Re: [OSM-talk] Tag for true OSM data?

Hi Jukka, I'm just wondering why you would prefer using "Corine landcover data [...] from the original sources and not pushed through OSM"? Thanks, Brendan On 31/03/2011 5:51 PM, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: Hi, I am mostly interested in truly original OSM data created by our contributors. Now whe

Re: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au

On 12/07/2011 1:53 AM, Simon Poole wrote: Am 11.07.2011 14:46, schrieb Brendan Morley: On 11/07/2011 8:08 PM, Simon Poole wrote: It's really up to -them- to remedy the mistakes -they- made (ABS2006 import and similar). I'm sad to think you characterise ABS2006 as a "mistake&q

Re: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au

Hi Frederik, thanks for discussing. On 11/07/2011 10:58 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 07/11/11 14:46, Brendan Morley wrote: * If ABS2006 is a mistake licensing-wise, then it would be a mistake to import any Australian Government geodata into OSM these days. I belive importing *any* data

Re: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au

On 11/07/2011 8:08 PM, Simon Poole wrote: It's really up to -them- to remedy the mistakes -they- made (ABS2006 import and similar). I'm sad to think you characterise ABS2006 as a "mistake". *** Warning - some licensing discussion follows *** ABS2006 is a CC BY dataset isn't it? While I haven

Re: [OSM-talk] Join the OSMF ! + PD / CC0 projects

On 11/06/2011 10:02 AM, Nic Roets wrote: Not at all - I know of no form of democracy that distinguishes between grudging acceptance or evangelical zeal. Dermot, I would quite like to take my data and start my own PD / CC0 project. Nic, Before you go doing that, please consider the

[OSM-talk] Blue sky API: Branching function

Hi all, Firstly, put this in the "blue sky dreaming" bucket. But I am interested in the latent demand out there. Some of us will be familiar with subversion or git, which are source code version control systems. We also know that OSM API v0.6 contains some Changeset semantics. However, I

Re: [OSM-talk] Anonymous edits on OpenStreetMap through Tor

On 7/10/2010 7:57 AM, Emilie Laffray wrote: On 6 October 2010 22:46, Niklas Cholmkvist > wrote: Hi, is anyone contributing to OpenStreetMap by using Tor? (the onion router) Is there any opinion from anyone about this? Tor is used to strengthen on

Re: [OSM-talk] Are there any other projects in a similar fork situation? (Slightly OT)

Hi Serge, On 2/10/2010 12:04 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: Now my opinion of any potential OpenStreetMap fork. I think such a project would fail, and here are my reasons why: If failure is the opposite of success, what are your criteria for success? 2) The forkers don't agree on the reason

[OSM-talk] Fwd: CommonMap Mediawiki and Drupal sites

Original Message Subject:CommonMap Mediawiki and Drupal sites Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 11:20:30 +1000 From: Brendan Morley Organisation: CommonMap Inc To: frie...@commonmap.info, osm-f...@googlegroups.com Friends of CommonMap and OSM fork group, As you may know I have a

Re: [OSM-talk] Duplicate nodes generally

On a similar topic... What is the problem with duplicate nodes, exactly? Thanks, Brendan On 30/08/2010 12:05 AM, Nakor wrote: Please do not run automatic merge tools in the US. Doing this you will connect entities that should not (e.g. river with road). This is due to the source of the import

Re: [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms

On 19/08/2010 9:58 PM, Chris Browet wrote: On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 13:29, Pierre-Alain Dorange > wrote: Chris Browet mailto:c...@semperpax.com>> wrote: > I've seen often that the reply to this argument is that we must trust OSMF, > that it will make

Re: [OSM-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms

On 19/08/2010 9:37 PM, Nic Roets wrote: On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Chris Browet > wrote: Let's keep the Talk-List clean from Legal discussions. Anybody is welcome to join it on Legal-talk. Sorry, but I've seen those kind of invitations, too.

