Re: [Talk-hr] OSM predavanje za DORS/CLUC-u ?
On 03/30/2011 09:13 AM, Valent Turkovic wrote: Ekipa da li netko sprema predavanje o OSM-u na DORS/CLUC konferenciji? http://dorscluc.org/ Predlažem da ako pripremate neko predavanje vam ja pomognem oko uvodnog dijela i odradim uvod tipa OSM for Dummies te onda prepustim ostatak predavanja vama GIS gekovima ;) Valent. bok bas razmisljam prijavit osm predavanje, teme, po malo od svega: kako je nastalo sloboda podataka osnovna struktura neke primjene stanje u svijetu poznatije akcije-haiti stanje u hrvatskoj poznatije aktivnosti/korisnici kako pomoci call for help the end prijedozi, komentari, kritike dobrodosli ___ Talk-hr mailing list Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr
[talk-ph] Fwd: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
-- Forwarded message -- From: Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:39 AM Subject: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday To: OSM talk t...@openstreetmap.org OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins this Sunday. A full announcement has gone to the Announce list and there is full information at the Find out more about OpenStreetMap's upcoming license change link on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org or directly at http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License Any help getting this out to non-English speaking mailing lists much appreciated. In summary: This only affects you if you are an OpenStreetMap contributor who registered before 12th May 2010 and have not taken part in our voluntary re-licensing program. Before being able to edit, you will have accept or decline new contributor terms. To give time to get the word out, this does not take effect until Sunday! Michael Collinson License Working Group ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions about CTs 1.2.4
On 13 April 2011 23:06, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: Clause 2 is a grant for certain rights. From previous discussion here, can I assume that I can agree if I'm not the copyright holder, and that I only grant the rights I can under the licence I received the data under? That depends very much on the licence, but for many licences the answer will be no. For example most CC licences don't give you the right to grant such a licence. If I'm reading what Francis has written correctly, this would seem to be a very real problem with CT 2.2.4, which would prevent us using almost any source which wasn't PD or for which the contributor didn't own the copyright. In particular, Francis is saying that we can't make use of CC-By or ODbL sources because of clause 2. From the caveats in clauses 3 and 4, I guess that the intention is that you should be able to use eg CC-by sources (although it's questionable whether or not downstream attribution is guaranteed under ODbL, and the possibility of a future license change is also problematic). Nevertheless, I don't even think that an agreement by OSMF to only use the Contents in a manner which is compatible with a given source license gives you the ability to make the broad rights grant in clause 2, unless the license specifically allows such a grant. (A CC-By license does not say that you can give a third-party the right to do anything restricted by copyright as long as they only use those rights in certain ways.) I though a previous version of the CTs (possibly 2.2.3) had an additional phrase in clause 2, along the lines of to the extent which you are able which I thought was designed to address this point. My interpretation of it was that it allowed you not to have to make the grant for parts of the submitted contents which were under a license that didn't allow it. The CTs then relied on clause 1 to ensure (as much as possible) that the Contents at least allowed OSMF to distribute them under the currently chosen license. Could someone from LWG please confirm the intention of clause 2 and what their legal advice is on our ability to add data from CC-By and/or ODbL sources under clause 2? Why was the extra phrase removed for this new draft? Thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Acceptable licences and splitting account edits
James Livingston lists@... writes: Using my account I have added data that is under various licences, some of which will and some of which won't be compatible with ODbL. To be able to keep any of it, I'll presumably need to split my changesets up. If Francis Davey's answer in another thread on this list is correct http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.legal/5883 then you do not need to do that. All that's needed is to agree that the data is allowed under the current licence terms (i.e. CC-BY-SA). So you can click Accept to the 1.2.4 contributor terms anyway, if you wish to support the change. It would be useful to have some way of labelling which changesets are ODbL- compatible and which are not. I guess that is a separate problem which would need to be addressed if and when there was a change of licence. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Acceptable licences and splitting account edits
On 13 April 2011 22:24, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote: With the upcoming requirement to accept/decline the contributor terms, I thought it was about time to figure out whether and how I can agree to them. I've had a look around but can't see any FAQs for the contributor terms, just for the ODbL part. I'm sure I can't be the only person in this situation, so having a list of what to do in various situations would be quite handy. Using my account I have added data that is under various licences, some of which will and some of which won't be compatible with ODbL. To be able to keep any of it, I'll presumably need to split my changesets up. 1) How do I move changesets to a new account? 2) How should they be split - one account for ODbL-compatible and ODbL-incompatible? One account per licence/source? Something else? For each of the licenses/sources, I think we should have a definitive answer as to whether they are a) ODbL compatible, and b) Contributor Terms compatible. In my case I have my own contributions, CC-BY data, CC-BY-SA data, and public domain data. In addition there is data that is derived from imagery from Yahoo, NearMap, and Bing. +1 for all of the above. In addition, I'll also need a way to search for change-sets I created with certain strings in the comments, and for edits I made that added certain strings to the source=* tag. As well as the licenses mentioned above, UK mappers will also need the results of the promised OSMF Legal Review [1] of the Open Government License, and the variant of this (which adds more stringent attribution requirements) which is now being used by Ordnance Survey for their OS OpenData products. Robert [1] See the entries for OS StreetView and OS VectorMap District in the tables at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions about CTs 1.2.4
On 14 April 2011 08:54, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: If I'm reading what Francis has written correctly, this would seem to be a very real problem with CT 2.2.4, which would prevent us using almost any source which wasn't PD or for which the contributor didn't own the copyright. In particular, Francis is saying that we can't make use of CC-By or ODbL sources because of clause 2. Strictly speaking, you can make use of them, but contributors are (i) in breach of contract in contributing that material and (ii) may (in some circumstances) infringe copyright by authorising OSMF to do acts which are infringements of the licence (eg CC...) under which the material was available. Neither of these may seem like a significant risk. (i) would only be a problem if OSMF itself, or a successor in title, decided to sue. (ii) would normally not apply. Arguably the statement of intention earlier in the CT's (to the effect that OSMF do not intend to infringe the intellectual property of any other person) is enough that a contributor could argue they are only authorising lawful use, whatever clause 2 might say. I wouldn't bet on that. The other reason (ii) may not arise is because there is in fact no way to infringe, depending on the original licence (of which there are an increasing number as governments roll their own) and what OSMF then goes on to do. NB: this isn't a formal contractual analysis, but it is generally applicable since most countries would interpret the CT's as required under English law. The IP analysis is more complex since different IP systems will be applied to decide liability. The above analysis is an attempt to look at it from the English/UK position. Things will vary abroad. From the caveats in clauses 3 and 4, I guess that the intention is that you should be able to use eg CC-by sources (although it's questionable whether or not downstream attribution is guaranteed under ODbL, and the possibility of a future license change is also problematic). Nevertheless, I don't even think that an agreement by There's also an untidy relationship between CC-by's requirement for attribution and the fact that OSMF is only obliged to attribute if asked to do so rather than in any event. OSMF to only use the Contents in a manner which is compatible with a given source license gives you the ability to make the broad rights grant in clause 2, unless the license specifically allows such a grant. (A CC-By license does not say that you can give a third-party the right to do anything restricted by copyright as long as they only use those rights in certain ways.) Right. That is, I am afraid, my point. I though a previous version of the CTs (possibly 2.2.3) had an additional phrase in clause 2, along the lines of to the extent which you are able which I thought was designed to address this point. My interpretation of it was that it allowed you not to have to make the grant for parts of the submitted contents which were under a license that didn't allow it. The CTs then relied on clause 1 to ensure (as much as possible) that the Contents at least allowed OSMF to distribute them under the currently chosen license. Right. I think it was I who suggested it. There are arguments both way: if you add such a phrase, contributors do not have to worry about whether they have the right to grant, all they are doing is granting what rights they have. That's very tidy. On the other hand it means that OSMF cannot rely on having all the rights it needs to publish the map or licence it to others. To do that OSMF needs more rights. Hence not having the phrase gives more certainty to OSMF. So neither approach is right. There's a fundamental difficulty here, namely that incoming data may be subject to a variety of rights licensed under a variety of licences. Somehow folding all that data with its disparate rights into a single product licensed under a single licence is not an easy task. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions about CTs 1.2.4
On 14 April 2011 09:34, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: Strictly speaking, you can make use of them, but contributors are (i) in breach of contract in contributing that material and (ii) may (in some circumstances) infringe copyright by authorising OSMF to do acts which are infringements of the licence (eg CC...) under which the material was available. Neither of these may seem like a significant risk. Nevertheless, I don't think it's really acceptable for OSMF to set up a contract and then ask all the volunteer contributors to knowingly breach it. So neither approach is right. There's a fundamental difficulty here, namely that incoming data may be subject to a variety of rights licensed under a variety of licences. Somehow folding all that data with its disparate rights into a single product licensed under a single licence is not an easy task. Indeed. I suggested an alternative a while ago, which would have removed the burden of this folding and license interpretations from contributors. Essentially you would require the grant in clause 2 for any material that the contributor owned, and then allow other license-encumbered material to be submitted only if it was available under a license on a OSMF approved list. Contributors would also be required to mark in some specified manner (eg the source tag, or by using separate accounts, or some new mechanism) contributions that were so encumbered. OSMF would then maintain a list of licenses it deems acceptable at the present time, taking into account the current licence and the need for flexibility in the future. If/when we wanted to change the license, individual contributors wouldn't have the option to demand the removal their own data (since they'd agreed to the grant on the copyright they owned) and it would then just be a matter of re-assessing the licences from the approved list to see if any were not now compatible. Then mandatory source marking would allow the easy removal of any now-unacceptable data, and also the assessment of what would be lost upon a proposed license change. This method seems a much more satisfactory way of doing things to me -- assuming it could work legally (IANAL). We would still have the flexibility to re-license if we needed to without individual mappers being able to hold their data hostage, and we have much clearer rules for contributors to follow about what sources it is acceptable to use. It would not be necessary for contributors to decipher some complicated legalase in the CTs, the OSM Licence, and source license to work out if they're compatible, or have to rely on a non-binding OSM FAQ, or risk being in technical breach of contract with OSMF. Has this option been considered by OSMF and/or LWG? Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions about CTs 1.2.4
On 14 April 2011 09:57, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: Has this option been considered by OSMF and/or LWG? It, or something like it, has been mooted from time to time. There's no reason why it could not be made to work legally. Two issues might arise: (1) Technical - you would need to change the interface to allow this information to be added and the underlying data model to allow it to be recorded. That sounds like it should be easy enough to me, but years of experience in software development tell me that there may be hidden problems and it may take more developer time than is available (I suspect its in shorter supply than willing legal help - good developers are a scarce resource). (2) Work - maintaining a list of compatible licences *might* end up being a lot of work. I don't know what this is like worldwide. Most work will be front-loaded, since you need to get started with your list. There are I believe policy arguments as well as to whether third party data sets should be allowed or not. Of them I cannot speak of course. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions about CTs 1.2.4
