On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
did you see this?
http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
--
Steve
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
>
>> did you see this?
>> http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
>>
>
> That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm lo
> The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm looking into why
> that doesn't display.
I'm no expert, but see
http://dev.openlayers.org/docs/files/OpenLayers/Control/Attribution-
js.html
your map seems to be lacking one in the "var map" declaration.
Ed
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
>
>> did you see this?
>> http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
>>
>
> That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
I just noticed that osm.org is missing attribution.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> SomeoneElse wrote:
>
>> Odd. zoom in to the dizzy heights of 16 (in Denmark WA FWIW) and you get
>> "picture coming soon". I picked Denmark because it's somewhere that I've
>> been and added stuff (to OSM, but would also like to
On 23 June 2011 12:50, John Smith wrote:
> On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr wrote:
>> On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
>>> did you see this?
>>> http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
>>
>> That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
>
> I jus
The license on archive.org and all metadata is in a standard place,
http://www.archive.org/details/SharedMap2
It can be updated at any time, seems that the sources are not stated.
mike
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
>
> did you se
John Smith wrote:
> The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm looking into why
> that doesn't display.
You probably need a DG file instead.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-
2011-06-23 John Smith:
> On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr wrote:
>> On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
>>
>>> did you see this?
>>> http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
>>>
>>
>> That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution?
>
> I just noticed t
On 23 June 2011 21:00, Matt Williams wrote:
> No it isn't. There's a 'Copyright & License' link in the sidebar on the left.
Nice and obscure...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 23 June 2011 21:15, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> No, it isn't. It has the attribution right there on the "Copyright &
> License" link.
Unlike every other map site out there where the main attribution is at
the bottom right side of the map.
> The "Demo archive.org Tile Hosting" map, on the other hand
2011-06-23 John Smith:
> On 23 June 2011 21:15, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>> No, it isn't. It has the attribution right there on the "Copyright &
>> License" link.
>
> Unlike every other map site out there where the main attribution is at
> the bottom right side of the map.
Maybe you just don't know e
Steve Coast wrote:
>
>
> 80n wrote:
>>
>>> A: We will definitely stop using OSM as soon as OSM switches to ODbL
>>> for it's output.
>>> Q: Now when will that be?
>>
>
> Personally I hope as soon as possible. I suspect it will be nice to give
> you 'no' guys some time to reconsider, as some
On 23 June 2011 21:47, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Maybe you just don't know enough maps - there are plenty that list
> attribution elsewhere. This includes lots of maps for mobile devices
> (because these happen to have limited screen space), but also maps that
> use multiple sources (because in these
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
> The data is rendered from FOSM data.
Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
robert.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott wrote:
> On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
>> The data is rendered from FOSM data.
>
> Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
I'm told there is at least 500 changesets not from OSM...
___
talk maili
Hi,
On 06/23/2011 01:51 PM, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote:
So in theory, while in this interim stage, we could stop providing any new
data as CC-by-SA and instead offer a frozen CC-by-SA planet dump, with all
work since that freeze available as an additional ODbL "diff"?
Legal subtleties are
Hi,
On 06/23/2011 01:53 PM, Robert Scott wrote:
Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
I understand that it is also possible to upload original content to
fosm.org, so you're probalby talking about less than 100%. 99.999% or so ;)
Bye
Frederik
__
On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott wrote:
> On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
>> The data is rendered from FOSM data.
>
> Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
I find this ironic, if not out right amusing, OSM-F tries to hide any
kind of attribution, yet you expect others to m
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Legal subtleties are best discussed on legal-talk. If you care to make
> your suggestion there, I'd be willing to point out why it doesn't work ;)
>
Fair enough Frederik, if it's a legal subtlety then I probably don't want to
know! :)
But I do feel slightly uncomforta
On 23 June 2011 22:20, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote:
> But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed
> should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a
> CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community.
Erm how is this any better
>But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed
>should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a
>>CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community.
The community has always been clear that the continuation of OSM
with with a ne
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
>
> The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name
> and
> servers, because of mainly because a majority let them do it.
>
> That is an odd way of saying the the majority is always right, and if
> wrong
> they
Hi,
On 06/23/2011 02:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen >
The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and
servers, because of mainly because a majority let them do it.
That's half as bad. Imagine that happening after country-wide
elections..
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen wrote:
> The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and
> servers, because of mainly because a majority let them do it.
>
> So I feel it very unfair to call the continuation of OSM unde
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
> Regards,
> Ing. Gert Gremmen, BSc
Hey, cool. This is fun. Can we all join in?
cheers
Richard Fairhurst, MA (Cantab)
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvanta
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
> On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott wrote:
> > On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
> >> The data is rendered from FOSM data.
> >
> > Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
>
> I'm told there is at least 500 changesets not from OSM...
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
> On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott wrote:
> > On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
> >> The data is rendered from FOSM data.
> >
> > Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data.
>
> I find this ironic, if not out right amusing, OSM-F tries t
On 24 June 2011 01:02, Robert Scott wrote:
> Nearly all of the data was generated by OpenStreetMap contributors under the
> OpenStreetMap flag, so I think the attribution should be mostly to
> OpenStreetMap.
