Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:42:01 +1100 Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > Let's talk real advice, from the old white haired lady, who has been > on non-profit Boards and for-profit Boards over the last 15 years. Just published is this guide from the Institute of Directors and some others, for UK registered unlisted companies http://www.iod.com/MainWebsite/Resources/Document/corp_gov_guidance_and_principles_for_unlisted_companies_in_the_uk_final_1011.pdf Definitely worth a read, and should be compulsory for all those serving on the OSMF Board. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Neal Schulz wrote: > Hi, > >>In any case, "candidates welcome" was a ridiculous comment. > > I agree with this... If the only way to give feedback to an organisation is > to run for a position... well it's a ridiculous notion. > > I have been trying to stay out of the licensing issue because I really don't > understand the details. I am also going to dive into real geek work now and get out of this discussion. I love to talk about licenses and such, but unless I have some compelling code or data, no one will listen to me. I don't spend money on memberships of any sort, I am a member of no parties, subscribe to no magazines or newspapers and really don't spend money on things that I don't think are important, and if my work is not of value to some, others might find it good. I am going to try my best to work with the osmf, and with everyone else, donating time and resources to open data and open sources, free software and freedom. mike ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
Hi, >In any case, "candidates welcome" was a ridiculous comment. I agree with this... If the only way to give feedback to an organisation is to run for a position... well it's a ridiculous notion. I have been trying to stay out of the licensing issue because I really don't understand the details. I have watched with interest trying to see both sides. What does irk me is that I have been a mapper for about three years. When I started mapping in Hobart it was literally blank. However, the only way I heard about the licensing changes was second-hand on the talk-au list. OSM has a built in messaging system - how hard would it be to notify mappers of this issue and yet I have never been directly contacted about this. If it wasn't for people bringing it up on talk-au I would have no idea anything was afoot. I suspect there are many mappers who still have no idea that there is a proposed license change. That is not broad consultation and it makes it LOOK like people are trying to sneak something through. Regards, Neal ___ 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] Fwd: license change map
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 6:02 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > I can see the legal line of thought for paying to belong to a company / > organisation. I can too. Annual membership dues provide a mechanism for a member to 1) show who they are (thereby making it more difficult to obtain multiple votes), and 2) show that they continue to be interested in being a member. Providing 1 and 2 without any payment at all would wind up costing the organization money. I certainly don't think every contributor should be instantly admitted to the organization. That would be a legal nightmare. On the other hand, a provision for the waiver of annual dues in certain situations would be appropriate. Most of all I just wanted to point out that "candidates welcome" was a ridiculous comment, though. The vast majority of the volunteers are not even members in the OSMF, so our voice to express disagreement with the policies and management of the OSMF is appropriately on the mailing lists. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Mike Dupont > wrote: >> Yeah, I dont pay in money, I pay in code and data. Does that count? >> Also I payed in trips all over to collect data, dinners with people, etc etc. >> Why do I need to pay money to a bank account so that I have a say? >> FAIL! > > You could make that argument for virtually every volunteer > organisation. Like the volunteer fire department I used to work for, which, by the way, waived my annual membership dues, and collected donations from the recipients of the donated labor, not the volunteers providing it. > Virtually all organisations need some kind of funds, and > if there is no other form of revenue, it comes from members. Nothing > unusual there. I don't know what is usual, but usual doesn't mean appropriate. In any case, "candidates welcome" was a ridiculous comment. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:43:52 +0100 Mike Dupont wrote: > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Steve Bennett > wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Mike Dupont > > wrote: > >> Yeah, I dont pay in money, I pay in code and data. Does that count? > >> Also I payed in trips all over to collect data, dinners with > >> people, etc etc. Why do I need to pay money to a bank account so > >> that I have a say? FAIL! > > > > You could make that argument for virtually every volunteer > > organisation. Virtually all organisations need some kind of funds, > > and if there is no other form of revenue, it comes from members. > > Nothing unusual there. > > The question is of funds for voting rights or merit for voting rights. > > This means that the people with funds will have a vote and the people > who are just working will not. > > mike > I can see the legal line of thought for paying to belong to a company / organisation. I do support the right of those without large amounts of cash - students, those living in developing countries - to have a say. All contributions to the project need to be valued - code, data, server maintenance and cash. