Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
On 16 June 2011 17:50, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Here is as much information as I can give. It is not conclusive so I would summarise by saying that I *personally* (great emphasis!) have some contributions derived from OS StreetView data and have accepted the new terms without qualms. I explain my reasons below and what I intend to do. I hope they help you make up your own mind either way if you are in a similar situation. Thank you for this, but I believe it only addresses half of the issue, namely whether OS OpenData can be distributed under ODbL. The other half is whether OS OpenData is compatible with the OSM Contributor Terms. If I've understood things correctly, the CTs (in particular Clause 2) go further than ODbL compatibility, and require you to have additional rights to grant to OSMF on your contributions. My reading of clause 2 is that it requires your contributions to be able to be distributed under any free and open license. Some have disputed this view, claiming that the intent of the CTs is only that you must warrant that your data is compatible with the current licenses. Can you confirm LWG's position on this, and if it's been subject to legal review? Can you also confirm whether or not the legal review of Os OpenData also looked at the compatibility of OS OpenData with clause 2 of the OSM Contributor Terms? I've provided reasoning at http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Robert%20Whittaker as to why I believe the two are not compatible. I've yet to see any argument to explain why my reasoning there is incorrect. Given that I've made use of OS OpenData in the past, I could probably be persuaded to sign the CTs based on the requirements of clause 1 (ODbL compatibility), but not with the additional requirements of clause 2. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable in my view that individual mappers are being forced to make complicated legal decisions like this, when even the LWG is not prepared to do so officially. Unless you want to postpone the move to phase 4 or have another solution, I would suggest that you must amend the CTs to provide an explicit exemption from clauses 1 and 2 for any IP connected with OS OpenData. This way, everyone could happily sign the CTs, and OSMF/LWG can sort out the legal issues surrounding whether or not they are able to distribute OS OpenData derived content at their leisure. LWG should also issue firm guidance on whether or not CT-accepted mappers may continue to use OS OpenData until these issues are resolved. Regards, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 13:50 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: If I've understood things correctly, the CTs (in particular Clause 2) go further than ODbL compatibility, and require you to have additional rights to grant to OSMF on your contributions. My reading of clause 2 is that it requires your contributions to be able to be distributed under any free and open license. Some have disputed this view, claiming that the intent of the CTs is only that you must warrant that your data is compatible with the current licenses. Well, since the contributor terms are an agreement made as a contributor, one is not necessarily making any statement about the compatibility of OS open data - one could lie, or think its fine, or simply take a pragmatic view that current licenses are fine and someone else can worry about it further down the line if and when it becomes a problem, with a reasonable assumption that the OSMF aren't going to sue (I assume that's who the agreement is made with?). cheers, Henry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
If OSMF were to claim that the CTs prove that all its data is relicensable to anything that's free and open then they're daft. In practice it's relicensable to something that's a bit narrower than that, and which would almost certainly comply with the spirit of the OS license, if not the (similarly impractical) letter. It's grey, it's going to stay grey. If you want white, try elsewhere. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Customised Maps (was OSM Analysis New Data and bot)
zomg, kothic looks awesome, I'll definitely be giving that a whirl. :-) On 16 Jun 2011, at 22:24, Graham Jones wrote: Hi Adam, The kothic system that Richard pointed you to is well worth a look - it renders very pretty maps. I think it uses a styling language similar to the 'carto' one I talked about. I haven't looked at how you actually customise it without setting up your own server yet though. If you want to have a look at mapnik and OSM, the instructions on the OSM wiki are a good place to start (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapnik). The biggest difference between the mapnik tutorial that you used is that yours used data from a 'shape file'. The OSM style uses a postgresql database to hold the main OSM data, and a number of shape files for coastlines, built up areas etc. I find the postgresql bit the tricky bit - follow the instructions on Mapnik/PostGIS to set that up (linked from the Mapnik page). Have fun! Graham. On 16 June 2011 21:09, Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com wrote: Hey Graham, All very helpful information, thank you very very much :-) I just managed to figure out where I got to. I basically followed the tutorial here: http://trac.mapnik.org/wiki/GettingStarted to save you clicking it, I haven't even got the osm stylesheet yet, but I have rendered a rather sweet view of the entire world. Not too shabby, and not exactly advanced, but I was quite happy. So any pointers for the biggest learning curve bit? ;-) Maybe I should wait for the thang Richard mentioned, although I'd love to get something at a more local level than the entire world rendered in Mapnik, just so I can tick that off my to-do list :-) ttfn, Adam On 15 Jun 2011, at 22:41, Graham Jones wrote: Hi Adam, No problem - these lists have been a bit busy over the last few days If you have got mapnik running and generating maps using the 'standard' osm stylesheet, you have got over the biggest learning curve.You will probably have noticed that the 'standard' osm stylesheet is very complicated - this is because it renders lots of different information differently at different zoom levels. If you want to add contours, it is possible to do that by importing the contours into your postgresql database, and modifying the standard osm style file to plot them. I have a crude example of this at http://code.google.com/p/ntmisc/source/browse/#svn%2Fkefalonia_map - all my changes compared to the standard osm style file are in the 'inc' directory - I added a file that defines the style for the contour line drawing, and also changed some other files to include the new one - search the osm wiki for contours to see how to get contours into your postgresql database. I did a little write up on how I did this (but not much detail I am afraid) at http://nerdytoad.blogspot.com/2011/04/kefalonia-map.html. To work on building up a mapnik stylesheet from scratch to get a better understanding of how it works, I would suggest starting on a simple transparent overlay to display over other map tiles. I put together a few slides on my version of how to render map data with mapnik, which you can see at http://maps3.org.uk/doc/index.html. If you look at http://maps3.org.uk/osm_opendata, the 'about' link has a bit of a descripton of how I produced the overlays for that map (another example of a very simple overlay). Both of the above examples use the standard xml stylesheet for