For starters you are confusing OSM contributors with OSM-F who
operates the website and
@Eugene
Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples.
My example fits exactly the description of what is called
forking:
Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToFork
@Graham,
My reaction was just against the accusat
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
> On 24 June 2011 01:02, Robert Scott wrote:
> > Nearly all of the data was generated by OpenStreetMap contributors under
> > the OpenStreetMap flag, so I think the attribution should be mostly to
> > OpenStreetMap.
>
> For starters you are confusing
On 24 June 2011 01:27, Robert Scott wrote:
> So - what, you're saying we should be doing the whole
> list-ten-thousand-names-in-the-corner thing? I don't understand - what's your
> point?
My point is, why should other sites be forced into attribution even
OSM-F isn't willing to give it's own co
On Thursday 23 June 2011, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
> @Eugene
>
> Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples.
> My example fits exactly the description of what is called
> forking:
> Try
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29
2011-06-23 John Smith:
>> Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are
>> ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0:
>
> As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy
> attribution, especially when dealing with small screens, s
On 24 June 2011 01:41, Robert Scott wrote:
> So because people have decided to start a voluntary project, they have to be
> answerable to absolutely everybody... everywhere... ever? No matter how
> unreasonable or logically warped they are (no names mentioned)? Everyone gets
> a veto on everyth
On 24 June 2011 01:49, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> 2011-06-23 John Smith:
>>> Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are
>>> ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0:
>>
>> As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy
>> attribut
John Smith:
> On 24 June 2011 01:49, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>> 2011-06-23 John Smith:
Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are
ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0:
>>>
>>> As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a
On 24 June 2011 02:00, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> There are two plausible legal interpretations:
> - the "original author" is "OpenStreetMap"
> - the "original author" are a lot of individuals
You left off companies that have donated data.
> No matter which interpretation you choose, your website doe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Op 23-06-11 17:41, Robert Scott schreef:
> Yet people somehow still know what "Linux" is and where to get it,
> because it tends to center itself around where all the competent
> people are.
Now think this in BSD perspective. And ask yourself how yo
2011-06-23 John Smith:
>
>> I'm not interested in talking about OSMF's legal choices with you.
>
> Oh so it's a case of do as I say, not as I do...
No, it's a case of "don't feed the troll".
If someone else still reads this thread and is honestly interested in
related legal matters, I suggest to
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:22 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen wrote:
> @Eugene
>
> Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples.
> My example fits exactly the description of what is called
> forking:
> Try
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_developme
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:49 PM, John Smith wrote:
> Every open source project I can think of has a fixed set of principals
> by which the code will be licensed under, and the license defines the
> sort of people that will join and help out, those requiring you to
> sign your rights away are usua
On 24 June 2011 02:36, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> 1. Signing your rights away is not necessarily a bad thing. (The FSF
> asks you to do exactly that when contributing to GNU software
> projects, for good reasons, though others may rightfully disagree.)
>
> 2. Anyway, the OSM CT does not require
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 20:50 +1000, John Smith wrote:
> On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr wrote:
> > On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote:
> >
> >> did you see this?
> >> http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html
> >>
> >
> > That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort
2011/6/23 Tobias Knerr :
> "If you distribute [...] any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You
> must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the
> Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means [...].
> -- Tobias Knerr
I understand from this that the individual cont
On 24 June 2011 04:14, David Murn wrote:
> I pointed this out once and the response was that osm.org doesnt need
> attribution because there is a logo in the top-left corner.
>
> I guess the same logic could be applied here, since the name
> 'OpenStreetMap' is on the fosm.org page.
As I pointed o
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 17:22 +0200, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen wrote:
> @Eugene
>
> Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples.
> My example fits exactly the description of what is called
> forking:
> Try
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_develop
David Murn schrieb:
Now, say half a dozen developers decided to take the GPL codebase, call
it FreeLinux and continue development, while encouraging anyone who ever
contributed to the project under GPL and wants to continue using that
licence, to come over to their project.
If they wouldn't hav
On 24 June 2011 04:43, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> That said, I'm happy about FOSM, if I ever become a resident of the US and
> that legal opinion on this matter still holds up, I might pull its data and
> provide it under PD myself.
Unlikely, maps were the first thing to be protected under copyright,
On 6/22/2011 5:16 PM, David Murn wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 16:25 -0700, Steve Coast wrote:
Well there's one other aspect which is there are chunks of data only
available to OpenStreetMap and nobody else.
Does the data exclusively available under the ODbL outweigh the data
exclusively avail
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:35 PM, John Smith wrote:
> You seem to be the one disrupting things, as far as I'm concerned I
> attributed to FOSM who in turn attributes their sources.
>
+1 there is a chain of attribution. All the data is available, fosm includes
osm data so it should be possible for p
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> Uh huh. So I suppose if there were a successful plebiscite in a
> country wanting to change their form of government from presidential
> to parliamentary (or vice versa) then that's a rotten thing unless the
> winning side leaves the te
Nic Roets wrote:
> But I also don't know why you three compare the license change
> to ordinary democratic processes. It's much closer to what's
> been happening in the Arab States this year.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-
Nic,
Nic Roets wrote:
A modern democratic government would have found a way to defuse the
situation long ago.