- Original Message - From: Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions about CTs 1.2.4 On 13 April 2011 23:06, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: Clause 2 is a grant for certain rights. From previous discussion here, can I assume that I can agree if I'm not the copyright holder, and that I only grant the rights I can under the licence I received the data under? That depends very much on the licence, but for many licences the answer will be no. For example most CC licences don't give you the right to grant such a licence. If I'm reading what Francis has written correctly, this would seem to be a very real problem with CT 2.2.4, which would prevent us using almost any source which wasn't PD or for which the contributor didn't own the copyright. In particular, Francis is saying that we can't make use of CC-By or ODbL sources because of clause 2. From the caveats in clauses 3 and 4, I guess that the intention is that you should be able to use eg CC-by sources (although it's questionable whether or not downstream attribution is guaranteed under ODbL, and the possibility of a future license change is also problematic). Nevertheless, I don't even think that an agreement by OSMF to only use the Contents in a manner which is compatible with a given source license gives you the ability to make the broad rights grant in clause 2, unless the license specifically allows such a grant. (A CC-By license does not say that you can give a third-party the right to do anything restricted by copyright as long as they only use those rights in certain ways.) I though a previous version of the CTs (possibly 2.2.3) had an additional phrase in clause 2, along the lines of to the extent which you are able which I thought was designed to address this point. My interpretation of it was that it allowed you not to have to make the grant for parts of the submitted contents which were under a license that didn't allow it. The CTs then relied on clause 1 to ensure (as much as possible) that the Contents at least allowed OSMF to distribute them under the currently chosen license. Could someone from LWG please confirm the intention of clause 2 and what their legal advice is on our ability to add data from CC-By and/or ODbL sources under clause 2? Why was the extra phrase removed for this new draft? The reason for the removal of to the extent which you are able can be found here https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_100cv4n9bdjunder item 5 David Thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions about CTs 1.2.4
Hi, On 04/14/2011 09:54 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: If I'm reading what Francis has written correctly, this would seem to be a very real problem with CT 2.2.4, which would prevent us using almost any source which wasn't PD or for which the contributor didn't own the copyright. In particular, Francis is saying that we can't make use of CC-By or ODbL sources because of clause 2. At least CC-BY says very clearly that you may not sublicense the data which rules out any compatibility even if attribution were guaranteed. In our scenario, OSMF is the one publishing something under ODbL (must be - because your own contribution is likely not to be a database), so OSMF is the licensor, and if you have third-party data that cannot be sublicensed then this is a no-go IMHO. One that cannot be fixed by any tweaking of the CT. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stat pr0n
Well, if there is a will, there will be a way. Be it in the user pages / an OSMF hosted web site or outside. How about we pick up this topic at an upcoming hack weekend? I think badges are important to have for our dying community ;) To get started, I created a wiki page. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Badges Please add your ideas / thoughts / challenges. Martijn On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 13/04/11 15:01, Mikel Maron wrote: Sure. But I would love to see more detailed stats, and awards/badges integrated into user pages. There are easy ways to do this on non-osmf servers, and integrate into user pages. Before anybody sprints off too far down this road I will just point out that he sysadmins are extremely allergic to the web site relying on anything that is not running on an OSMF server. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Martijn van Exel http://about.me/mvexel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Australian Disaster 2.0 (Un)Conference
Hi Folks In the quite recesses of a Sydney neighborhood an (un)conference is being planned for Sat. the 21st of May. The topic is Bridging the Gap - Disaster Response. As the name suggests the aim is to bring together people with formal responsibility to respond to disasters and communities such as OpenStreetMap, Ushahidi, CrisisCommons, CrisisMappers, Maps-Group, Sahana and more ... Currently we are looking for someone who can speak about OpenStreetMap in the context of disaster response. But if you want get involved in any way please get in touch. If you are interested you can ping me or Tolmie MacRae: atmacrae@hotmail.comwho is currently developing the schedule for the one-day event. He's a great contact in the Sydney area if you don't already know him, he helped in organising the HOT Mapping Event/CrisisCamp for Pakistan Floods. So if you can present on OSM, or are from an NGO, Government, Emergency Manager, Developer, Hacker, Polymath or can help with the organising introduce yourself. Chow Shoaib Burq -- http://geospatial.nomad-labs.com http://twitter.com/sabman -- Co-founder CEO at SpacialDB http://spacialdb.com http://twitter.com/sabman ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping huge lakes as coastline
Teemu Koskinen teemu.koskinen at mbnet.fi writes: I converted a few of the biggest lakes in Finland a few years ago to coastlines, and they worked fine, until last year some other user converted them to multipolygons with natural=water -tags. He also splitted the biggest lake (Päijänne) in pieces, which created arbitrary lines across the lakes at random where the lake was divided to different polygons. The biggest lakes in Finland have tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) nodes and a LOT of islands, so it's not practical to represent them as (multi)polygons IMO. It is not practical, either, to represent them as coastlines. For example osm2pgsql is not importing coastlines into PostGIS at all but users must use the processed land polygons as shapefiles for rendering these coastline lakes. One may say it works fine with Mapnik rendering because of this shapefile workaround. Some could call it as a dirty hack. For example, it gets complicated when somebody wants to add tags for the lakes and islands. By the way, i checked that the biggest lake polygon in the data of the National land survey of Finland is the lake Saimaa, and it has exactly 287273 vertices and more than 5000 islands. It is a bit heavy to handle in PostGIS and Oracle Spatial and with GIS programs but not at all impossible. There is a wiki page about the future of areas in OSM. Handling big lakes is one more thing to be discussed there, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Areas In the data ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping huge lakes as coastline
Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahkonen at latuviitta.fi writes: By the way, i checked that the biggest lake polygon in the data of the National land survey of Finland is the lake Saimaa, and it has exactly 287273 vertices and more than 5000 islands. It is a bit heavy to handle in PostGIS and Oracle Spatial and with GIS programs but not at all impossible. Sorry, I made a wrong query and the correct number is 820357 vertices. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 12/04/2011 22:59, SomeoneElse wrote: On 12/04/2011 19:56, Michael Collinson wrote: As part of the process, the legal wording of the Contributor Terms has been improved [3] on the basis of community feedback received and to make them more friendly to individual contributors. The human-readable version of the Contributor Terms is unchanged [4]. [3] The revised contributor terms showing exactly what has been changed: https://docs.google.com/a/stiernegrip.se/document/pub?id=1jY58fD3JyNUjzmecrpNejoOt4OnfHeEM-6o8rD5hCLY Mike, https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms; appears unchanged. Is that some sort of caching effect, or does has been improved actually mean is about to be improved, but has not been yet? Hi Andy, Don't forget this is a pre-announcement! The technical implementation is ongoing thanks to Tom, Matt and Grant. The revised contributor terms should now be live and I have just got the go ahead to be able to announce that the mandatory Accept/Decline will be switched on on Sunday. Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 19:56, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Don't forget this is a pre-announcement! The technical implementation is ongoing thanks to Tom, Matt and Grant. The revised contributor terms should now be live and I have just got the go ahead to be able to announce that the mandatory Accept/Decline will be switched on on Sunday. You might want to fix the decline bug before doing so... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
Hi Ed, On 13/04/2011 16:15, Ed Avis wrote: Michael Collinsonmikeat ayeltd.biz writes: If you are a user of OpenStreetMap data, this does not affect you. OpenStreetMap data continues to be licensed only under CC-BY-SA and this will continue until we reach a critical mass of acceptance of the new license. Accepting the new licence doesn't automatically imply rejection of the old one. The contributor terms currently proposed are for the map to be distributed under one or more of CC-BY-SA and ODbL/DbCL. So the existing licence could be continued as an option, for those users who prefer it, even after a changeover. In addition to Dermot's comments, we initially considered dual-licensing CC-BY-SA but, yes, regretfully rejected it as it undermines a major objective of the license change which is to provide the strongest protection of OSM geodata in as many jurisdictions as possible. Future CC 4 dual-licensing is certainly a possibility if that is what active contributors want. CC 4 suite process is being kicked off and we have had direct meetings with Mike Linksvayer, Vice President and Diane Peters, General Counsel. It will take about four years. What's the plan for deciding whether and when to cut off CC-BY-SA distribution? Would it require a 2/3 vote of contributors? 39% of all users have now accepted the new license and contributor terms, and while I am not sure of my assumptions I estimate that is about 63% of active and previously active contributors . However, we clearly need much, much more than that to preserve data integrity at switch over and have two further phases to go [1]. From Sunday, we will run 5 weeks allowing folks who decline the ability to continue editing, i.e. CC-BY-SA only contributions. The objective is get the remaining 77,000 to accept or decline. If that runs slowly, we add up to 5 more weeks. Else, we proceed to the question of actually switching from CC-BY-SA to ODbL and has no date set. This requires reasonable community consensus that the amount of ODbL licensable data is maximised both globally and locally and that everything that can be done has been done. Mike License Working Group [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14/04/2011 10:56, Michael Collinson wrote: The revised contributor terms should now be live and I have just got the go ahead to be able to announce that the mandatory Accept/Decline will be switched on on Sunday. Thanks Mike - I spotted that they'd changed last night. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14/04/11 11:11, John Smith wrote: On 14 April 2011 19:56, Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Don't forget this is a pre-announcement! The technical implementation is ongoing thanks to Tom, Matt and Grant. The revised contributor terms should now be live and I have just got the go ahead to be able to announce that the mandatory Accept/Decline will be switched on on Sunday. You might want to fix the decline bug before doing so... Well if we knew what the decline bug was then we might be able to... If you mean that currently there is no decline button for existing contributors then that is a feature, not a bug. When making a decision becomes mandatory on Sunday there will be a decline button. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 22:20, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: If you mean that currently there is no decline button for existing contributors then that is a feature, not a bug. When making a decision becomes mandatory on Sunday there will be a decline button. I reported it several messages back. I see a decline button, but clicking it doesn't seem to do anything. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins this Sunday. A full announcement has gone to the Announce list and there is full information at the Find out more about OpenStreetMap's upcoming license change http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License link on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org or directly at http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License Any help getting this out to non-English speaking mailing lists much appreciated. In summary: This only affects you if you are an OpenStreetMap contributor who registered before 12th May 2010 and have not taken part in our voluntary re-licensing program. Before being able to edit, you will have accept or decline new contributor terms. To give time to get the word out, this does not take effect until Sunday! Michael Collinson License Working Group ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14/04/11 13:32, John Smith wrote: On 14 April 2011 22:20, Tom Hughest...@compton.nu wrote: If you mean that currently there is no decline button for existing contributors then that is a feature, not a bug. When making a decision becomes mandatory on Sunday there will be a decline button. I reported it several messages back. I see a decline button, but clicking it doesn't seem to do anything. Ah right, that's a bug introduced by Matt's changes to support the move to mandatory accept/decline - one that is turned on the button will do something... Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Some tiles not rendering?