[OSM-talk] CommonMap for CC BY and PD geodata

Hi everyone, I just wanted to remind contributors who are happy with PD or CC BY conditions that we are establishing an alternative at CommonMap. We're not quite ready for prime time yet but we'll be sure to announce it when we do. In the meantime, please register your interest on your soci

Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:43:38 +1000, John Smith wrote: >2009/12/14 Brendan Morley : >> So why not put a wall down the middle of the house and protect that with a >> proper lock if you like, and leave the other half open for visitors to >> freely use "in creative, prod

Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:43:38 +1000, John Smith wrote: >2009/12/14 Brendan Morley : >> the large print promised to address >> "holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected >> ways"? SA still holds them back somewhat. >I disagree, it

Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:08:15 +1000, John Smith wrote: >2009/12/14 Brendan Morley : >> And the copyleft mindset of the LWP continues to perpetuate substantial >> "legal [...] restrictions on [...] use." So really, the OSM project has >> failed to deliver on this

Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:06:36 +1000, John Smith wrote: >2009/12/14 Brendan Morley : >> What is *materially removed* from you if your "labour is used to >> commercially benefit others" and/or "commercial companies [are] just sucking >> up all >> the d

Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:45:44 +, Peter Childs wrote: >2009/12/14 Brendan Morley : >> Maybe I missed something in the discussion but... >> >> Why must there be migration to the new licence? Why can't we run both >> indefinitely? >> >> >Becaus

Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:50:12 +, Matt Amos wrote: >On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Brendan Morley >wrote: >> Maybe I missed something in the discussion but... >> >> Why must there be migration to the new licence? >mainly because the current license doe

Re: [OSM-talk] Why the BSD vs GPL debate is irrelevant to OSM

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:48:17 +0100, andrzej zaborowski wrote: >2009/12/11 Shalabh : >> Ok, heres a question I have been meaning to ask for long. What is the big >> deal if the big, bad G takes a chunk of data from OSM and uses it? Do I >> care? No. If anything, I would be happy that we created som

Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:17:41 +1000, John Smith wrote: >If people or companies are benefiting, why shouldn't there be some >expectations to return the benefits to everyone, not just hoard it >away for the benefit of commercial operators if they themselves are >benefiting from it? The home page of

Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

"Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD. I prefer copyleft. I prefer CC-BY-SA. It keeps people from taking my data and incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses. Like ODbL." I'm assuming this is your comment Anthony? (I'm starting to lose track of the

[OSM-talk] Yahoo-derived edits under OdbL

Another question that didn't seem to be addressed: What is Yahoo's stance towards the OdbL? In regards to its imagery? Brendan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing

Maybe I missed something in the discussion but... Why must there be migration to the new licence? Why can't we run both indefinitely? Brendan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:56:46 +1000, John Smith wrote: >2009/12/13 Anthony : >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:17 PM, John Smith >> wrote: >>> >>> The problem I have with that is my labour is used to commercially >>> benefit others and in turn nothing they do would have to be returned >>> to the commun

Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

Oh, and I realised one of the main reasons the Australian Government lawyers are happy about CC* licences is that they prefer CCBY only, therefore avoiding the whole Sharealike-enforcement question. --Original Message Text--- From: Brendan Morley Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:31:59 +1000 Well I

Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

Well I RTFM (i.e. the CCBYSA and OdbL licences) and this is what I got: CCBYSA only compels you to share the derived work, not the steps you followed to create the derived work. i.e. CCBYSA never asked people to share "the steps they followed". So John, given you wish to "don't want commercial

Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] Fwd: Re: Why PD is not better for business

I just assumed street maps was its original purpose that it outgrew as it became more popular. However, there's great value in having "everything with a position on the Earth" in the one true geofabric. Assuming the OSMF is happy to have the database be populated with said objects. I'm sure y

[OSM-talk] Measuring success of OSM

In the interests of healthy debate, I disagree with some of the sentiments around imports. In particular that imports reduce the amount of OSM contributors, and that that is a Bad Thing. IMHO success should be measured by the accuracy of the data (to reality) and to the pervasiveness of its us

Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

If "the intent of OSM is to represent the centerline of a road as accurately as possible" (and presumably other land features too) then this is another reason to consider dropping the SA requirement - or dual licencing or dual databases or being able to assign a licence per-object. Australian

Re: [OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

"Arc" would make a certain amount of sense since the design of the built environment (e.g. road construction) is basically broken down into segments of lines, arcs and spirals (i.e. the transition from straight to curved sections). But then all associated tools would have to start acting like

Re: [OSM-talk] [talk-au] Fwd: Re: Why PD is not better for business

The momentum within Australian Governments is now to foster an environment of 99% free with 99% coverage. Best of both worlds, but requires a shift to CCBY thinking. On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:56:12 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: >On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Peter Childs wrote: >> From having s

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

:26 -0500 On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote: Brendan Morley wrote: > All for addressing, as far as I can tell, a theoretical problem, with no > real-world "exploits". I understand that actual exploits would make the problem more obvious, but I find the underlying

Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:39:13 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: >Hi, >Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 20:36, Liz wrote: >>> For Australians it means the loss of the coastline, most of which has been >>> re- >>> edited from government data, and major rivers like the Murray >>