On 20 Feb 2008, at 00:56, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Jordan said, in a recent response to one of my posts and comparing ODL
> to a PD-type license:
>
> "I personally am neutral on a preference between the two and think
> that it would be wholly inappropriate for me to recommend one or the
> other to
Hi all,
A personal view on the perennial PD vs sharealike debate. None of this
is OSMF thinking, needless to say.
I do agree with John's position that PD is the best solution for
licensing anything "open". When John says
> Or you take the PD strategy and tell NavTeq that the value of their
>
Hi,
> We can never exclude that kind of thing. Person X is fed up
> about traffic passing his house : just delete that road on
> OSM.
Correct. We can also never exclude someone copying map data from
Google. It's a matter of what stance we, as a project, take, and as
long as everybody agrees t
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:26:57PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I thought he was referring to situations where something could easily
> have been accurately mapped but the mapper willingly introduced an error
> or inaccuracy that he would not normally have put there. Someone else
> said "waterm
> Watermarking as part of a control and enforcement structure? Not my
> style. Next thing you tell me is that you can download our data but you
> only get every second node, and have to pay for the others...
What on earth are you talking about? You know perfectly well that all of my
contribution
Hi,
> We do have genuine deliberate errors in the database, not through any
> devious wish to conceal something but rather because we can't map it
> accurately. A simple example here:
No problem with that. If 80n has been referring to situations where
something could not be accurately mapped due
Hi,
> It was a statement of fact, not a guideline or an endorsement. I just
> said I knew of some, I didn't say that I was responsible for them.
Then surely you'll post a list of those you know of so that they can be
fixed?
Incidentally, how many Easter Eggs am I permitted to introduce before
Hi,
> Personally, I do not support the practice of deliberately inserting
> errors into our database.
>
> Think of it more as "watermarking"
Watermarking as part of a control and enforcement structure? Not my
style. Next thing you tell me is that you can download our data but you
only
A Morris wrote:
> Think of it more as "watermarking"
One could also make a case for their being different levels of severity
of "watermark". A completely fictitious street is one thing; a
fictitious "wayside cross" is another. Although I suppose, for the
watermark to be effective, you would nee
A Morris wrote:
> Think of it more as "watermarking"
One could also make a case for their being different levels of severity
of "watermark". A completely fictitious street is one thing; a
fictitious "wayside cross" is another. Although I suppose, for the
watermark to be effective, you would nee
> I have taken the liberty of modifying the "Copyright Easter Eggs"
> article on the Wiki to reflect that situation. Beforehand it seemed
> to imply that OSM was free of easter eggs ("because commercial data
> contains deliberate errors ... we need our own free and accurate
> geodata"), which obvio
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Sent: 20 February 2008 10:33 AM
>To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Deconstructing the "loss of data" claim
>
>Hi,
>
>> Interspersed within all the facts in the OSM data dump are a number
>>
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Interspersed within all the facts in the OSM data dump are a number
> > of non-factual elements. There are both accidental errors and
> > probably quite a few *deliberate* errors (I know of some).
>
> I have ta
On Feb 19, 2008 11:54 PM, John Wilbanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi everyone. My name is John Wilbanks. I am the VP for Science Commons
> at Creative Commons, and I'm the one who wrote the Protocol for
> Implementing Open Access to Data.
>
> I've been lurking here for a couple of weeks. I don'
It's hard to bully when you have no leverage. I don't have a vote here.
But the truth about the public domain is the truth, no matter how hard
anyone wants to believe otherwise.
I'm not a lawyer, indeed. I have however spent ten years in this space
working as a pivot point between coders, scien
John - this is ridiculous. Of course we can slap a new license on our map
data to better protect it.
Why do people persist with this notion that maps cannot be copyrighted? The
Ordnance Survey has won a number of court cases.
Aled.
On Feb 19, 2008 11:54 PM, John Wilbanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wr
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:00:17AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> (John)
> > > That means I'm free to ignore any kind of share-alike you apply to
> > > your data. I've got a download of the OSM data dump. I can repost
> > > it, right now, as public domain. You can perhaps try to sue me -
> > > thoug
On 20 Feb 2008, at 00:56, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Steve,
>
>> For now, as Jordan is an actual lawyer, I'm going to continue voting
>> ODL.
>
> Jordan said, in a recent response to one of my posts and comparing ODL
> to a PD-type license:
>
> "I personally am neutral on a preference between the two
Hi,
(John)
> > That means I'm free to ignore any kind of share-alike you apply to
> > your data. I've got a download of the OSM data dump. I can repost
> > it, right now, as public domain. You can perhaps try to sue me -
> > though I'm pretty
(Bart)
> That is your position. But at the same time w
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:50:48AM +, SteveC wrote:
> No, the total opposite.
>
> We only found out about some of the implications of certain use cases,
> and how it makes some use a bit easier, when we sat down with Jordan
> in a cafe and threw around ideas and scenarios.
>
> Please don'
Steve,
> For now, as Jordan is an actual lawyer, I'm going to continue voting
> ODL.