Hello, It looks like some tiles are not rendering. For instance http://b.tile.openstreetmap.org/17/35226/48373.png/status has been due to be rendered for the last 24 hours when http://b.tile.openstreetmap.org/15/8816/12104.png/status has been updated today. Why would some tile render and some not? Thanks, N. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Some tiles not rendering?
Hi, You can see here : http://munin.openstreetmap.org/openstreetmap/yevaud.openstreetmap/index.html#renderd that the render queue is filed, and if I understand it well new render requests are rejected until the render queue decrease... Vlad. On 14 avr. 2011, at 15:16, Nakor wrote: Hello, It looks like some tiles are not rendering. For instance http://b.tile.openstreetmap.org/17/35226/48373.png/status has been due to be rendered for the last 24 hours when http://b.tile.openstreetmap.org/15/8816/12104.png/status has been updated today. Why would some tile render and some not? Thanks, N. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Some tiles not rendering?
On 4/14/2011 9:40 AM, Vladimir Vyskocil wrote: Hi, You can see here : http://munin.openstreetmap.org/openstreetmap/yevaud.openstreetmap/index.html#renderd that the render queue is filed, and if I understand it well new render requests are rejected until the render queue decrease... Vlad. On 14 avr. 2011, at 15:16, Nakor wrote: So why would some tiles render and some other not? If it is full all requests should be rejected right? Also from the graph it looks like the queue when almost empty during the past 24 hours so why would the tile not be rendered in that case? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Some tiles not rendering?
On 14 Apr 2011, at 14:44, Nakor wrote: On 4/14/2011 9:40 AM, Vladimir Vyskocil wrote: Hi, You can see here : http://munin.openstreetmap.org/openstreetmap/yevaud.openstreetmap/index.html#renderd that the render queue is filed, and if I understand it well new render requests are rejected until the render queue decrease... Vlad. On 14 avr. 2011, at 15:16, Nakor wrote: So why would some tiles render and some other not? If it is full all requests should be rejected right? Suppose the queue has 998 tiles in it. Two will get added, the next few will be rejected... Suppose now that the renderer finishes another meta-tile, dropping the queue down again, and allowing some more to be added to the end. The result is seemingly random tiles will get rendered and others won't. Also from the graph it looks like the queue when almost empty during the past 24 hours so why would the tile not be rendered in that case? Really? The queue has been full 18 hours a day or more for the past two weeks. Bob___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:37 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: the contract you signed when accepting older versions CTs will of course not be changed or automatically updated by newer versions of these CTs (like the current one). But that does not necessarily imply that OSMF has to make an updated contract with you (or me), it might just as well be possible that they keep the older contract. If they don't want database rights over the content you submit. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available? (was: OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement)
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: I guess the problem with continuing to allow CC distribution of the data is that that would leave OSM unprotected in those jurisdictions where CC isn't recognised for map data. 1) What jurisdictions would that be? 2) If the license isn't recognized, doesn't everything revert to all rights reserved? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
mc == Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz writes: mc In summary: This only affects you if you are an OpenStreetMap mc contributor who registered before 12th May 2010 and have not taken mc part in our voluntary re-licensing program. Before being able to mc edit, you will have accept or decline new contributor terms. To mc give time to get the word out, this does not take effect until mc Sunday! It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on the wiki, whether choosing Decline is a irreversible decision, or whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT. -- Eric Marsden ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
Hi Anthony, Anthony wrote: I guess the problem with continuing to allow CC distribution of the data is that that would leave OSM unprotected in those jurisdictions where CC isn't recognised for map data. 1) What jurisdictions would that be? 2) If the license isn't recognized, doesn't everything revert to all rights reserved? You're new to the project obviously. Welcome! If you're interested in the background story to the license change, and why we consider CC unsuitable, I recommend that you read the archives of the legal-talk list (see http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk) as well as the various Wiki articles (you'll notice the license change banner on wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki right away). If, thereafter, any questions remain, you can ask then on the legal-talk list and I'm sure they will be promptly answered. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
Hi, Eric Marsden wrote: It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on the wiki, whether choosing Decline is a irreversible decision, or whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT. Decline is reversible. Accept isn't. Once we've got you, we'll never let go. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Android app that has OS 1:25000?
On 12 April 2011 21:08, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 12/04/2011 01:54, Andrew Gregory wrote: Vespucci 0.7.0 (released a few days ago) has added OS Historic 1:25K. Is that what you're after? Thanks for the reply but It's the current 1:25k that I'm after. Although I use OSM mostly, it's useful to find where ways haven't been added yet. OK, well there's also OS New Popular Ed Historic and OS 7th Series Historic. If the tiles you're after are hosted on a public server somewhere, then it's possible I could add them to Vespucci... -- Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Some tiles not rendering?
Also from the graph it looks like the queue when almost empty during the past 24 hours so why would the tile not be rendered in that case? Really? The queue has been full 18 hours a day or more for the past two weeks. Bob Sorry I was not clear The queue went almost empty (for some time) during the past 24 hours would have been more correct. That still leaves 6 hours where the queue is close to empty as seen on the graph for today between 0:00 and 6:00 approximately. If there are tiles waiting to be rendered why do not they get processed during that time? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Some tiles not rendering?
Hi Nakor. As far as I know the queue is the whole knowledge about tiles which have to be rerendered. If a tile has to be rerendered due to a changeset, that tile is submitted to the queue exactly once, at the time the queue management reads that changeset. If the queue is full at that time, it's in fact not added - and not added later, too. An empty queue at night does not help if there is no call to add your tile to the queue. regards Peter Am 14.04.2011 16:52, schrieb Nakor: Also from the graph it looks like the queue when almost empty during the past 24 hours so why would the tile not be rendered in that case? Really? The queue has been full 18 hours a day or more for the past two weeks. Bob Sorry I was not clear The queue went almost empty (for some time) during the past 24 hours would have been more correct. That still leaves 6 hours where the queue is close to empty as seen on the graph for today between 0:00 and 6:00 approximately. If there are tiles waiting to be rendered why do not they get processed during that time? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Some tiles not rendering?
Why is the queue not enhanced to avoid instances where tile-rendering queries are rejected due to a full queue? With regards, Svavar Kjarrval On 04/14/2011 03:15 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi Nakor. As far as I know the queue is the whole knowledge about tiles which have to be rerendered. If a tile has to be rerendered due to a changeset, that tile is submitted to the queue exactly once, at the time the queue management reads that changeset. If the queue is full at that time, it's in fact not added - and not added later, too. An empty queue at night does not help if there is no call to add your tile to the queue. regards Peter Am 14.04.2011 16:52, schrieb Nakor: Also from the graph it looks like the queue when almost empty during the past 24 hours so why would the tile not be rendered in that case? Really? The queue has been full 18 hours a day or more for the past two weeks. Bob Sorry I was not clear The queue went almost empty (for some time) during the past 24 hours would have been more correct. That still leaves 6 hours where the queue is close to empty as seen on the graph for today between 0:00 and 6:00 approximately. If there are tiles waiting to be rendered why do not they get processed during that time? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Some tiles not rendering?
