-) That will vary by publisher. The permission from the Canadian government took a couple of days but others might be faster. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:48 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 16 September 2010 07:31, Richard Weait wrote: >> I don't think that your recommendation is in the best interest of >> OpenStreetMap or OSM contributors. > > Actually how can you or anyone else make this statement in good faith > when most of the contributors have never been asked what they want? This old saw again, "JohnSmith"? Every time the community is asked, they support progress in the form of ODbL rather than the inappropriate CC-By-SA. Here is the latest feedback for you. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:ODbL_Supporter http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Users_Rejecting_ODbL So you can help too. Would you like to contact a CC-By or CC-By-SA data publisher and request permission to contribute their data to OSM under ODbL / CT? Would you like to participate in the discussion of exactly how and which data should be excluded when OSM proceeds? http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2010-August/020124.html Would you like to recommend to other mappers to avoid problematic sources until things are settled in the long term? Would you like to meet with, coach and encourage new mappers? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On 16 September 2010 07:58, Richard Weait wrote: > Or did you mean CommonMap? > http://commonmap.info Unlikely, since CommonMap is cc-by, not cc-by-sa... > Or did you mean SharedMap? > http://www.sharedmap.org At this stage this is run and used by a single person, perhaps this will expand in future, although others have expressed similar sentiments about running their own personal repositories, so perhaps he's on to something. > You overlook the obvious, that discussion can lead to additional > rights grants from publishers. And how many years must we wait before they'll be concluded? > In the interim, those tired of listening to license-chat, can go > mapping. They can decide that they don't care about a few loud, Or keep arm chair mapping from existing sources, for those that are allowed to. > repeated voices[1] haggling over non-mapping matters, they can get a > new account, and map from ground survey and direct observation, Why exactly do they need a new account just to do ground surveying? Or are you making the assumption that there could be a great deal of data lost because they have edits mixed with Nearmap or other sources of data, I wonder how many that will upset when they figure out you've just wiped out 1-2 years worth of work... > knowing that their contributions will be able to carry forward with > OpenStreetMap. Perhaps you may come to realise that some don't care that their contributions to go elsewhere, regardless where they go in the interim, they just care about getting on and mapping in their usual work flow until such times that that is no longer possible, at which point they'll either give up completely or go on to another project that has kept all their existing edits. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:41 PM, John Smith wrote: > You left off 3, there is going to be a fork as cc-by-sa and any such > contributions from Nearmap will be happily accepted. You forgot your link though. http://groups.google.com/group/osm-fork http://www.fosm.org Or did you mean CommonMap? http://commonmap.info Or did you mean SharedMap? http://www.sharedmap.org > Also you seem to over look the obvious, unless such "problematic" data > is removed sooner rather than later, people will become even more > upset when their changes are lost because of the short sightedness of > this ongoing relicensing debacle... You overlook the obvious, that discussion can lead to additional rights grants from publishers. In the interim, those tired of listening to license-chat, can go mapping. They can decide that they don't care about a few loud, repeated voices[1] haggling over non-mapping matters, they can get a new account, and map from ground survey and direct observation, knowing that their contributions will be able to carry forward with OpenStreetMap. That's an easy thing for you to agree with, isn't it "JohnSmith"? [1] looking at both of us ;-) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On 16 September 2010 07:31, Richard Weait wrote: > I don't think that your recommendation is in the best interest of > OpenStreetMap or OSM contributors. Actually how can you or anyone else make this statement in good faith when most of the contributors have never been asked what they want? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On 16 September 2010 07:31, Richard Weait wrote: > I don't think that your recommendation is in the best interest of > OpenStreetMap or OSM contributors. You left off 3, there is going to be a fork as cc-by-sa and any such contributions from Nearmap will be happily accepted. Also you seem to over look the obvious, unless such "problematic" data is removed sooner rather than later, people will become even more upset when their changes are lost because of the short sightedness of this ongoing relicensing debacle... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:15 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 16 September 2010 04:12, Richard Weait wrote: >> bad. This isn't a competition with a winner and loser. The fact is >> that NearMap don't want OSM users using their imagery right now. So >> we shouldn't. > > This isn't true, they don't want to allow their data to be submitted > under the new Contributor Terms, they are happy for it to be submitted > under cc-by-sa, which anyone that has not agreed to the new CTs is > able to do. I'm trying to understand your recommendation to keep mapping from a problematic source. I'll try to put this in your terms. Do you agree that: 1) There is a chance that OSM will adopt the ODbL and CT 2) There is a chance that NearMap derived objects would have to be removed when ODbL and CT are accepted And yet you would recommend continuing mapping from this and other problematic sources, rather than mapping from ground survey and first principles? I don't think that your recommendation is in the best interest of OpenStreetMap or OSM contributors. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:16:34 +1000 Michael Hampson wrote: > Hi All, > > Does anyone know if we have lost the use of NearMap as a background > or is there an issue with Potlatch 1.4? > There are other editors, assuming that you have not agreed to the new Contributor Terms. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On 16 September 2010 04:12, Richard Weait wrote: > bad. This isn't a competition with a winner and loser. The fact is > that NearMap don't want OSM users using their imagery right now. So > we shouldn't. This isn't true, they don't want to allow their data to be submitted under the new Contributor Terms, they are happy for it to be submitted under cc-by-sa, which anyone that has not agreed to the new CTs is able to do. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On 16 September 2010 04:02, Richard Weait wrote: > That said, there is no answer right now for what will happen regarding > NearMap imagery in the future. Currently, OSM users may not use > NearMap imagery for deriving data for OSM. Only users that have agreed with the new Contributor Terms can not use Nearmap as a source, everyone else isn't restricted. Which is the biggest problem with the new CTs it shifts the ability for contributors to use sources of data to very few, while giving commercial end users much more freedom, to me this stinks and the contributors didn't even get much say in the matter, yet they will be the ones to suffer the most. > You might choose to keep on mapping and enjoy your participation in > OSM. You don't have to use NearMap imagery to map. Consider this. > You may, if you choose, make another OSM account for yourself[1]. If > you do that now, it will be a CC-By-SA and ODbL account. Then Actually it can only shift to dual license once CC-by-SA data is removed. > continue mapping from your ground surveys, and or other permitted > sources. Whatever the resolution with NearMap, it won't affect your > new account. No, but it will effect the quality and quantity of map data available in Australia. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:59 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 16 September 2010 03:48, Richard Weait wrote: >> Legal argument aside. Frankly it makes my head hurt. If a vendor >> decides to stop allowing OSM use of their resources, we should say >> "Thanks for what you did contribute, and fare well." > > In this case it is OSM that is changing the rules of the game, not > Nearmap, if it was the other way round I'd be much more inclined to > agree with you. NearMap have requested that their imagery not be available in Potlatch, and have changed their license on their web site to remove explicit permission for OpenStreetMap. That is their right and their decision. They have the right to end their support or to withhold it while negotiations continue then reinstate it. That doesn't make NearMap bad. This isn't a competition with a winner and loser. The fact is that NearMap don't want OSM users using their imagery right now. So we shouldn't. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Luke Woolley wrote: > Bloody Hell. They have even blocked the custom field. I have a lot of choice > words to say right now but shall refrain until I calm down! All over a bloody > licencing dispute (which I don't like getting involved in unless I have to, > which that time has now come) Many OSM contributors want the license change to just be finished so that they can continue to map. There is a clear potential problem with using NearMap as a reference. Discussion between NearMap and OSMF is continuing and it may turn out that this was all just too much worry over nothing. Or it may turn out that NearMap will no longer participate in OSM by providing aerial imagery. I enjoyed the discussion with Ben and LWG yesterday and I'm looking forward to the next discussion. That said, there is no answer right now for what will happen regarding NearMap imagery in the future. Currently, OSM users may not use NearMap imagery for deriving data for OSM. You might choose to keep on mapping and enjoy your participation in OSM. You don't have to use NearMap imagery to map. Consider this. You may, if you choose, make another OSM account for yourself[1]. If you do that now, it will be a CC-By-SA and ODbL account. Then continue mapping from your ground surveys, and or other permitted sources. Whatever the resolution with NearMap, it won't affect your new account. [1] OSMF LWG have issued a clarification that contributor terms apply per account, not per user. