Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 46, Issue 2
The only issue is the current OSM license is fine, however if you read what you have agreed to you by uploading you permit OSM to change the license in the future without restriction and there is a possibility that a new OSM license which you have agreed to is incompatible with the source license. Its the same for all imports. My take on it is anything I map directly ie by observation or GPS trace the license is fine, anything else I'm not comfortable with giving OSM permission to use in anyway they see fit in the future. Note if they decide not to change the license there is no issue but if they do you have already agreed that the data you have uploaded maybe licensed in any way OSM wishes to in the future. Cheerio John On 4 December 2011 17:49, Tyler Gunn wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 5:03 PM, john whelan wrote: > > The .ODBL license you have agreed to allows OSM to change the license in > the > > future on any data you have uploaded to OSM. Are you quite certain that > the > > Manitoba Lands Initiative license allows you to do this? > > CANVEC is a little different in that the licensing has been looked into > from > > both sides and both seem comfortable. > > I'd mentioned the use of Manitoba Lands Initiative data in the past, > and nobody saw issues with the license at that point. > > The license is as follows; my take on it is: > > 1.03(c) is where my use in OSM applies; I'm not using it verbatim and > am indeed deriving my own work. > 1.04 applies as I'm using a derived work; I choose to relicense my > derivative work as ODBL. > 1.05 is met in my derivative works, as I mark the cadastral polygons > with "(c)2001 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Manitoba. All rights > reserved." > > > - > Reserved Rights and Grant of Limited Licence > > 1.01All Data is copyrighted, © 2001, Her Majesty the Queen in Right > of Manitoba. All rights reserved. The User acknowledges that the > Data is protected under the Copyright Act (Canada). > > 1.02The Data is provided free of charge and royalty-free to the User > for use, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. > Manitoba retains all ownership interests in the Data. > > 1.03Subject to clauses 1.04 and 1.05, the User is hereby granted a > limited licence to: > > (a) select, print or arrange all of, or portions or features from > these Data; > (b) distribute Data, free of charge, in its original source form; and > (c) process, analyze or otherwise use these Data in the development of > new, derived works or value added products. > > 1.04The User may sell, lease or sublicense the Data contained in new, > derived works or value added products only. Reproducing or > redistributing the Data for sale, lease or sublicense in its original > source form, in whole or in part, without such modifications is > strictly prohibited. Users are encouraged to come to the originating > source to access the most current version of the Data. > > 1.05When the Data is being distributed, free of charge, in its > original source form as permitted by clause 1.03(b), or when using the > Data in new representations, derived works and value added products as > permitted by clause 1.03(c), the User shall reference the source of > information as: “© 2001 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Manitoba. > All rights reserved.” > > > - > > In any case, I've emailed MLI for clarification. Should they decide > my use is inappropriate (the license wording seems pretty unambiguous > to me, but I'm not a lawyer), I'll remove my contributions based on > this work. > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 46, Issue 2
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 5:03 PM, john whelan wrote: > The .ODBL license you have agreed to allows OSM to change the license in the > future on any data you have uploaded to OSM. Are you quite certain that the > Manitoba Lands Initiative license allows you to do this? > CANVEC is a little different in that the licensing has been looked into from > both sides and both seem comfortable. I'd mentioned the use of Manitoba Lands Initiative data in the past, and nobody saw issues with the license at that point. The license is as follows; my take on it is: 1.03(c) is where my use in OSM applies; I'm not using it verbatim and am indeed deriving my own work. 1.04 applies as I'm using a derived work; I choose to relicense my derivative work as ODBL. 1.05 is met in my derivative works, as I mark the cadastral polygons with "(c)2001 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Manitoba. All rights reserved." - Reserved Rights and Grant of Limited Licence 1.01All Data is copyrighted, © 2001, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Manitoba. All rights reserved. The User acknowledges that the Data is protected under the Copyright Act (Canada). 1.02The Data is provided free of charge and royalty-free to the User for use, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Manitoba retains all ownership interests in the Data. 1.03Subject to clauses 1.04 and 1.05, the User is hereby granted a limited licence to: (a) select, print or arrange all of, or portions or features from these Data; (b) distribute Data, free of charge, in its original source form; and (c) process, analyze or otherwise use these Data in the development of new, derived works or value added products. 1.04The User may sell, lease or sublicense the Data contained in new, derived works or value added products only. Reproducing or redistributing the Data for sale, lease or sublicense in its original source form, in whole or in part, without such modifications is strictly prohibited. Users are encouraged to come to the originating source to access the most current version of the Data. 1.05When the Data is being distributed, free of charge, in its original source form as permitted by clause 1.03(b), or when using the Data in new representations, derived works and value added products as permitted by clause 1.03(c), the User shall reference the source of information as: “© 2001 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Manitoba. All rights reserved.” - In any case, I've emailed MLI for clarification. Should they decide my use is inappropriate (the license wording seems pretty unambiguous to me, but I'm not a lawyer), I'll remove my contributions based on this work. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] import complaints
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Steve Singer wrote: [ ... ] > If no one objects I will update the above mentioned wiki page to reflect > include those warnings. A big "yes, please" from me. :-) Though the warning about duplicates probably should go in the imports article as well. It's worth duplicating. :-) ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Re-licensing -- a good excuse to rework some data.