mapnik. I have been experimenting with a different way of producing the xml stylesheet using a different language and a pre-processor called 'carto'. I did a little write up at http://nerdytoad.blogspot.com/2011/05/rendering-openstreetmap-data-using.html on where I have got to - It is much less complete than the full OSM stylesheet, and I think I need to learn some of the tricks used in that style to make the map look better, but I think it is simpler to see what it is doing, so I think I will stick with this for simple things. Hope that gets you started. Let me know if you get stuck and I will see what I can do. The mapnik-users mailing list is a good place to ask for help too. Regards Graham. On 15 June 2011 14:22, Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com wrote: Hi Graham, Sorry, I got a bit over excited and subscribed to tons of OSM mailing lists and so totally missed your awesome reply :-( Sorry if I wasn't clear - I've successfully got Mapnik installed (did it a week or three ago and it was pretty painless as far as I recall), so am particularly after a sample config file to start from, particularly one with hill contours / gradients / whatever-they-are-really-called-outside-the-confines-of-my-head. Altho' having said that the package that Parveen Arora is putting together looks pretty awesome, so maybe I should hold out for that, even tho' it looks more
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
On 17 June 2011 14:11, Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net wrote: Well, since the contributor terms are an agreement made as a contributor, one is not necessarily making any statement about the compatibility of OS open data I'm sorry, but if you've used OS OpenData in previous contributions, that's precisely what you are doing by agreeing to clause 2. - one could lie, or think its fine, or I'm afraid I don't find a community that asks its members to sign something knowing that it it likely to be false to be a very healthy community to be part of. If it's believed that OS OpenData should be kept in OSM, then we should amend the CTs to make it clear that it can be. simply take a pragmatic view that current licenses are fine and someone else can worry about it further down the line if and when it becomes a problem, with a reasonable assumption that the OSMF aren't going to sue (I assume that's who the agreement is made with?). But the whole point of clause 2 in the current CTs is to ensure that we only have to worry about this compatibility issue once, and don't have to come back to it with every license change. It's within OSMF's powers to amend the Contributor Terms to remove the requirement to guarantee future license compatibility if that is what they / the community wished to do. Given that they have not done so, one has to assume that they don't wish people to sign if they cannot give that guarantee. It's therefore not helpful to the community if people sign to agree to something that isn't true. If lots of people have been doing this, then it makes clause 2 rather pointless, and is even more of a reason to remove or amend it. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
On 17 June 2011 14:19, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: If OSMF were to claim that the CTs prove that all its data is relicensable to anything that's free and open then they're daft. In practice it's relicensable to something that's a bit narrower than that, and which would almost certainly comply with the spirit of the OS license, if not the (similarly impractical) letter. It's grey, it's going to stay grey. If you want white, try elsewhere. Why does it have to stay grey? If OSMF is happy to allow OS OpenData to be kept in OSM, then they could simply amend the contributor terms to explicitly allow it.* Then everything would be clear, and those who've used OS OpenData could sign the CTs with a clear conscience. If people have been signing anyway, this won't allow any additional 'tainting' of the OSM database beyond what there already is, but it would save a lot of discussion time and the risk of losing valuable contributions and contributors. Robert. * In fact I've previously argued that the CTs would be far better if they were based on a list of explicitly allowable licenses / sources, rather than requiring individual mappers to make legal decisions on license compatibility. This would be clearer for everyone, has more chance of people understanding what they can and can't use, and so has more chance of keeping 'undesirable' data (whatever that might be) from getting in to the OSM database. OSMF would then have a much better idea of where they stood in relation to any future license change. I've yet to hear an explanation of why this approach wasn't adopted. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
Robert wrote: My reading of clause 2 is that it requires your contributions to be able to be distributed under any free and open license. Some have disputed this view, claiming that the intent of the CTs is only that you must warrant that your data is compatible with the current licenses. I think you're overly concerned about clause 2 when 1a and 1b of the CTs[1] seem fairly clear, in particular: 1a) If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms And if the OSM licence ever changes again and the data is then deemed incompatible then the OSMF can delete it (the rest of 1a and 1b). Andy Allan also provided a good argued answer to a similar question to yours on http://help.openstreetmap.org [2] in case you haven't seen it. Ed [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms [2] http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/5792/can-i-accept-the-new-co ntributor-terms-if-ive-contributed-data-from-ordnance-survey-opendat a ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
You keep mentioning the OSMF when I think you really mean the LWG. On 6/17/2011 9:44 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: On 17 June 2011 14:19, Richard Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: If OSMF were to claim that the CTs prove that all its data is relicensable to anything that's free and open then they're daft. In practice it's relicensable to something that's a bit narrower than that, and which would almost certainly comply with the spirit of the OS license, if not the (similarly impractical) letter. It's grey, it's going to stay grey. If you want white, try elsewhere. Why does it have to stay grey? If OSMF is happy to allow OS OpenData to be kept in OSM, then they could simply amend the contributor terms to explicitly allow it.* Then everything would be clear, and those who've used OS OpenData could sign the CTs with a clear conscience. If people have been signing anyway, this won't allow any additional 'tainting' of the OSM database beyond what there already is, but it would save a lot of discussion time and the risk of losing valuable contributions and contributors. Robert. * In fact I've previously argued that the CTs would be far better if they were based on a list of explicitly allowable licenses / sources, rather than requiring individual mappers to make legal decisions on license compatibility. This would be clearer for everyone, has more chance of people understanding what they can and can't use, and so has more chance of keeping 'undesirable' data (whatever that might be) from getting in to the OSM database. OSMF would then have a much better idea of where they stood in relation to any future license change. I've yet to hear an explanation of why this approach wasn't adopted. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