On 4/14/2011 11:15 AM, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi Nakor. As far as I know the queue is the whole knowledge about tiles which have to be rerendered. If a tile has to be rerendered due to a changeset, that tile is submitted to the queue exactly once, at the time the queue management reads that changeset. If the queue is full at that time, it's in fact not added - and not added later, too. An empty queue at night does not help if there is no call to add your tile to the queue. regards Peter Peter, Thanks for the explanations. So that means that the particular tiles that got rejected because the queue was full could stay due to be rendered forever supposing there are no more changes made to the data they conatin? Thanks. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Some tiles not rendering?
How would you enhance the queue? Make it longer? How much longer? On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Svavar Kjarrval sva...@kjarrval.iswrote: Why is the queue not enhanced to avoid instances where tile-rendering queries are rejected due to a full queue? With regards, Svavar Kjarrval On 04/14/2011 03:15 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi Nakor. As far as I know the queue is the whole knowledge about tiles which have to be rerendered. If a tile has to be rerendered due to a changeset, that tile is submitted to the queue exactly once, at the time the queue management reads that changeset. If the queue is full at that time, it's in fact not added - and not added later, too. An empty queue at night does not help if there is no call to add your tile to the queue. regards Peter Am 14.04.2011 16:52, schrieb Nakor: Also from the graph it looks like the queue when almost empty during the past 24 hours so why would the tile not be rendered in that case? Really? The queue has been full 18 hours a day or more for the past two weeks. Bob Sorry I was not clear The queue went almost empty (for some time) during the past 24 hours would have been more correct. That still leaves 6 hours where the queue is close to empty as seen on the graph for today between 0:00 and 6:00 approximately. If there are tiles waiting to be rendered why do not they get processed during that time? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Some tiles not rendering?
You can, I believe, right click on a tile and do view image (in Firefox at least, it may be different in whatever browser you use). This brings up a URL such as: http://tile.openstreetmap.org/14/8149/5492.png add /dirty to the end: http://tile.openstreetmap.org/14/8149/5492.png/dirty Request that and you get Tile submitted for rendering. Presumably this needs an empty queue, however. Cheers, Joseph On 14 April 2011 16:34, Nakor nakor@gmail.com wrote: On 4/14/2011 11:15 AM, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi Nakor. As far as I know the queue is the whole knowledge about tiles which have to be rerendered. If a tile has to be rerendered due to a changeset, that tile is submitted to the queue exactly once, at the time the queue management reads that changeset. If the queue is full at that time, it's in fact not added - and not added later, too. An empty queue at night does not help if there is no call to add your tile to the queue. regards Peter Peter, Thanks for the explanations. So that means that the particular tiles that got rejected because the queue was full could stay due to be rendered forever supposing there are no more changes made to the data they conatin? Thanks. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Some tiles not rendering?
Nakor wrote: Thanks for the explanations. So that means that the particular tiles that got rejected because the queue was full could stay due to be rendered forever supposing there are no more changes made to the data they conatin? Not forever, but until such a time that somebody requests the tile again (by looking at it), thereby causing it to be added to the queue again. If the queue isn't full. A change in data they contain will not cause a tile to be added to the rendering queue. Only tiles@home proactively renders every tile that got changed. Tiles that got dropped from the queue are forgotten. They are not rendered later on, when the queue isn't full. -- Lennard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Some tiles not rendering?
Enhancing the queue is not meant neccesserily to make it longer. Although I should've referred to the queueing process to be more clear. As Andrew pointed out, a really long queue can cause latency issues in regards to rendering so that's not such a good idea. There are at least two ways to counteract the problem: 1. Instead of rejecting rendering requests due to a full queue, implement a secondary queue which will feed the primary queue when it's not too busy. If someone requests a re-render of a tile in the secondary queue (and the primary queue is not full), the tile request is deleted from the secondary queue. 2. Enhance the rendering process so the queue is processed quicker. With regards, Svavar Kjarrval On 04/14/2011 03:37 PM, Ian Dees wrote: How would you enhance the queue? Make it longer? How much longer? On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Svavar Kjarrval sva...@kjarrval.is mailto:sva...@kjarrval.is wrote: Why is the queue not enhanced to avoid instances where tile-rendering queries are rejected due to a full queue? With regards, Svavar Kjarrval On 04/14/2011 03:15 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: Hi Nakor. As far as I know the queue is the whole knowledge about tiles which have to be rerendered. If a tile has to be rerendered due to a changeset, that tile is submitted to the queue exactly once, at the time the queue management reads that changeset. If the queue is full at that time, it's in fact not added - and not added later, too. An empty queue at night does not help if there is no call to add your tile to the queue. regards Peter Am 14.04.2011 16:52, schrieb Nakor: Also from the graph it looks like the queue when almost empty during the past 24 hours so why would the tile not be rendered in that case? Really? The queue has been full 18 hours a day or more for the past two weeks. Bob Sorry I was not clear The queue went almost empty (for some time) during the past 24 hours would have been more correct. That still leaves 6 hours where the queue is close to empty as seen on the graph for today between 0:00 and 6:00 approximately. If there are tiles waiting to be rendered why do not they get processed during that time? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
Unfortunately I some of my edits used some sources that looked fine under the for CC-by-SA terms but on closer inspection of the ODBL terms, which was done after I blindly followed the advice of another contributor, I am not at all comfortable that the work would stand up legally for CC-by-ODBL terms. I can give a date before which I was not so careful and would very much prefer any edits done before this time to be deleted or are you saying I'm now legally liable for the content of OSM even though I am aware some data does not meet the ODBL terms and I have no way out of this? Thanks John On 14 April 2011 10:49, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Eric Marsden wrote: It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on the wiki, whether choosing Decline is a irreversible decision, or whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT. Decline is reversible. Accept isn't. Once we've got you, we'll never let go. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Nathan Edgars II wrote: Mike Collinson wrote: If you were a contributor before this date and have not accepted yet, you will be asked to accept or decline the new terms. You can find background information about this on the main wiki page [2]. If you use an off-line editor like JOSM, you will need to manually login to click the buttons. Even if you choose to decline the new terms, you will still be able to continue editing. What happens in the future if I decline? Can I accept at a later date? Since there has been no response to this, I plan to: *hold off on accepting or declining with my NE2 account *create a new account, publicly linked to NE2, for contributions under the CT This seems to be the only way to continue to 'vote' against the change. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6273610.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
You can also just do like me and many others and abandon *submitting* data end start *using* OSM data. OSM was made to use data and not to contribute: Create a innovative application or use geodata (OSM) in a surprising way. And since some of us want to make it more difficult to contribute to OSM then to leech OSM That's also a nice way of working with OSM data and you do not have to sign or click on any agreement. Don't worry (about licenses anymore) and be happy! Gert Gremmen -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Nathan Edgars II [mailto:nerou...@gmail.com] Verzonden: donderdag 14 april 2011 19:12 Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement Nathan Edgars II wrote: Mike Collinson wrote: If you were a contributor before this date and have not accepted yet, you will be asked to accept or decline the new terms. You can find background information about this on the main wiki page [2]. If you use an off-line editor like JOSM, you will need to manually login to click the buttons. Even if you choose to decline the new terms, you will still be able to continue editing. What happens in the future if I decline? Can I accept at a later date? Since there has been no response to this, I plan to: *hold off on accepting or declining with my NE2 account *create a new account, publicly linked to NE2, for contributions under the CT This seems to be the only way to continue to 'vote' against the change. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre -Announcement-tp6266295p6273610.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 18:12, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Nathan Edgars II wrote: What happens in the future if I decline? Can I accept at a later date? Since there has been no response to this, I plan to: *hold off on accepting or declining with my NE2 account *create a new account, publicly linked to NE2, for contributions under the CT This seems to be the only way to continue to 'vote' against the change. Let me start by answering your question - declining now does allow you to accept at a later date. But your suggested course of action has me confused - you are happy to make contributions under the new CT and intend to do so, but yet you wish to vote against the change. Your choice, I supposed. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Dermot McNally wrote: On 14 April 2011 18:12, Nathan Edgars II lt;nerou...@gmail.comgt; wrote: Nathan Edgars II wrote: What happens in the future if I decline? Can I accept at a later date? Since there has been no response to this, I plan to: *hold off on accepting or declining with my NE2 account *create a new account, publicly linked to NE2, for contributions under the CT This seems to be the only way to continue to 'vote' against the change. Let me start by answering your question - declining now does allow you to accept at a later date. Thank you. Do you speak for the OSMF? Dermot McNally wrote: But your suggested course of action has me confused - you are happy to make contributions under the new CT and intend to do so, but yet you wish to vote against the change. Your choice, I supposed. I oppose the change, primarily because of the damage it will cause. I've already seen what removing small amounts of data will do (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-March/057318.html) and do not wish to see more of this. On the other hand, I wish to continue to contribute, and, because I am happy to contribute into the public domain, I cannot, under my personal ethics, decline. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6273843.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 12 April 2011 21:11, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: What happens in the future if I decline? Can I accept at a later date? Yes you can accept at a later date. Regards Grant Part of LWG. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 19:50, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: But your suggested course of action has me confused - you are happy to make contributions under the new CT and intend to do so, but yet you wish to vote against the change. Your choice, I supposed. I see it logical. Wanting to contribute to the currently biggest, most fun free map, with most impact on the industry and a name you got used to, you soon will have no choice other than to do so under then new CT because that free map is ruled by people in favor of it. Yet the accept/decline buttons are your first chance to vote or express what you think about the switch if you want to have some say in this (quite important for the project) decision. So use this chance, vote with your data as someone said at the beginning of the process. This is also the only way left to find out what the mappers think. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On 14 April 2011 17:26, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately I some of my edits used some sources that looked fine under the for CC-by-SA terms but on closer inspection of the ODBL terms, which was done after I blindly followed the advice of another contributor, I am not at all comfortable that the work would stand up legally for CC-by-ODBL terms. I can give a date before which I was not so careful and would very much prefer any edits done before this time to be deleted or are you saying I'm now legally liable for the content of OSM even though I am aware some data does not meet the ODBL terms and I have no way out of this? Can you expand? Where was the data sourced from and under what license? Can you point to any specific changesets? Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 19:05, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I oppose the change, primarily because of the damage it will cause. I've already seen what removing small amounts of data will do (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-March/057318.html) and do not wish to see more of this. The revert script used to remove Anthony's edits (which were traced from Google) was a basic revert script which only used API methods. There were also mistakes made like reverting the items anthony had deleted only after most of the cleanup/improvement work had already been done. Live an learn. / Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 19:05, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you. Do you speak for the OSMF? No - hence my silence and no doubt that of others when you asked before. But I have been following the licence issue attentively and have seen this question answered more than once from official sources. I oppose the change, primarily because of the damage it will cause. I've already seen what removing small amounts of data will do (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-March/057318.html) and do not wish to see more of this. On the other hand, I wish to continue to contribute, and, because I am happy to contribute into the public domain, I cannot, under my personal ethics, decline. I applaud your ethics, but it seems to me that your chosen course of action, unless you do intend to accept at a later stage for your existing account, will contribute more to the damage you fear than to the smooth transition many of us would like to see. Witholding one's data from the new licence, especially if there is no objection to that licence, is not a very sane way to avoid damage to the map. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 19:12, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: I see it logical. Wanting to contribute to the currently biggest, most fun free map, with most impact on the industry and a name you got used to, you soon will have no choice other than to do so under then new CT because that free map is ruled by people in favor of it. Yet the accept/decline buttons are your first chance to vote or express what you think about the switch if you want to have some say in this (quite important for the project) decision. So use this chance, vote with your data as someone said at the beginning of the process. This is also the only way left to find out what the mappers think. Ah, but is it _your_ data? Or might you have built some of it on top of mine? Or perhaps I built in good faith on a foundation you created. So by all means state your opinion and by all means share your opinions with other mappers. But if, once a consensus is clear, The Community comes out in favour of the change, many of us will think very ill of people who still choose to pull out the bottom brick from the wall and go home. Because that's not the kind of community I've had the privilege to belong to. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 4/14/2011 2:20 PM, Grant Slater wrote: The revert script used to remove Anthony's edits (which were traced from Google) was a basic revert script which only used API methods. There were also mistakes made like reverting the items anthony had deleted only after most of the cleanup/improvement work had already been done. Live an learn. Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for the cases I'm aware of. In at least one case a local mapper has passed away and I built some more complex objects top of some of his objects. In another case, another local mapper has done much of the road improvements over a large area of our state. Regional routability will go back to initial TIGER state for all practical purposes, as well as removing his objects. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On 14 April 2011 18:26, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately I some of my edits used some sources that looked fine under the for CC-by-SA terms but on closer inspection of the ODBL terms, which was done after I blindly followed the advice of another contributor, I am not at all comfortable that the work would stand up legally for CC-by-ODBL terms. I can give a date before which I was not so careful and would very much prefer any edits done before this time to be deleted or are you saying I'm now legally liable for the content of OSM even though I am aware some data does not meet the ODBL terms and I have no way out of this? Under the Contributor Terms 1.2.4 I believe it will be the OpenStreetMap Foundation's responsibility to remove such data before switching the license, you will not be liable. Until then the data will only be distributed under CC-By-SA and you can accept these new Contributor Terms by which you would be granting OSMF only the rights which you are able to grant. I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct and if it's not then I would like to know the correct interpretation to be able to give an answer to people asking about this in non-English forums. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Dermot McNally wrote: I applaud your ethics, but it seems to me that your chosen course of action, unless you do intend to accept at a later stage for your existing account, I do, if we get to the point where we are removing data. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6273980.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
- Original Message - From: andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com To: john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com Cc: OpenStreetMap talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday On 14 April 2011 18:26, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately I some of my edits used some sources that looked fine under the for CC-by-SA terms but on closer inspection of the ODBL terms, which was done after I blindly followed the advice of another contributor, I am not at all comfortable that the work would stand up legally for CC-by-ODBL terms. I can give a date before which I was not so careful and would very much prefer any edits done before this time to be deleted or are you saying I'm now legally liable for the content of OSM even though I am aware some data does not meet the ODBL terms and I have no way out of this? Under the Contributor Terms 1.2.4 I believe it will be the OpenStreetMap Foundation's responsibility to remove such data before switching the license, you will not be liable. Until then the data will only be distributed under CC-By-SA and you can accept these new Contributor Terms by which you would be granting OSMF only the rights which you are able to grant. I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct and if it's not then I would like to know the correct interpretation to be able to give an answer to people asking about this in non-English forums. see this thread (in particular Fracis Davey's comments) on the legal talk mailing list http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005915.html David Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 19:33, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: On 4/14/2011 2:20 PM, Grant Slater wrote: The revert script used to remove Anthony's edits (which were traced from Google) was a basic revert script which only used API methods. There were also mistakes made like reverting the items anthony had deleted only after most of the cleanup/improvement work had already been done. Live an learn. Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for the cases I'm aware of. In at least one case a local mapper has passed away and I built some more complex objects top of some of his objects. In another case, another local mapper has done much of the road improvements over a large area of our state. Regional routability will go back to initial TIGER state for all practical purposes, as well as removing his objects. I am sure there are going to be a few cases where difficult decisions are going to have to be made. We will not have been the only open source project to have had to make these sorts of decisions. The OSM Foundation being the legal entity which represents us will have to decide case by case (and possibly a changeset by changeset) when presented with these sorts of difficult choices. Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
I am of exactly the same mind of NEII on this. When the OSMF holds the gun to my head, I will eventually Accept. Until then, I'd like to keep my 'data vote' opposed in order to slow down the impending train wreck as long as possible. My contributions aren't as numerous as his http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?NE2, but if removed they would set my area back a half-decade. If NEII's (and others) are removed, we can add the United States to Australia as 'countries the OSMF is willing to sacrifice.' Alex On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: Dermot McNally wrote: I applaud your ethics, but it seems to me that your chosen course of action, unless you do intend to accept at a later stage for your existing account, I do, if we get to the point where we are removing data. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6273980.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 4/14/2011 3:18 PM, Alex Ruddick wrote: If NEII's (and others) are removed, we can add the United States to Australia as 'countries the OSMF is willing to sacrifice.' NEII: Please don't participate in any high risk sports or activities, at least until all this is resolved. g ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:50:22 +0100 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: But your suggested course of action has me confused - you are happy to make contributions under the new CT and intend to do so, but yet you wish to vote against the change. Your choice, I supposed. There are 2 distinct items to be considered, the input conditions (Contributor Terms) and the output conditions (ODbL). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:10:19 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: I am sure there are going to be a few cases where difficult decisions are going to have to be made. We will not have been the only open source project to have had to make these sorts of decisions. The OSM Foundation being the legal entity which represents us will have to decide case by case (and possibly a changeset by changeset) when presented with these sorts of difficult choices. I did read the conditions on sign-up. OSM Foundation being the legal legal entity which represents us did not appear. The only correct statement remains that OSMF owns the servers. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:24:28 +0100 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: So by all means state your opinion and by all means share your opinions with other mappers. But if, once a consensus is clear, The Community comes out in favour of the change, many of us will think very ill of people who still choose to pull out the bottom brick from the wall and go home. Because that's not the kind of community I've had the privilege to belong to. Consider the corollary to your statement please, because that is where I find myself. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, Alex Ruddick wrote: I am of exactly the same mind of NEII on this. When the OSMF holds the gun to my head, I will eventually Accept. Until then, I'd like to keep my 'data vote' opposed in order to slow down the impending train wreck as long as possible. Do you expect any positive outcome from this, or is it for moral reasons that you choose this course of action? There are regions in OSM where a visible no vote will lead to your data being re-surveyed and replaced by other contributors rather quickly. I can only hope that this is not the case in your area because otherwise what you plan to do will yield the worst possible outcome - others duplicating the efforts you have put in (instead of using their time for something more productive), and you being miffed because your contributions have been removed before you had the chance to redecide. My contributions aren't as numerous as his http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?NE2, but if removed they would set my area back a half-decade. How so, if it has only taken you three years ;)? If NEII's (and others) are removed, we can add the United States to Australia as 'countries the OSMF is willing to sacrifice.' It's a hard language to use. We don't want to lose any contributors, and we don't want to lose any data either. I don't want to compare OSM to a hill of mindless ants each of whom just execute their genetic programming; I believe that OSM works precisely because we're all individuals and contribute our own ideas, our style, our quirks. Every contributor is uniqe and (with very, very little exceptions) every contributor adds something valuable to OSM. Still, in the grand scheme of things, no single contributor is irreplaceable. Rip something out (and shed a couple tears about the love that went into it and is now lost to OSM) - it will grow back in time, and bring with it new people, a new community rallied to the cause. We're not sacrificing countries. We saw that we have built our project on (legal) sand, and we're moving to rectify the situation. The patient may lose some tissue about this but he will live, and after the wounds have healed, will be healthier than before. I'm talking all flowery because this is the talk list. If you want hard facts, go to legal-talk. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 21:46, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:10:19 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: I am sure there are going to be a few cases where difficult decisions are going to have to be made. We will not have been the only open source project to have had to make these sorts of decisions. The OSM Foundation being the legal entity which represents us will have to decide case by case (and possibly a changeset by changeset) when presented with these sorts of difficult choices. I did read the conditions on sign-up. OSM Foundation being the legal legal entity which represents us did not appear. The only correct statement remains that OSMF owns the servers. How else would you define the foundation? The OSMF is a not-for-profit company registered in England and Wales, the foundation has no paid staff and it is made up exclusively of unpaid volenteers. The OSMF board is made up of democratically elected volenteers. I am not an OSMF apologist, the OSMF definitely does have warts like: Where are the Board Minutes for the last few months? or what happend to the GPS2Go program?... and other gripes... But I am reminded they are volenteers, if I want a better service, I could offer to help rather than chastice their fumblings. Regards Grant aka Firefishy. Part of Sysadmin Team, LWG Member, Data Working Group, Server order guy, van driver and mapper. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, Grant Slater wrote: Part of Sysadmin Team, LWG Member, Data Working Group, Server order guy, van driver and mapper. ^^ Lizard man! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Frederik Ramm wrote: There are regions in OSM where a visible no vote will lead to your data being re-surveyed and replaced by other contributors rather quickly. This is vandalism and should be reverted. Frederik Ramm wrote: It's a hard language to use. We don't want to lose any contributors, and we don't want to lose any data either. Then don't change the license. Problem solved. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6274458.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
How else would you define the foundation? The OSMF is a not-for-profit company registered in England and Wales, the foundation has no paid staff and it is made up exclusively of unpaid volenteers. The OSMF board is made up of democratically elected volenteers. I am not an OSMF apologist, the OSMF definitely does have warts like: Where are the Board Minutes for the last few months? or what happend to the GPS2Go program?... and other gripes... But I am reminded they are volenteers, if I want a better service, I could offer to help rather than chastice their fumblings. Regards Grant aka Firefishy. Part of Sysadmin Team, LWG Member, Data Working Group, Server order guy, van driver and mapper. I joined and later made a deliberate decision to leave. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:10:40 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We're not sacrificing countries. We saw that we have built our project on (legal) sand, and we're moving to rectify the situation. The patient may lose some tissue about this but he will live, and after the wounds have healed, will be healthier than before. I'm talking all flowery because this is the talk list. If you want hard facts, go to legal-talk. Or you are talking all flowery because you have no hard facts. Yesterday I read on this list that an alternate plan of action is under consideration - quite seriously. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 16:49 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Eric Marsden wrote: It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on the wiki, whether choosing Decline is a irreversible decision, or whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT. Decline is reversible. Accept isn't. Once we've got you, we'll never let go. What about if you become aware that once youve got someone, who has agreed and who has contributed tainted data? Will you (or someone else wielding the magical OSMF+3 wand) reverse it? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 20:10 +0100, Grant Slater wrote: I am sure there are going to be a few cases where difficult decisions are going to have to be made. We will not have been the only open source project to have had to make these sorts of decisions. Out of interest Grant, what other large-scale open source projects have changed their licence the way that OSM has? In fact, changed their licence full-stop..? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 18:50 +0100, Dermot McNally wrote: But your suggested course of action has me confused - you are happy to make contributions under the new CT and intend to do so, but yet you wish to vote against the change. Your choice, I supposed. Its not terribly confusing from here. What he is suggesting, is creating an account to contribute 'clean' data, which he is prepared to agree to OSMF's terms about. What he is voting against, is OSMF using previously created data which is not practical to split the 'clean' from 'tainted'. I think thats the only logical course of action for long-term contributors who want to continue to contribute. There is no way you can say for sure 100% of your edits were clean, the best you can do is start again and ensure you only use compliant data sources. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 14 April 2011 23:38, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: Its not terribly confusing from here. What he is suggesting, is creating an account to contribute 'clean' data, which he is prepared to agree to OSMF's terms about. What he is voting against, is OSMF using previously created data which is not practical to split the 'clean' from 'tainted'. He didn't say that - there is enough FUD in this discussion without inventing more. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, David Murn wrote: Out of interest Grant, what other large-scale open source projects have changed their licence the way that OSM has? In fact, changed their licence full-stop..? Wikipedia went from GFDL to CC-BY-SA. Mozilla changed from MPL-only to MPL/GPL/LGPL. Zope changed from a custom license to GPL. Osmosis went from GPL to PD - admittedly not a large scale project ;). But unless I am mistaken, Grant has never even said that large-scale open source projects (your choice of words) have changed their license, although it would have been perfectly correct to say that. He only said that OSM was not the only open source project to go through difficult decisions - and it will only take you seconds of googling to prove that right. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 23:53 +0100, Dermot McNally wrote: On 14 April 2011 23:38, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: Its not terribly confusing from here. What he is suggesting, is creating an account to contribute 'clean' data, which he is prepared to agree to OSMF's terms about. What he is voting against, is OSMF using previously created data which is not practical to split the 'clean' from 'tainted'. He didn't say that - there is enough FUD in this discussion without inventing more. Lets break down my sentences, interlaced with what was originally said: DM is creating an account to contribute 'clean' data, which he is DM prepared to agree to OSMF's terms NE2 *create a new account, publicly linked to NE2, for contributions NE2 under the CT And.. DM What he is voting against, is OSMF using previously created data NE2 *hold off on accepting or declining with my NE2 account ... So, please feel free to tell me where I invented anything? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
Hi, David Murn wrote: What about if you become aware that once youve got someone, who has agreed and who has contributed tainted data? Will you (or someone else wielding the magical OSMF+3 wand) reverse it? If data is tainted in a way that makes in incompatible with the currently used license then it will have to be removed in order not to put the project at risk (e.g. data copied from proprietary sources). This is independent of the license change. If data is tainted in a way that makes it compatible with the currently used license, but it is likely that the data will have to be removed should OSM ever change to a different license under the CT 2/3 of active mappers clause, then things are difficult - it would certainly be better in the long run to replace such data by data that is fully compliant, and I would estimate tools to be developed that would aim to gradually phase out such limited-release data and make sure such data is not used to build upon if it can be avoided. But I don't think it would be removed outright - I guess the decision will be delayed until such time as anyone actually proposes changing the license again. There's also a third kind of tainted that sits in the middle of these two, namely data that has e.g. been released CC-BY. Such data looks compatible at first, but closer inspection (see current discussion on legal-talk) reveals that CC-BY explicitly forbids sublicensing, and sublicensing is what the new scheme is all about. So in that case we'd have a legal outcome (data being distributed with attribution) but an untidy process that took us there. I don't know if this is a minor problem that can be ignored, or a showstopper. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