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Mike Dupont > wrote: >> Yeah, I dont pay in money, I pay in code and data. Does that count? >> Also I payed in trips all over to collect data, dinners with people, etc etc. >> Why do I need to pay money to a bank account so that I have a say? >> FAIL! > > You could make that argument for virtually every volunteer > organisation. Virtually all organisations need some kind of funds, and > if there is no other form of revenue, it comes from members. Nothing > unusual there. The question is of funds for voting rights or merit for voting rights. This means that the people with funds will have a vote and the people who are just working will not. mike ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Mike Dupont wrote: > Yeah, I dont pay in money, I pay in code and data. Does that count? > Also I payed in trips all over to collect data, dinners with people, etc etc. > Why do I need to pay money to a bank account so that I have a say? > FAIL! You could make that argument for virtually every volunteer organisation. Virtually all organisations need some kind of funds, and if there is no other form of revenue, it comes from members. Nothing unusual there. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Richard Fairhurst > wrote: >> >> Steve Bennett wrote: >>> Elizabeth Dodd 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. Yeah, I dont pay in money, I pay in code and data. Does that count? Also I payed in trips all over to collect data, dinners with people, etc etc. Why do I need to pay money to a bank account so that I have a say? FAIL! > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ 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 wrote: > > Steve Bennett wrote: >> Elizabeth Dodd 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] Fwd: license change map
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:12:32 -0800 (PST) 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. 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
Steve Bennett wrote: > Elizabeth Dodd 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] Fwd: license change map
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Elizabeth Dodd 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] Fwd: license change map
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Elizabeth Dodd 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] Fwd: license change map
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:33:15 + Grant Slater wrote: > > Elizabeth, I tried to start a discussion with you offlist a few months > ago, instead you decided to belittle me about my age. (I haven't had > that since I was in my twenties so maybe I am just being overly > sensitive.) > Since you have stated: "I will continue to be somewhat disruptive on > the lists and remain polite while doing so." > I found a similar statement in a prominent developer's wiki page too :D > Lets leave the past and restart... > > Could you kindly restate your questions and I will attempt to answer > them to the best of my ability. > > Regards > Grant 1. Discussions are public. They go into a place where they are archived. 2. The questions continue, exactly the same while differing a little with time. A. From where does OSMF get a mandate to change the licence? There was a plebiscite of OSMF members only, and of those eligible to vote, less than half wanted to go with ODbL. B. What is the real timeline? At what time will a decision be made one way or the other? It's Ok, I read in the minutes of OSMF Board that the 'way to go' was by attrition. C. What are the real amounts of data that OSMF Board is willing to remove to achieve its aim of licence change? Is this a global quantity? Is it OK to decimate the map in a smaller place eg Chile or Australia if the rest of the world goes ODbL? Or is not OK? Let's talk real advice, from the old white haired lady, who has been on non-profit Boards and for-profit Boards over the last 15 years. 1. OSMF needs a written out strategic plan. Where the Board would like to see the organisation be in 3 or 5 years; how they plan to get there (usually vague); how success will be measured; who is responsible for achieving success. So if the goal is to have every potential source of aerial imagery freed up for tracing purposes - is this a legal battle to prove that traced work does not infringe copyright OR perhaps the system of persuading those who buy imagery to share their wealth with OSM. Who negotiates, how do we measure success are noted. 2. OSMF needs a business or annual plan, written out. Take the above goals and decide how much we can bite off this year, be precise about the goal. So the Board might authorise Mr Coast to negotiate with Bing to get access to imagery. The Board would decide if any concessions are offered to the donor, or no concessions at all. 3. OSMF Board members need to state their conflicts of interest and these must be recorded in the minutes. This is a legal requirement where I live, and I think it would be in the UK, where OSMF is registered. Following the declaration of conflicts of interest the Board then decides how to handle the conflict of interest. It is common practice for people to leave the room or the teleconference at these points, but not obligatory. The Board needs to make these decisions knowing that they need to withstand the scrutiny of company members. 4. OSMF Board must be prepared to admit when things aren't going as planned and discuss whether a change of priorities is in order. 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 to the business (annual) plan and then the statement would be "we expect to be at point XYZ at date ABC, and if we do not reach this the Board will have to review progress formally". There are other ways of reviewing the progress of the organisation. Reviews of potential threats and new opportunities need to happen. Some Boards do this formally because they have staff to go through such things. Others make sure that the question appears on the meeting agenda so that members are prompted to mention new matters. Volunteer based organisations and volunteer boards have difficulties getting people with enough time to make sure that the organisation runs smoothly. The legal status of a volunteer board is the same as one of a large public company, and the government office with oversight of registered companies will not accept a defence of "we're volunteers and we didn't have time or we didn't know better". Specifics vary between jurisdictions, so I don't want to write an essay on governance of an organisation Australian style when the details may be quite wrong for OSMF. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:18:07 + Richard Fairhurst wrote: > [off-list] > > > I have been labelled a 'troll' which I am not, and > > been the subject of personal abuse by SteveC. > > Hang about. I'm not SteveC and I wouldn't necessarily class him as > among "the guys who are doing stuff" that I referred to. I wouldn't > say "oh, all the Australians are a PITA because one of them said > this". > > Richard > > this was quite deliberately done in this provocative manner because you were claiming that all was very friendly in OSM and it simply is not I have not been rude to anyone on a public list but I certainly have been the recipient of derogatory comments on an OSM list and to prove my point that this happens, I made a similar suggestion to yourself, that is, to shut up because I am in disagreement. I ask questions which are still valid, and they are not answered, but ignored. I'm still mapping, because I'm filling the database with more hundreds of km of CC-by-SA data, just having taken the scenic way home from the feedlot this morning to 'get' more roads. and so I am an active participant in this project, as I have been for 3 years ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On 22 November 2010 20:02, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > > I find this quite offensive. Because I have discussed things and asked > questions, while indicating that I do not agree, I have been treated > extremely rudely on other OSM mailing lists, in particular by persons > in 'high places'. I have been labelled a 'troll' which I am not, and > been the subject of personal abuse by SteveC. > > All that has happened is polarisation of the debate, and I firmly > suggest that if you read talk-au you never post again. > Elizabeth, I tried to start a discussion with you offlist a few months ago, instead you decided to belittle me about my age. (I haven't had that since I was in my twenties so maybe I am just being overly sensitive.) Since you have stated: "I will continue to be somewhat disruptive on the lists and remain polite while doing so." Lets leave the past and restart... Could you kindly restate your questions and I will attempt to answer them to the best of my ability. Regards Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > I don't agree with ODBL. I don't think that it is right that those > providing manipulated data eg data ready for a navigation app > (Navit, Garmin format) should have to provide access to a planet > dump of OSM as well. They don't have to. ODbL 4.6b: "You must also offer to recipients... A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database or the method of making the alterations to the Database (such as an algorithm), including any additional Contents, that make up all the differences between the Database and the Derivative Database." That could be as simple as the command line you used to invoke mkgmap, copied and pasted into a text file. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/license-change-map-tp5759109p5764232.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] Fwd: license change map
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:59:13 -0800 (PST) Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Because when you engage with the guys who are > doing stuff, make suggestions, talk to them in a friendly manner, the > result is better for everyone. That applies as much to licence > discussions as it does to OSM software or website development. But > when you throw assumptions and resentment around and assume the > worst, yes, the worst usually happens. I find this quite offensive. Because I have discussed things and asked questions, while indicating that I do not agree, I have been treated extremely rudely on other OSM mailing lists, in particular by persons in 'high places'. I have been labelled a 'troll' which I am not, and been the subject of personal abuse by SteveC. All that has happened is polarisation of the debate, and I firmly suggest that if you read talk-au you never post again. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:50:09 +1100 Steve Bennett wrote: > But I also > haven't yet seen any reasons, other than sheer bloody mindedness, why > a person who was happy to contribute under a CC-BY-SA licence would be > unhappy to do so under ODbL, assuming they were able to do so. I don't agree with ODBL. I don't think that it is right that those providing manipulated data eg data ready for a navigation app (Navit, Garmin format) should have to provide access to a planet dump of OSM as well. I also am a 'share-alike' person, and those who use the data need to add their additions to the pool of data. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
David Murn wrote: > the problem is that the powers-that-be dont seem to want to > address the problematic terms and simply tell people the > decisions have already been made, and to cease discussion. > Hardly the way to run an open community project. I realise the phrase "assume good faith" is becoming increasingly over-used in these discussions, but if the above were true, then the Contributor Terms would still be in 1.0. Instead there's now a 1.2 draft, plus a whole bunch of smaller incremental revisions along the way, as suggested by mappers. (One example: I suggested a change last week to cement compatibility with attribution-required sources, such as Ordnance Survey OpenData and those offered under CC-BY; LWG listened, agreed to incorporate the change, and it's now in the 1.2 draft.) One other phrase which sadly doesn't get as much traction as it used to is "patches welcome". There are no "powers that be" in OSM; there is no "them" and "us". It's a collaborative project. It's all "us". If you want something changed, help to change it. Because when you engage with the guys who are doing stuff, make suggestions, talk to them in a friendly manner, the result is better for everyone. That applies as much to licence discussions as it does to OSM software or website development. But when you throw assumptions and resentment around and assume the worst, yes, the worst usually happens. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/license-change-map-tp5759109p5763389.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] Fwd: license change map
