Re: [talk-au] Looks like Nearmap is gone from JOSM slippymap plugin
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: I find that it scares me that OSM tools are being locked down. One we have flash tools that need a non free runtime, and developers who dont give a damn, then we have this silverlight drama about to unfold. The tools should not be dependant on one license or server or one point of view. Yes. The reason given for removing Nearmap from Potlatch 1 was (paraphrasing): Users who have agreed to the CTs must not use Nearmap. Potlatch cannot tell whether a given user has agreed to the CTs. We do not want to spend time adding that support, because we'd rather work on Potlatch 2. Therefore we have disabled Nearmap for all users. I think that's a fairly defensible position. Obviously it sucks for those of us who haven't agreed to the CTs, and want to continue to use Nearmap (which we're entitled to do). But it's fair enough. So the question is: is this the same reasoning for removing Nearmap as an option from JOSM? Could a better solution be found, like perhaps flashing an alert to anyone selecting Nearmap, warning them that they must not use it if they have agreed to the CTs? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Looks like Nearmap is gone from JOSM slippymap plugin
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: You can of course fork whatever you like, but allow me to point out that (1) if you are unhappy with the slippy map plugin, why not fork that instead of the whole editor. (2) the slippy map plugin can be configured via the preferences to use almost any kind of data source, whether legal or not; it is just that the *default* datasources that are available with one click should not contain something that causes licensing problems down the line. Yes. I should have been more specific. On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Yes. The reason given for removing Nearmap from Potlatch 1 was (paraphrasing): Users who have agreed to the CTs must not use Nearmap. Potlatch cannot tell whether a given user has agreed to the CTs. We do not want to spend time adding that support, because we'd rather work on Potlatch 2. Therefore we have disabled Nearmap for all users. I think that's a fairly defensible position. Obviously it sucks for those of us who haven't agreed to the CTs, and want to continue to use Nearmap (which we're entitled to do). But it's fair enough. So the question is: is this the same reasoning for removing Nearmap as an option from JOSM? Could a better solution be found, like perhaps flashing an alert to anyone selecting Nearmap, warning them that they must not use it if they have agreed to the CTs? I wonder if one was to code this and submit a patch to do this which follows the existing style guidelines, would it be accepted into the slippymap plugin? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: Following these principles would put an end to a large amount of bickering. I wouldn't read emails which can be summarised as just a little bit longer, and it will be all right. Reference could be made I totally agree with this. I was shocked to hear from some people that they think I am against OSM because I am criticizing the problems that I see. I have spend now two years working almost full time on osm, and I am being put under indirect pressure from people to accept things that are full of problems, that is just wrong. If you want my support, then involve me in the decisions. Don't exclude people from the process and then expect them to wonder the emperors new license that is really not very impressive. I fully support osm and if someone wants to cite references to anything otherwise please do. I also think the forks are a good idea to increase competition, and as programmer, I think there will be more jobs out there when there are more forks and more server than one central server. thanks, mike ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Looks like Nearmap is gone from JOSM slippymap plugin
On 27 November 2010 19:08, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: You can of course fork whatever you like, but allow me to point out that (1) if you are unhappy with the slippy map plugin, why not fork that instead of the whole editor. (2) the slippy map plugin can be configured via the preferences to use almost any kind of data source, whether legal or not; it is just that the *default* datasources that are available with one click should not contain something that causes licensing problems down the line. Yes. I should have been more specific. You don't actually need to fork the plugin since you can add custom tile locations, details have been on the Nearmap wiki page for quite some time because it's useful for using past imagery, not just current imagery: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nearmap#JOSM ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: 1. OSMF needs a written out strategic plan. Hear, hear. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Looks like Nearmap is gone from JOSM slippymap plugin
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Warning, if you use this imagery, you will most likely not be able to agree to the CTs at any time in the future. When OSM changes its license, all your contributions will be have to be removed from the live OSM database. Are you sure you want to continue? I find your presumption that there will never be any CT wording that is compatible with use of third-party CC-BY-SA sources offensive. Do you know something we don't? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Looks like Nearmap is gone from JOSM slippymap plugin
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:59 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Does this mean talks with Nearmap has failed to come to an amicable arrangement? From http://www.mail-archive.com/talk-au@openstreetmap.org/msg06524.html Where, Ben Last said: 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. Seems like it just took a little longer for this to be reflected in the JOSM plugin. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
Steve Bennett wrote: Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: 1. OSMF needs a written out strategic plan. Hear, hear. The equivalent of Patches welcome in this case is: OSMF is a democratically elected body. Candidates welcome. I guess 2011's elections will take place at the start of July as usual. (Last year's election: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM10/Election_to_Board ) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/license-change-map-tp5759109p5780641.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] Looks like Nearmap is gone from JOSM slippymap plugin
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 17:57:25 -0500 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:59 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Does this mean talks with Nearmap has failed to come to an amicable arrangement? From http://www.mail-archive.com/talk-au@openstreetmap.org/msg06524.html Where, Ben Last said: 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. Seems like it just took a little longer for this to be reflected in the JOSM plugin. No-one 'asked' for removal from JOSM. No-one announced its removal from JOSM. It was found to be removed by a concerned person checking the code. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:12:32 -0800 (PST) Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: OSMF is a democratically elected body. Candidates welcome. I guess 2011's elections will take place at the start of July as usual. I can honestly say that I do not have time available to put into such a job in the near future. Standing as a candidate when you have not the time to provide the input is morally wrong. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Steve Bennett wrote: Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: 1. OSMF needs a written out strategic plan. Hear, hear. The equivalent of Patches welcome in this case is: OSMF is a democratically elected body. Candidates welcome. ...provided they've paid their membership dues. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OSMF Fwd: license change map
On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 15:12 -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote: OSMF is a democratically elected body. Candidates welcome. I guess 2011's elections will take place at the start of July as usual. (Last year's election: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM10/Election_to_Board ) Out of interest, how come only 3 names are shown as 'elected' on that page, but the foundation page lists 7 members? Is the entire board required to stand down every year, before elections are held? Having been on the board of a non-profit for many years, looking at the minutes, the election process either seems wrongly done or wrongly minuted. Interestingly, I notice the number of foundation members is dropping over previous years, 2009 numbers were over 250, where 2010 numbers were only 130. Has any effort been made to find out why so many former members decided not to rejoin? I note in minutes from October, that an action item enquired why so many people have unsubscribed from osmf mailing list dating back to May which Mike was to follow up, which is still pending. Id be interested to know these reasons too.. is it because these members (or former members) are feeling the OSMF is moving in one direction regardless of the influence they try to have, and are simply leaving the group and possibly even the project feeling that even though its an open project, theres a one-track minded foundation at the helm? It is revealing seeing some of these details, as being secretary of a non-profit I can only imagine what would happen if our minutes were sparsely written like these, action items were simply deferred until forgotten, and important tasks passed off to 'working groups' whos outcomes arent published back into the minutes. Do the various working groups publish their own minutes or decisions, or do we just find out what they decide after the changes have taken place, such as the JOSM/Nearmap issue recently? David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