If data is tainted in a way that makes in incompatible with the currently used license then it will have to be removed in order not to put the project at risk (e.g. data copied from proprietary sources). This is independent of the license change. I assume that the currently used license means to the ODBL license now in use by contributors. If so how and to whom do I serve notice that even though I clicked on the accept button I'm not comfortable that all my edits before March 2011 contain only data is that is completely untainted so rather than put the OSM project at risk could they be removed. I'm happy to get out my GPS and notepad and ensure anything I add from today forward will meet the new criteria. Many thanks Cheerio John ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
David, David Murn wrote: Did I just seriously read that right? *Sigh* You know as well as I do that Anthony is a troll with a long history, here and elsewhere. He knows perfectly well, because he has been told a thousand times, that one of the countries where CC-BY-SA doesn't work for our data is his country of residence, the USA. He has gone on record, multiple times, saying that he likes the CC-BY-SA precisely because he belives that it doesn't work. So him asking, in that innocent manner, which countries would that be, is just prime trolling, hoping that someone takes the bait and he can, yet again, involve everyone into a word-mincing discussion that gets us precisely nowhere. Now everybody has their own way of reacting to such trolls. The best way is of course to ignore them; but every now and then you have to react lest new readers of this list might get the impression that Anthony's question was *not* answered and discussed a thousand times. You could also get all agressive and dump a bucket of swear words over Anthony; it would certainly be well deserved but tends to poison the mood. So I chose a slightly humorous response, treating Anthony as if he really were an innocent newbie. I didn't expect that I would have to explain the humour, but I guess I should have known better. Is this a sign of things to come? Is this really the way that OSMF will treat new contributors in the future? I am not OSMF. And it is neither the task nor the privilege of OSMF to treat new contributors. I think my message was entirely in order. Even a newbie could be expected to read at least a few articles of background on our Wiki before engaging in a discussion. Anyone reading e.g. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable would immediately be informed that the USA is one of the countries in which CC-BY-SA won't work for our data. Wouldnt it be easier to simply answer the question, if you really had anything substantial to contribute? While we all understand that you believe licence nitty-gritty (or, anything about the licence for that matter, even data removal) should be on legal-talk, surely it would be easier to simply answer some simple easy questions with simple easy answers, rather than forcing people to read legalese (or the more likely option, that they just abandon OSM completely). As you probably know, Anthony's account on OSM has been terminated because he openly boasted about violating copyright. He is one of the very few people whose net contribution to OSM is indeed negative. He did not ask this question because he was truly interested in anything; his only motive was to drag us all into a repetition of discussions we've already had a thousand times, into wasting precious time and words for nothing. And thanks to you he has once again succeeded. I will now stop responding to your messages because you seem to lack either the ability or the willingness to understand what I'm saying, and it is quite taxing for me to express everything in a way that cannot possibly be misread by you. Perhaps others have more luck in trying to explain things to you. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On 15 April 2011 00:49, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Eric Marsden wrote: It is not clear to me, from your message or from what I have read on the wiki, whether choosing Decline is a irreversible decision, or whether one would still be able later to accept the licence + CT. Decline is reversible. Accept isn't. Once we've got you, we'll never let go. So you are happy to breach your own contract? Since already there are people decieved by all this have blindly agreed only to find out later they don't have the right to. It seems all those years of pushing to not include tainted data only matters if you aren't an individual, and OSM-F is more than happy to include tainted data from end users. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Why I am declining (for now) Re: OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 4/14/2011 7:08 PM, David Murn wrote: So, please feel free to tell me where I invented anything? I never said anything about the reason being because my old contributions were tainted. I do understand the dilemma faced by those, but, as far as I know, every change I made can be relicensed (in other words, I didn't use NearMap or one of the other sources that OSMF is creating incompatibility with). (However, I may have made contributions indirectly based on incompatible sources, for example by drawing a way parallel to an incompatible way.) My reason for declining at this time is that it is the only way available to 'vote' against the change. I will accept if and only if the OSMF starts removing contributions of decliners. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 15 April 2011 00:08, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: So, please feel free to tell me where I invented anything? Right here: What he is voting against, is OSMF using previously created data which is not practical to split the 'clean' from 'tainted'. As quoted in my earlier mail. Nothing in Nathan's mails suggested that practicalities or tainted data have any bearing on his decision. That is what you have invented - it might indeed be _your_ reason for voting against, and I would certainly have to respect that. But please stick to facts, this process is complicated enough as it is. Indeed, the last comment on this page indicates that tainted data are certainly not a feature of Nathan's contributions: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/NE2 Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping huge lakes as coastline
On Apr 14, 2011, at 1:52 AM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: Teemu Koskinen teemu.koskinen at mbnet.fi writes: I converted a few of the biggest lakes in Finland a few years ago to coastlines, and they worked fine, until last year some other user converted them to multipolygons with natural=water -tags. He also splitted the biggest lake (Päijänne) in pieces, which created arbitrary lines across the lakes at random where the lake was divided to different polygons. The biggest lakes in Finland have tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) nodes and a LOT of islands, so it's not practical to represent them as (multi)polygons IMO. It is not practical, either, to represent them as coastlines. For example osm2pgsql is not importing coastlines into PostGIS at all but users must use the processed land polygons as shapefiles for rendering these coastline lakes. One may say it works fine with Mapnik rendering because of this shapefile workaround. Some could call it as a dirty hack. For example, it gets complicated when somebody wants to add tags for the lakes and islands. FWIW, Dane added a --keep-coastlines flag to recent versions of osm2pgsql. It hasn't fully propagated out to various package managers and things, but it's a big help in these situations. -mike. michal migurski- m...@stamen.com 415.558.1610 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 01:08 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, David Murn wrote: What about if you become aware that once youve got someone, who has agreed and who has contributed tainted data? Will you (or someone else wielding the magical OSMF+3 wand) reverse it? If data is tainted in a way that makes in incompatible with the currently used license then it will have to be removed in order not to put the project at risk (e.g. data copied from proprietary sources). This is independent of the license change. This was a question in regards to whether you will reverse the selection of someone accepting the new licence/terms, if you (or they) become aware the data is tainted. You clearly stated in your previous email that once the user has accepted there is no way to change the decision to decline, then here say that if that situation came up that it would have to be done. Is there anyone here who can answer these questions the same in sequential emails? While this isnt a licence specific question, its a question specific to the thread at hand about users accepting or declining to have their edits released under the new licence/terms. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On 15 April 2011 12:51, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: This was a question in regards to whether you will reverse the selection of someone accepting the new licence/terms, if you (or they) become aware the data is tainted. Wouldn't breach of clause 1 break the entire contract ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
On 14 April 2011 21:06, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com Under the Contributor Terms 1.2.4 I believe it will be the OpenStreetMap Foundation's responsibility to remove such data before switching the license, you will not be liable. Until then the data will only be distributed under CC-By-SA and you can accept these new Contributor Terms by which you would be granting OSMF only the rights which you are able to grant. I'm not sure if my interpretation is correct and if it's not then I would like to know the correct interpretation to be able to give an answer to people asking about this in non-English forums. see this thread (in particular Fracis Davey's comments) on the legal talk mailing list http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005915.html So my understanding now, from Francis' comment, is that CC-By-SA and CC-By are not compatible (you can't accept the CTs if you've contributed data obtained under those licenses, without infringing those licenses?), but ODbL for example might be compatible with CT although it's not compaitble with the current OSM's license. But it might be in the future. Is that correct? Is that also the intent of the CTs 1.2.4? I think it would be good to have a human readable form of this document written by its authors. I haven't read the CC-By-SA license code in this context but I'm reading in Francis' response that there's something in it that makes it not compatible. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Veerse Meer
On 14-4-2011 22:17, Robert Elsenaar wrote: Is er iets mis gegaan met de 3dShapes import in Zeeland? Het Veerse meer is wel erg wittig. Ik denk dat deze blauw moet zijn. In ieder geval lag er laatst nog water en water is blauw toch? Waarom moet de import nu weer de (vermoedelijke) schuld krijgen? Die import is al van lang geleden, ergens vorig jaar. De huidige drooglegging zal dus niets anders zijn dan een mapper aan het werk. Droogleggingen zijn we ondertussen wel gewend. Kijk maar naar de rivieren rond Dordrecht, die maanden geleden achter elkaar leeg gingen. :) -- Lennard ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Veerse Meer
On 14-4-2011 22:29, Lennard wrote: Die import is al van lang geleden, ergens vorig jaar. De huidige drooglegging zal dus niets anders zijn dan een mapper aan het werk. Zo, gefixt. De enige werkbare methode was het reverten van een berg changesets van Tavernsenses. Het enige dat sneuvelde, zover ik kan zien, zijn wat pieren op de Schutteplaat. -- Lennard ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
[talk-au] Australian Disaster 2.0 (Un)Conference