Jordan said, in a recent response to one of my posts and comparing ODL
to a PD-type license:
"I personally am neutral on a preference between the two and think
that it would be wholly inappropriate for me to r
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:20:54AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Well I think the key problem with the current license is that we don't
> adhere to it ourselves, and that it is quite unclear how the license
> is to be applied in many cases. (Just one example of many: The derived
> work vs. collecte
On 19 Feb 2008, at 22:48, bvh wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:01:16PM +, Andy Robinson wrote:
>> The issue was quite simple. We need to have a license that better
>> protects the OSM data and clarifies how the data can be used so that
>
> In what way do we need to better protect the right
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 06:54:37PM -0500, John Wilbanks wrote:
> I'm going to be a little provocative here and say that your data is
> already unprotected, and you cannot slap a license on it and protect it.
I feel you (and others who approach OSM data from a legal angle
as opposed to those who
On 19 Feb 2008, at 22:43, bvh wrote:
>
> I think everything in my paragraph was factual : AND has made
> a substantial contribution. AND is a single party. AND has commercial
> interests to keep map data out of PD.
Guys for the record I'm talking to AND about this.
have fun,
SteveC | [EMAIL PRO
On 19 Feb 2008, at 23:18, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> The issue was quite simple. We need to have a license that better
>> protects the OSM data
>
> Do we? What's the threat? How has it been assessed?
>
>> and clarifies how the data can be used so that
>> the project can effectively deliver wh
John
If we're being frank, it appears CC have been bullying everyone with
this PD stuff.
I'll let Jordan respond to your points (and I hope he has time), but
it's clear that you fundamentally disagree on whether the ODL actually
works or not, and you do it in a rather strange and emotional
Hi,
> AFAIK this whole 'lets get another license' is motived by a desire
> of some to make it easier for 3th parties to use our work, not for
> a desire to better protect the contributors.
Well I think the key problem with the current license is that we don't
adhere to it ourselves, and that it i
Andy Robinson wrote on 20/02/2008 10:01:16 AM:
> We need to have a license that better
> protects the OSM data and clarifies how the data can be used so that
> the project can effectively deliver what it set out to deliver.
...
> OSM never started out as a PD project so why would we think that it
John,
thank you for joining the discussion. Makes me feel less lonely on
my side of the argument ;-)
> But you absolutely couldn't sue anyone who came along and downloaded
> my copy and then reposted that same data as public domain. There's
> no copyright on your data, and that means that only
Hi everyone. My name is John Wilbanks. I am the VP for Science Commons
at Creative Commons, and I'm the one who wrote the Protocol for
Implementing Open Access to Data.
I've been lurking here for a couple of weeks. I don't like showing up
and posting without getting a sense of the community. Bu
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:01:16PM +, Andy Robinson wrote:
> The issue was quite simple. We need to have a license that better
> protects the OSM data and clarifies how the data can be used so that
In what way do we need to better protect the rights to the work of the
OSM contributors? I am no
Hi,
> Do you know of any people who have attempted to use such power?
No. Most of them have already signed up for PD and by doing that they
have given that power away. Good for you ;-)
> It does seem to me that one thing that should be happening during this
> discussion period about the changes
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:08:47AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> But are my negative feelings about the share-alike aspect any less
> important than yours? Share-alike advocates have more clout legally
I think there is a clear asymmetry here : the project has always
operated under a share alike li
On 19/02/2008, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The issue was quite simple. We need to have a license that better
> > protects the OSM data
>
> Do we? What's the threat? How has it been assessed?
I'm not aware of a threat being received but a number of individuals
and some lega
Hi,
> The issue was quite simple. We need to have a license that better
> protects the OSM data
Do we? What's the threat? How has it been assessed?
> and clarifies how the data can be used so that
> the project can effectively deliver what it set out to deliver.
It set out to deliver a free wor
Hi,
> Right, but it can't be good for the motivation for said person
> to be railroaded into releasing his work as PD by the OSM project.
> I am such a person. While I might accept to release my work to the
> PD, I would certainly not be happy about it. I find it quite
> likely that this would hav
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> True but they had no choice - either work with OSM as it is, or go
> away and find another project.
Right, but such people weighed their options and were willing to work
with OSM. So if OSM changes between two licences with roughly the same
terms, logically they shouldn't
Hi,
> Everyone who has contributed data to the project has, at least,
> indicated their willingness to contribute data under a licence which
> has these sort of general terms.
True but they had no choice - either work with OSM as it is, or go
away and find another project.
Now, given the choice,
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:39:00PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 2a. It is likely that some people are overstating their intent, i.e.
> they threaten not to re-license their data, hoping to influence the
> decision-making process in their favour, but when a decision is made
> it remains to be seen
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>I am unhappy about the much-iterated claim that we would lose a lot
> of data if we were to go PD (or CC0, or a similar non-virulent
> license).
Frederik,
I applaud your effort to write this first section in an NPOV way, and I
think you mostly succeed, but I th
Hi,
I am unhappy about the much-iterated claim that we would lose a lot
of data if we were to go PD (or CC0, or a similar non-virulent
license).
Quite honestly, I think this claim is bordering on what you call
"FUD" - fear, uncertainty, and disinformation.
This much is obvious:
--
42 matches
Mail list logo