- Original Message - From: "Richard Weait" To: "David Murn" Cc: "talk-au" Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:34 AM, David Murn wrote: On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 22:50 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: But I also haven't yet seen any reasons, other than sheer bloody mindedness, why a person who was happy to contribute under a CC-BY-SA licence would be unhappy to do so under ODbL, assuming they were able to do so. The problem occurs because people have one account, with which they do edits. Some of those edits are likely to come from different sources. A very good reason why someone wouldnt wish to accept the new terms, would be that they could have contributed data from different sources. Dear David, I realise the question was not addressed to me, but as Richard is asking for replies here's my views: Would the ability to differentially mark changesets as "for promotion to ODbL" and "not for promotion (with a helpful detail)" address this concern? Not for me it wouldn't, as its not a question of compatability with ODbL, but compatability with the proposed CT's whis is the main issue for me. The intent is to allow those with concerns about some of their data to mark it, and accept the terms for the data they are confident in. One imagined implementation would provide a checkbox and textfield for each changeset. The user then checks and adds comments as required. Notwithstanding the above, I guess at some stage I may have the opportunity to revisit all of the 7,700 changesets attributed to me, have a look to see if each one is compatible with the CT's and ODbL , and then mark it as such. Just don't expect all of the changesets to be marked that quickly. However it does at least provide a possible solution. Leaving aside the technical issues of what happens to areas where I haven't yet got round to marking a changeset which affects that area, and in the meantime someone comes along and edits that areas data, and then I subsequently mark my origonal changeset affecting that area as OK. David If this addresses your concern in this case, please let me know. I'll be happy to summarize the replies during the LWG call in a little over 24 hours. A positive response would be lovely. ___ 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] Fwd: license change map
- Original Message - From: "Richard Weait" To: "David Murn" Cc: "talk-au" Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:34 AM, David Murn wrote: On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 22:50 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: But I also haven't yet seen any reasons, other than sheer bloody mindedness, why a person who was happy to contribute under a CC-BY-SA licence would be unhappy to do so under ODbL, assuming they were able to do so. The problem occurs because people have one account, with which they do edits. Some of those edits are likely to come from different sources. A very good reason why someone wouldnt wish to accept the new terms, would be that they could have contributed data from different sources. Dear David, Would the ability to differentially mark changesets as "for promotion to ODbL" and "not for promotion (with a helpful detail)" address this concern? The intent is to allow those with concerns about some of their data to mark it, and accept the terms for the data they are confident in. One imagined implementation would provide a checkbox and textfield for each changeset. The user then checks and adds comments as required. If this addresses your concern in this case, please let me know. I'll be happy to summarize the replies during the LWG call in a little over 24 hours. A positive response would be lovely. ___ 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] Fwd: license change map
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 7:34 AM, David Murn wrote: > On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 22:50 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> But I also haven't yet seen any reasons, other than sheer bloody mindedness, >> why >> a person who was happy to contribute under a CC-BY-SA licence would be >> unhappy to do so under ODbL, assuming they were able to do so. > > The problem occurs because people have one account, with which they do > edits. Some of those edits are likely to come from different sources. > A very good reason why someone wouldnt wish to accept the new terms, > would be that they could have contributed data from different sources. Dear David, Would the ability to differentially mark changesets as "for promotion to ODbL" and "not for promotion (with a helpful detail)" address this concern? The intent is to allow those with concerns about some of their data to mark it, and accept the terms for the data they are confident in. One imagined implementation would provide a checkbox and textfield for each changeset. The user then checks and adds comments as required. If this addresses your concern in this case, please let me know. I'll be happy to summarize the replies during the LWG call in a little over 24 hours. A positive response would be lovely. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 22:50 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: > But I also haven't yet seen any reasons, other than sheer bloody mindedness, > why > a person who was happy to contribute under a CC-BY-SA licence would be > unhappy to do so under ODbL, assuming they were able to do so. The problem occurs because people have one account, with which they do edits. Some of those edits are likely to come from different sources. A very good reason why someone wouldnt wish to accept the new terms, would be that they could have contributed data from different sources. > You know, we can do this without the inflammatory language. So you're > happy with ODbL, but not happy with the "some future free licence > voted on by our members" clause? Agreed - it's problematic. I get the > impression some people are unhappy with the change to ODbL *per se* > though. If not, I've just misunderstood again. So, we both agree that its a problem that will cause people to not wish to sign up unless the powers that be make some clarifications. I think everyone agrees that is the case, the problem is that the powers-that-be dont seem to want to address the problematic terms and simply tell people the decisions have already been made, and to cease discussion. Hardly the way to run an open community project. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 6:11 PM, David Murn wrote: > Thats fine for data that is sourced from NearMap. What about other data > sources, such as imports and the like? Having said that, if the CTs are > accepted by one group, Im sure theyll be accepted by most, as it seems > that everyone has the same problems with it. I'm using "Nearmap" as a surrogate for a class of sources of data that is open-source but not owned by those who would be uploading it. We're lucky that NearMap articulated the problem early enough to do something about it. I'm assuming the LWG haven't even thought about a specific Nearmap exemption. > This is fine for your own individual GPS traces and your own work, but > what about derived work? Should everyone elses data be relicenced to > ODbL? What about if another project decided to use work youd done, and > then relicenced it under their own licence? Should they have no > sympathy for the work you did and respect your rights? Why are data > sources not entitled to be treated the way youd like yours to be > treated? Why should someone spend resources to collect data, then > release it freely, only to have it relicenced under terms they may not > even know about, letalone agree with? Your five consecutive questions here all seem predicated on there being no distinction between an active current contributor who is in a position to assess the licence change and agree to it, and some former contributor or third party data source. No, you can't re-license someone's data without their permission, that's clear. But I also haven't yet seen any reasons, other than sheer bloody mindedness, why a person who was happy to contribute under a CC-BY-SA licence would be unhappy to do so under ODbL, assuming they were able to do so. > Would you write OSM a contract, have it signed and witnessed, but > leaving a big blank spot for OSM to fill in with whatever they may see > fit to put there in the future (but dont worry, they wont change the > contract to their favour against yours, because theyre an 'open' group.. > now part owned by a private business).. THAT is the 'philosophical > problem' I think Liz and a lot of us others have with the current > proposal. Although Im happy to be corrected by Liz if this isnt the > case. You know, we can do this without the inflammatory language. So you're happy with ODbL, but not happy with the "some future free licence voted on by our members" clause? Agreed - it's problematic. I get the impression some people are unhappy with the change to ODbL *per se* though. If not, I've just misunderstood again. So, I guess that leaves a number of positions people can take: 1) Happy with ODbL, happy with future licence change clause, unencumbered by other licences (eg Nearmap), happy to sign up. 2) Happy with ODbL, happy with future licence change clause, but can't sign up due to other licences in effect 3) Happy with ODbL, unhappy with future licence change clause, (and could either be encumbered or unencumbered), so won't sign up 4) Unhappy with ODbL. So I guess I'm 2, you're 3, and I thought anyone who was talking about an "OSM CC-BY-SA" fork was 4. Steve Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: license change map
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 17:29 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: > But maybe I misunderstood the target of the email. I guess there are > three possible outcomes of the licence debate: > 1) The CTs get sorted out so that NearMap etc are happy with them, and > OSM switches to ODbL. However, some people refuse to accept the CTs > anyway. Thats fine for data that is sourced from NearMap. What about other data sources, such as imports and the like? Having said that, if the CTs are accepted by one group, Im sure theyll be accepted by most, as it seems that everyone has the same problems with it. > I had thought Nick's post was talking about scenario 2, and the work > that would be lost. But judging from other people's comments, it looks > like it was aimed at 1, and particularly people who decide not to > relicence their own work as ODbL. I confess to not having a lot of > sympathy for the latter. This is fine for your own individual GPS traces and your own work, but what about derived work? Should everyone elses data be relicenced to ODbL? What about if another project decided to use work youd done, and then relicenced it under their own licence? Should they have no sympathy for the work you did and respect your rights? Why are data sources not entitled to be treated the way youd like yours to be treated? Why should someone spend resources to collect data, then release it freely, only to have it relicenced under terms they may not even know about, letalone agree with? > The proposed CTs are simply broken. But presumably people like Stephen > Hope and me will sign up as soon as that incompatibility is resolved - > it's not a philosophical objection, which people like Liz Dodd seem to > have. Would you write OSM a contract, have it signed and witnessed, but leaving a big blank spot for OSM to fill in with whatever they may see fit to put there in the future (but dont worry, they wont change the contract to their favour against yours, because theyre an 'open' group.. now part owned by a private business).. THAT is the 'philosophical problem' I think Liz and a lot of us others have with the current proposal. Although Im happy to be corrected by Liz if this isnt the case. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