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On 16 September 2010 03:48, Richard Weait wrote: > Are you speaking for NearMap, "JohnSmith" or just agreeing with > Richard Fairhurst above that "copyright on imagery does not, and > should not, 'transfer' to tracings from that imagery"? I'm speaking for myself, Terms and Conditions are a form of contract, not copyright, just like the new OSM Contributor Terms are a form of a contract, which then gives OSM the right to sub-license user works under various copyrights. > I don't speak for NearMap, of course, but the impression I had from > the conversation with Ben, yesterday, is that NearMap argue that they > have rights that _do_ persist in derived works such as traced vectors. Yes, by way of their contract, just like OSM are trying to obtain similar rights by way of their new contract with users. > If you have had previous conversations with NearMap that denied this > strong persistence argument, I believe that they have changed their > position. Most of my dealings with Nearmap are archived on various OSM mailing lists, I've had very little contact with Nearmap privately about anything. > Legal argument aside. Frankly it makes my head hurt. If a vendor > decides to stop allowing OSM use of their resources, we should say > "Thanks for what you did contribute, and fare well." In this case it is OSM that is changing the rules of the game, not Nearmap, if it was the other way round I'd be much more inclined to agree with you. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:30 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 16 September 2010 00:37, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> I believe John Smith initially suggested it to NearMap. Ben Last at NearMap > > No, I posted the question publicly to the legal talk list, my concern > wasn't just about Nearmap but any source that may be too easy to > access by new contributors that would be unaware that they would be > breaching contract with OSM or the source or both. > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004069.html > >> In addition I feel very strongly that copyright on imagery does not, and >> should not, 'transfer' to tracings from that imagery > > Copyright isn't transferring from imagery to tracings, Are you speaking for NearMap, "JohnSmith" or just agreeing with Richard Fairhurst above that "copyright on imagery does not, and should not, 'transfer' to tracings from that imagery"? I don't speak for NearMap, of course, but the impression I had from the conversation with Ben, yesterday, is that NearMap argue that they have rights that _do_ persist in derived works such as traced vectors. If you have had previous conversations with NearMap that denied this strong persistence argument, I believe that they have changed their position. Legal argument aside. Frankly it makes my head hurt. If a vendor decides to stop allowing OSM use of their resources, we should say "Thanks for what you did contribute, and fare well." ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Nestoria and OSM
On 16 September 2010 00:37, Richard Weait wrote: > Nestoria have launched an OSM option in Australia. > > http://blog.nestoria.com.au/big-thank-you Wonder if they'll ditch OSM when the data is reverted due to the poor quality previously available... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On 16 September 2010 00:37, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I believe John Smith initially suggested it to NearMap. Ben Last at NearMap No, I posted the question publicly to the legal talk list, my concern wasn't just about Nearmap but any source that may be too easy to access by new contributors that would be unaware that they would be breaching contract with OSM or the source or both. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004069.html > In addition I feel very strongly that copyright on imagery does not, and > should not, 'transfer' to tracings from that imagery Copyright isn't transferring from imagery to tracings, Nearmap have terms and conditions (contract) to use their imagery, they are happy to donate the use of their imagery and other resources (bandwidth, CPU time etc) if the tracings are made available under certain licenses, if this is unsuitable they also offer commercial licenses. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On 15 September 2010 15:14, Simon Biber wrote: > > Who was it prompted by? Did NearMap themselves request it? > There was a specific question from a AU community member to NearMap if the option should be removed. They said yes. <-- Third hand, I was not part of the discussion. > I don't see why should NearMap be blocked for users who have not accepted the > new contributor terms. > My understanding of NearMap's point of view is they have some rights over the contributions made by OpenStreetMap'pers who use their imagery. I also understand they have no issues with the new license just the Contributor Terms. It is an awkward position. NearMap is also a user of OpenStreetMap data. Discussing of options and solutions with NearMap continues. / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Nestoria and OSM