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:56 PM, john whelan wrote: > Personal view - why not just import the Canvec data? > > If you use keeprite to have a qeikc look at the area > http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=11&lat=45.41013&lon=-75.64619&layers=B00T&ch=0%2C30%2C40%2C50%2C60%2C70%2C90%2C100%2C110%2C120%2C130%2C150%2C160%2C170%2C180%2C191%2C192%2C193%2C194%2C195%2C196%2C197%2C198%2C201%2C202%2C203%2C204%2C205%2C206%2C207%2C208%2C210%2C220%2C231%2C232%2C270%2C281%2C282%2C283%2C284%2C291%2C292%2C293%2C311%2C312%2C350&show_ign=1&show_tmpign=1 > it appears that some roads aren't connected. Visually it prints and shows > on the web fine but the routing programs can't use it. Also manually > transcribing road names from CANVEC may introduce errors that are difficult > to detect except by labour intensive manual inspection. The CANVEC data has > been verified already. I didn't manually transcribe road names from CanVec, I copy/pasted them. Good call on the connectedness; it was sloppy for me to upload before verifying that. My reason for not just using Canvec was 2-fold: 1. CanVec (at least in MB) is missing all one-way tags on roads, meaning there is some cleanup anyways. 2. It was easier to just re-draw the roads rather than trying to adjust the CanVec roads. > The other concern is when you are working with Bing or any aerial photograph > when was the image taken? When someone comes to update the map a CANVEC > import gives some indication of version ie 6.0 etc so its a little easier to > see the changes when a new import is available. I'm quite familiar with these areas; further the MLI Imagery is from 2009; CanVec is missing many of the roads I got from the MLI imagery. > > This is a purely personal view but ask yourself why CANVEC uses tags such as > source CANVEC 6.0. Fair enough; I should probably put a year for the MLI imagery on these roads, since that is something versioned. I dunno, I could have just went with Canvec entirely, but I figured the point of OSM wasn't to just import Canvec, but instead to try and create a unique fusion of data from a number of sources. I've used Canvec in its entitrety in the past where no other better sources of information were available. In this particular area I felt it best to use a fusion of data sources. Tyler ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] import complaints
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, Connors, Bernie (SNB) wrote: Richard, Do you have a link to Import Guidelines that are specific to Canvec data? I think http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CanVec needs to have some specific guidelines for canvec imports. In particular 1. A caution to avoid importing coastlines or large lakes unless you have substantial experience importing canvec and understand how coastlines get generated/rendered in OSM. We have had enough problems/complaints with coastlines that I think we need a specific caution. 2. A warning to avoid duplicate features. (one might argue that this is obvious but the generic import guidelines don't actually mention this and clearly people are importing a lot of duplicate features) 3. To check keeprite (or something similar) after your import so you can find/fix some of the problems you will create. If no one objects I will update the above mentioned wiki page to reflect include those warnings. Steve Bernie. -- Bernie Connors, P.Eng Service New Brunswick (506) 444-2077 45°56'25.21"N, 66°38'53.65"W www.snb.ca/geonb/ -Original Message- From: Richard Weait [mailto:rich...@weait.com] Sent: Friday, 2011-12-02 13:23 To: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap Subject: [Talk-ca] import complaints dear all, I've heard some LOUD complaints about imports in Canada. Please be sure to follow the import guidelines, including special import accounts, and please be sure to check your work and fix errors. Latest issue appears to be a large broken water polygon. Best regards, Richard ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