Hi Folks In the quite recesses of a Sydney neighborhood an (un)conference is being planned for Sat. the 21st of May. The topic is Bridging the Gap - Disaster Response. As the name suggests the aim is to bring together people with formal responsibility to respond to disasters and communities such as OpenStreetMap, Ushahidi, CrisisCommons, CrisisMappers, Maps-Group, Sahana and more ... Currently we are looking for someone who can speak about OpenStreetMap in the context of disaster response. But if you want get involved in any way please get in touch. If you are interested you can ping me or Tolmie MacRae: atmacrae@hotmail.comwho is currently developing the schedule for the one-day event. He's a great contact in the Sydney area if you don't already know him, he helped in organising the HOT Mapping Event/CrisisCamp for Pakistan Floods. So if you can present on OSM, or are from an NGO, Government, Emergency Manager, Developer, Hacker, Polymath or can help with the organising introduce yourself. Chow Shoaib Burq -- http://geospatial.nomad-labs.com http://twitter.com/sabman -- Co-founder CEO at SpacialDB http://spacialdb.com http://twitter.com/sabman ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-de] Kein Quellen-/Lizenzhinweis
bundesrainer o...@bundesrainer.de writes: Am 13.04.2011 15:37, schrieb Tobias Knerr: Am 13.04.2011 15:13, schrieb Alexander Matheisen: Macht sie irgendwie unglaubwürdig... Dass sie unabhängig von OSM sogar ihre eigenen Inhalte unter CC-BY-SA stellen, würde ich positiv hervorheben. Dass sie die Sache mit dem Lizenzlink hinbekommen, ist auch schon fast ein Alleinstellungsmerkmal unter Weiternutzern... Ein Vorstandsmitglied ist gleichzeitig auch bei Creative Commons Deutschland für die Öffentlichkeitsarbeit zuständig. Da darf man einen vernünftigen Umgang mit Lizenzhinweisen schon erwarten. Das mit dem fehlenden Quellenhinweis ist wohl einfach nur ein Versehen. Und da die Karte hier nur als Hintergrund für eine Grafik dient und als Karte gar nicht zu gebrauchen ist, würde ich das auch nicht so eng sehen. Matthias ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Kein Quellen-/Lizenzhinweis
Tordanik wrote: Ich gehe mal von einem Versehen aus, doch gerade eine Seite, die sich mit verwandten Themen beschäftigt und auch ihre eigenen Inhalte unter eine freie Lizenz stellt, sollte da eigentlich stärker drauf achten. Im Allgemeinen wird die Namensnennung nicht als Kernbestandteil der Idee freier Lizenzen gesehen. Geht zumindest mir so. ;) Die Namensnennung ist eine von zwei ausdrücklich geforderten Kernbedingungen der CC-BY-SA-Lizenz. Also ist es ein klarer Lizenzverstoß, wenn sie komplett fehlt. Dabei ist es irrelevant, welchen Aspekt der Lizenz man im Allgemeinen oder persönlich für wichtiger oder weniger wichtig hält oder ob man der Ansicht ist, PD wäre sowieso besser. :-) bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Kein-Quellen-Lizenzhinweis-tp6268918p6271968.html Sent from the Germany mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Darstellung von geotagged Bildern in OSM
Habe mich überall registriert und hoffe daß es nicht mehr klemmt!. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Darstellung-von-geotagged-Bildern-in-OSM-tp5614338p6272220.html Sent from the Germany mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel Phase 3 beginnt am Sonntag
Hallo, diese Nachricht betrifft nur diejenigen Benutzer, die sich vor dem 12. Mai 2010 angemeldet haben und die den neuen Contributor Terms noch nicht zugestimmt haben. Bislang kann man ja nur ja zur neuen Lizenz und den Contributor Terms sagen - nicht nein. Das wird sich am kommenden Sonntag aendern, denn dann tritt die Phase 3 des Lizenzwechsels in Kraft. Von diesem Zeitpunkt an kann man auf der Seite http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms auch nein ankreuzen. Zugleich werden nur noch solche User editieren koennen, die entweder ja oder nein gesagt haben - das Ziel der Phase 3 ist also, zumindest die aktiven Benutzer zu einer Entscheidung zu draengen. Wer sich noch nicht entschieden hat, wird beim Versuch, irgendwelche Edits hochzuladen, eine Meldung erhalten, die in etwa besagt, dass man sich erst auf der Webseite einloggen und eine Entscheidung treffen muss. Es ist nicht 100% klar, ob alle Editoren das auch wirklich richtig anzeigen - einige Editoren koennten evtl. auch nur sagen Fehler beim Hochladen oder so. Auch, wer nein ankreuzt, darf (vorerst) weiter editieren, und kann es sich ggf. spaeter noch anders ueberlegen. Der aktuelle Plan ist, dass in 5-10 Wochen die Phase 4 anschliessen soll, ab der dann nur noch diejenigen Benutzer weiter editieren duerfen, die dem Lizenzwechsel zugestimmt haben. Die Phase 5, in der dann tatsaechlich auf ODbL umgestellt wird, liegt noch in weiter Ferne. Wer sich fuer Details zum Lizenzwechsel interessiert, der kann neben den Informationen im Wiki auch meinen Vortrag von letzter Woche auf der FOSSGIS-Konferenz anschauen: Folien... http://www.geofabrik.de/media/2011-04-06-fossgis-lizenzwechsel.pdf Film... http://ftp5.gwdg.de/pub/misc/openstreetmap/FOSSGIS2011/FOSSGIS2011-323-de-osm_lizenz.mp4 Bye Frederik ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel Phase 3 beginnt am Sonntag
Am Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:44:49 +0200 schrieb Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Auch, wer nein ankreuzt, darf (vorerst) weiter editieren, und kann es sich ggf. spaeter noch anders ueberlegen. Darf ich mal anmerken, dass ich deutlich Zweifel hab, dass das irgendeinen Sinn ergibt? (mal böse gesprochen: Leute, die sich über die Lizenzänderung aufregen, können das ja als Anlass nehmen, danach besonders fleißig zu mappen) Weiter: Gibt es noch den Plan, alle User, die nicht reagieren, anzumailen? Das scheint mir äußerst sinnvoll, da ich davon ausgehe, dass viele, die früher mal aktiv waren, nichts gegen einen Lizenzwechsel haben, aber davon schlicht nichts mitbekommen haben. -- Hanno Böck mail/jabber: ha...@hboeck.de GPG: BBB51E42 http://www.hboeck.de/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel Phase 3 beginnt am Sonntag
Frederik Ramm wrote: diese Nachricht betrifft nur diejenigen Benutzer, die sich vor dem 12. Mai 2010 angemeldet haben und die den neuen Contributor Terms noch nicht zugestimmt haben. Also mich eigentlich nicht, da bereits zugestimmt. Auch, wer nein ankreuzt, darf (vorerst) weiter editieren, und kann es sich ggf. spaeter noch anders ueberlegen. Genau dieser Zwitter-Zustand, der jetzt schon ewig andauert, beginnt zumindest mich so langsam zu nerven. Der aktuelle Plan ist, dass in 5-10 Wochen die Phase 4 anschliessen soll, ab der dann nur noch diejenigen Benutzer weiter editieren duerfen, die dem Lizenzwechsel zugestimmt haben. Die Phase 5, in der dann tatsaechlich auf ODbL umgestellt wird, liegt noch in weiter Ferne. Kein Thema. Legt nur endlich mal ein paar Zähne zu! Ich möchte heute schon festlegen können, dass meine Änderungen nicht mehr unter CC-By-SA stehen, sondern ausschließlich ODbL. Gruß Manuel ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Mapnik deutscher Kartenstil: fehlende Bezeichnung von Flüssen
Hallo, ich erstelle gerade SLD Styles für Geoserver und orientiere mich dabei am deutschen Mapnik Kartenstil. Mir ist dabei aufgefallen das in der Datei layer-water.xml.inc (im Gegensatz zum englischen Stil) waterway=river keine Bezeichnung hat aber drain und ditch sehr wohl. Hat das einen bestimmten Grund warum mehrere Meter breite Flüsse nicht bezeichnet werden aber kleine Bäche usw. schon? Lustigerweise werden Flüsse in Tunneln wieder bezeichnet. :) MfG yobiSource ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Mapnik deutscher Kartenstil: fehlende Bezeichnung von Flüssen
Am 14. April 2011 18:51 schrieb yobiSource yobisou...@googlemail.com: Hallo, ich erstelle gerade SLD Styles für Geoserver und orientiere mich dabei am deutschen Mapnik Kartenstil. Mir ist dabei aufgefallen das in der Datei layer-water.xml.inc (im Gegensatz zum englischen Stil) waterway=river keine Bezeichnung hat aber drain und ditch sehr wohl. Hat das einen bestimmten Grund warum mehrere Meter breite Flüsse nicht bezeichnet werden aber kleine Bäche usw. schon? Lustigerweise werden Flüsse in Tunneln wieder bezeichnet. :) richtig Sinn macht das wohl nicht, evtl. ist es aber auch nicht tragisch, weil die riverbanks beschriftet werden (nur eine Vermutung)? Gruß Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel Phase 3 beginnt am Sonntag
Am 14.04.2011 18:37, schrieb Manuel Reimer: Genau dieser Zwitter-Zustand, der jetzt schon ewig andauert, beginnt zumindest mich so langsam zu nerven. +1 Wenn man wirklich ODBL will, dann verstehe ich nicht, dass man Nicht-Zustimmer noch editieren lässt. Chris ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel Phase 3 beginnt am Sonntag
Am 14.04.2011 19:44, schrieb Chris66: Am 14.04.2011 18:37, schrieb Manuel Reimer: Genau dieser Zwitter-Zustand, der jetzt schon ewig andauert, beginnt zumindest mich so langsam zu nerven. +1 Wenn man wirklich ODBL will, dann verstehe ich nicht, dass man Nicht-Zustimmer noch editieren lässt. Immerhin können die Coder jetzt die Tools anpassen und die Mapper dann die entsprechenden Objekte neu erfassen. Henning ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel Phase 3 beginnt am Sonntag
Hallo, Hanno Böck wrote: Weiter: Gibt es noch den Plan, alle User, die nicht reagieren, anzumailen? Das scheint mir äußerst sinnvoll, da ich davon ausgehe, dass viele, die früher mal aktiv waren, nichts gegen einen Lizenzwechsel haben, aber davon schlicht nichts mitbekommen haben. Ja, den Plan gibt es noch. Ich hatte irrtuemlich angenommen, dass eine solche Mail-Aktion noch *vor* der Phase 3 stattfinden sollte, das ist aber wohl nicht der Fall. Das Motiv seitens der LWG ist, dass man (a) die Benutzer nicht zuspammen will, d.h. es soll ganz genau nur eine einzige Mail an alle geschickt werden und keine 28 reminder; aber in dieser Mail will man (b) bereits einen moeglichst eindrucksvollen Zwischenstand vermitteln koennen (95% aller Mapper haben bereits zugestimmt, mach Du auch mit!). Daher wir die Mail noch rausgezoegert. Ich finde das auch nicht so prickelnd. Es fuehrt dazu, dass vielerorts die Leute diese Informationsaufgabe selber in die Hand nehmen und sich dabei eventuell ungeschickt anstellen. Andererseits, meine ein LWG-Mitglied mir gegenueber, ist es vielleicht auch gar nicht so schlecht, wenn man vom Lizenzwechsel durch einen Mapper aus der eigenen Stadt erfaehrt (und vorallem auch: in der eigenen Sprache), anstatt durch eine Rundmail vom OSMF-Hauptquartier... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel Phase 3 beginnt am Sonntag
Frederik Ramm schrieb am 14.04.2011 14:44: Wer sich fuer Details zum Lizenzwechsel interessiert, der kann neben den Informationen im Wiki auch meinen Vortrag von letzter Woche auf der FOSSGIS-Konferenz anschauen: Folien... http://www.geofabrik.de/media/2011-04-06-fossgis-lizenzwechsel.pdf Film... http://ftp5.gwdg.de/pub/misc/openstreetmap/FOSSGIS2011/FOSSGIS2011-323-de-osm_lizenz.mp4 Nebenbei bemerkt: Der Vortrag (genauer gesagt die Folien) hat mir sehr gut gefallen, denn obwohl die Grundaussage Pro-Lizenzwechsel ist, werden auch alle Gegenargumente (zumindest was mich betrifft) aufgefuehrt. Sowas sieht man fuer meinen Geschmack heutzutage viel zu selten. Gruss Torsten ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] itoworld Layers
Die neuen Hervorhebungen von ITO World sind ziemlich schmuck, aber es wird wieder etwas als Fehler gebrandmarkt, was hier viele nicht als Fehler empfinden. Mir ist hier http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ITO_Map#Buildings_and_addresses aufgefallen. Gebäudeumrisse, die keine Hausnummer und keinen Hausnamen haben, werden rot dargestellt, so, als ob hier ein Manko herrschte. Dabei halten es viele so und verteidigen dies auch auf dieser Liste so, dass die Adressen als einzelne Punkte in den Gebäudeumriss oder an dessen Rand gesetzt werden. Hoffentlich führen solche Darstellungen nicht zu einem massenhaften Tauziehen. -- Johannes Hüsing There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture mailto:johan...@huesing.name from such a trifling investment of fact. http://derwisch.wikidot.com (Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi) ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Lizenzwechsel Phase 3 beginnt am Sonntag
Frederik Ramm schrieb: http://openstreetmap.org/user/terms Knuffig ist, daß ich einer rechtsverbindlichen Vereinbarung zustimmen soll, die ich nicht verstehe. Rainer ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