Nestoria have launched an OSM option in Australia. http://blog.nestoria.com.au/big-thank-you ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
Simon Biber wrote: > Who was it prompted by? Did NearMap themselves request it? I believe John Smith initially suggested it to NearMap. Ben Last at NearMap then e-mailed me asking that I remove the imagery. This was a month or so ago, but I've been busy at work. AIUI NearMap removed the Potlatch link from their own site a while back. > I don't see why should NearMap be blocked for users who have not accepted > the new contributor terms. I'd be happy to accept a well-coded patch to amf_controller, to query a user's contributor terms status; and to Potlatch (both source and compiled version) to act on this status and modify the menu/presets accordingly. Obviously I can't speak for any of the site admins as to whether such a patch would be deployed. It would be a fair amount of work, and personally I'd rather spend my own time improving Potlatch 2 than on the old Potlatch 1 codebase, which is why I've not done it. In addition I feel very strongly that copyright on imagery does not, and should not, 'transfer' to tracings from that imagery (http://www.systemeD.net/blog/?p=100). That's why, for example, I expressly didn't restrict tracing from the UK New Popular Edition maps which I spent a lot of time and money scanning and rectifying. That's my own personal belief, not necessarily shared by anyone else, and indeed NearMap disagree - which is fine and absolutely their prerogative. I'm not going to spend a whole load of time making a change which is against my own beliefs, but OSM is a collaborative project, so I wouldn't object if someone else were to do so. cheers Richard (Potlatch 1 developer) -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/NearMap-tp5534325p5534629.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On Wed, 15 September, 2010 11:28:29 PM, Grant Slater wrote: > Just to clarify, we have not concluded discussions with NearMap and > discussion >is still positive. The removal of the NearMap option in Potlatch was prompted >a >few weeks by back, but was only actioned today. Who was it prompted by? Did NearMap themselves request it? Why is the first we've heard of such a block, after it has been implemented? I don't see why should NearMap be blocked for users who have not accepted the new contributor terms. Is there some way to work with a local copy of Potlatch without such a restriction? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
Bloody Hell. They have even blocked the custom field. I have a lot of choice words to say right now but shall refrain until I calm down! All over a bloody licencing dispute (which I don't like getting involved in unless I have to, which that time has now come) On 15/09/2010, at 11:58 PM, Grant Slater wrote: > On 15 September 2010 14:28, Michael Hampson wrote: Does anyone know if we have lost the use of NearMap as a background or is there an issue with Potlatch 1.4? >>> >>> Nearmap withdrew their support for the people using the new contributor >>> terms. The OpenStreetMap foundation is currently working to resolve the >>> issue with Nearmap. Such a discussion happened yesterday evening with Ben >>> last >>> > > Just to clarify, we have not concluded discussions with NearMap and > discussion is still positive. > The removal of the NearMap option in Potlatch was prompted a few weeks > by back, but was only actioned today. > > Regards > Grant > > ___ > 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] NearMap
On 15 September 2010 14:28, Michael Hampson wrote: >>> >>> Does anyone know if we have lost the use of NearMap as a background or is >>> there an issue with Potlatch 1.4? >> >> Nearmap withdrew their support for the people using the new contributor >> terms. The OpenStreetMap foundation is currently working to resolve the >> issue with Nearmap. Such a discussion happened yesterday evening with Ben >> last >> Just to clarify, we have not concluded discussions with NearMap and discussion is still positive. The removal of the NearMap option in Potlatch was prompted a few weeks by back, but was only actioned today. Regards Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] NearMap
Thanks Emilie, Regards, Michael Hampson Ph: 02 4739 4938 On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Emilie Laffray wrote: > > > On 15 September 2010 14:16, Michael Hampson wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Does anyone know if we have lost the use of NearMap as a background or is >> there an issue with Potlatch 1.4? >> > > Nearmap withdrew their support for the people using the new contributor > terms. The OpenStreetMap foundation is currently working to resolve the > issue with Nearmap. Such a discussion happened yesterday evening with Ben > last > > Emilie Laffray > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] NearMap
Hi All, Does anyone know if we have lost the use of NearMap as a background or is there an issue with Potlatch 1.4? Thanks, Michael Hampson Ph: 02 4739 4938 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