I've actually thought about that for quite a while and came to the
conclusion that the problems we're seeing are probably due to OSM being
such an unstructured, little-governed proje
This discussion makes me sad.
My personal motivation in life is : everybody should live in freedom"
. Derived from this:
" alternatives are good, monopoly is bad"
fosm; I embrace the initiative, but you have a lot of "marketing" to
do if you want people to come to FOSM. A website with broken lin
2011-06-23 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
> 2011/6/23 Tobias Knerr :
>> "If you distribute [...] any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You
>> must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the
>> Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means [...].
>
> I understand from this tha
John Smith schrieb:
On 24 June 2011 04:43, Robert Kaiser wrote:
That said, I'm happy about FOSM, if I ever become a resident of the US and
that legal opinion on this matter still holds up, I might pull its data and
provide it under PD myself.
Unlikely, maps were the first thing to be protecte
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
I've actually thought about that for quite a while and came to the
conclusion that the problems we're seeing are probably due to OSM being
such an unstructured, little-governed project.
Hey, I've been saying this for weeks! (Not in here, though...) ;-)
I indeed believe t
John Smith wrote:
> Unlikely, maps were the first thing to be protected under copyright
Um, no. The first thing to be protected by copyright was an Old Irish
psalter. Is and gabais Fergus dóib daur mór ro-boí for lár ind liss assa
frénaib, etc.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote:
> > More importantly, if "f"osm is so much more legitimate and important than
> > OpenStreetMap, why are you still over here taking a dump on "our" list?
>
> You're the one making a big song and dance about things.
>
I wouldn't say I'm making a song a
On 23 June 2011 16:52, Nic Roets wrote:
> It's much closer to what's been
> happening in the Arab States this year:
There are at least two big difference between revolutions in the Maghreb and
Arab Countries, and the License discussion inside OSM.
In this mailing lists it doesn't matter if a p
Current thinking is to use a separate account for bulk imports.
Occasionally things go wrong and its easier to roll back under a separate
account. Having said that when the import is merged with existing data in
JOSM then uploaded things become not so black and white.
In general with the new CT t
Hi all.
OpenStreetMap came through the scheduled maintenance on 23 June in
great shape.
We should all thank the sysadmin team for making the server move
happen. Grant, Andy and Harry were all on site at one or both ends of
the move. Andy's friend Mark helped out as well on site. Tom was
helpin
Quick update. The maintenance has been completed. All services are up
and running again.
API + www.openstreetmap.org is running a little slower than normal due
to reduced capacity, but will return to normal late Friday afternoon
(GMT).
/ Grant
On 9 June 2011 21:17, Grant Slater wrote:
> Please c
On 24 June 2011 02:45, Richard Weait wrote:
>
> OpenStreetMap came through the scheduled maintenance on 23 June in
> great shape.
>
Pictures or it didn't happen!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrywood/5863059620/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrywood/5863059624/in/photostream
http
I actually have a bone to pick. I was going to try and do some
maintenance on a box here at home while the OSM servers were down in
the hopes that my replication setup wouldn't get so far behind. But
because they got things done quicker than the advertised 12 hours, I
didn't have a chance to get it
mappers in NZ have recently imported a lot of grass airstrips into
OSM. it appears the airstrips only render at zoom 10 on the mapnik
render of the map at osm.org, which looks like this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-37.243&lon=175.014&zoom=10&layers=M
is there any particular reason for this
On 24 June 2011 07:39, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Well, it has been stated multiple times that it was a lawyer opinion that
Francis Davey, who also claims to be a lawyer, gave an opposite opinion.
> CC-BY-SA didn't apply to our data, and factual databases aren't protected by
Which is a false premis
On 24 June 2011 08:49, Julio Costa Zambelli
wrote:
> On 23 June 2011 16:52, Nic Roets wrote:
>>
>> It's much closer to what's been
>> happening in the Arab States this year:
>
> There are at least two big difference between revolutions in the Maghreb and
> Arab Countries, and the License discussi
On 23 June 2011 23:58, John Smith wrote:
> So you quote one line and fail to point out what falsities I'm making.
>
So that is what my message was all about? Thanks for clarifying it to me...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.ope
On 24 June 2011 14:32, Julio Costa Zambelli
wrote:
> On 23 June 2011 23:58, John Smith wrote:
>>
>> So you quote one line and fail to point out what falsities I'm making.
>
> So that is what my message was all about? Thanks for clarifying it to me...
>
You claimed I was making false claims witho
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Milo van der Linden wrote:
> fosm; I embrace the initiative, but you have a lot of "marketing" to
> do if you want people to come to FOSM. A website with broken links, no
> information about who initiated the fork or any insight about the who,
> why and what looks
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Zsombor Szabó wrote:
> Wasn't expecting so poor reception on behalf of the OSM community. No
> one commented on the idea of sharing and checking into OSM places on
> Twitter with OpenMaps for iOS to increase OSM awareness.
>
> Does this mean that you don't have a
73 matches
Mail list logo
