On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 09:04:32PM +0100, Stefan Keller wrote:
Hi,
2014-03-16 10:38 GMT+01:00 Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de:
For technical reasons Google cant use OUR data and THEIR community.
Can't follow this argument: Data fusion is technically feasible beyond
filling the holes.
In
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 02:39:12PM +0100, Johan C wrote:
We have much better map data? Based on what? OSM will for example in the
next x years not be able to accomodate OSM friendly commercial companies
like Telenav on addresses, lane assistance and POI's.
I have been with OSM since 2007 and i
Just posted my comments to key points that came up in the conversation over
on the diary:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221#comment25849
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
Hello everyone -
I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental
We have much better map data? Based on what? OSM will for example in the
next x years not be able to accomodate OSM friendly commercial companies
like Telenav on addresses, lane assistance and POI's.
Op zondag 16 maart 2014 heeft Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de het volgende
geschreven:
We have
You'll be surprised.
On 16 mars 2014 14:39:12 UTC+01:00, Johan C osm...@gmail.com wrote:
We have much better map data? Based on what? OSM will for example in
the
next x years not be able to accomodate OSM friendly commercial
companies
like Telenav on addresses, lane assistance and POI's.
Op
Lets jump into this discussion late but with an exceptionally short
statement:
A few years ago, I checked the box All my contributions to OSM data are in
the public domain.
Because I think that is they way it should be so everyone can play.
Simple.
bye, Nop
--
View this message in context:
Hi,
2014-03-16 10:38 GMT+01:00 Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de:
For technical reasons Google cant use OUR data and THEIR community.
Can't follow this argument: Data fusion is technically feasible beyond
filling the holes.
Even if argued in favour of CC-BY before, the current status quo of
the
Am 14.03.2014 12:43, schrieb o...@k3v.eu:
IMHO, share alike is just like DRM on music
What??? Come on, don't be foolish! DRM tries to prevent any reuse of
date whereat Share Alike just requests to offer the data under the same
conditions as you got them. This is a fundamental difference!
On 15 March 2014 08:22:26 GMT, Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de wrote:
Am 14.03.2014 12:43, schrieb o...@k3v.eu:
IMHO, share alike is just like DRM on music
What??? Come on, don't be foolish! DRM tries to prevent any reuse of
date whereat Share Alike just requests to offer the data under
2014-03-15 11:22 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Do you know of any case where OSMF did more than write a letter?
Just being curious: Do you - or anybody else - know of any specific
case where G* wrote more than a letter?
--S.
2014-03-15 11:22 GMT+01:00 Martin
Indeed, almost no license violation cases make it to court. In the 20
years since the GPL was created, it has gone to court only a handful
of times, yet there have been hundreds (maybe thousands) of license
violations which have been settled out of court.
A court case benefits neither side. It's
On 03/15/2014 11:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 14/mar/2014 um 09:48 schrieb Norbert Wenzel
norbert.wenzel.li...@gmail.com:
And to the topic. It might not always be easy to enforce the
share-alike clause, but I really like the fact that we have it and may
enforce it if necessary.
Am 15/mar/2014 um 11:31 schrieb Stefan Keller sfkel...@gmail.com:
Just being curious: Do you - or anybody else - know of any specific
case where G* wrote more than a letter?
Maybe people act faster if it's G who writes the letter. I never got one from
them but I'd expect it to be from a
Am 14/mar/2014 um 14:52 schrieb Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de:
ODBL does not require Share-Alike for produced works.
The map, even when based on OSM data is a produced work.
Therefore even if the map is based on osm data, it's not share-alike,
and any data based on the map IMHO
Martin
Continuing to repeat a twisted version of what actually happened does
not make it truer.
Apple: the Foundation has engaged (documented) multiple times with the
company on this matter, even though, as you VERY well know, the data
they use is pre-licence change and the OSMF has no IP rights
On 15/03/2014, Kevin Peat o...@k3v.eu wrote:
On 15 March 2014 08:22:26 GMT, Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de
wrote:
Am 14.03.2014 12:43, schrieb o...@k3v.eu:
IMHO, share alike is just like DRM on music
What??? Come on, don't be foolish! DRM tries to prevent any reuse of
date whereat Share
On 14.03.2014 23:21, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
There's one fairly obvious to me : the share-alike requirement is
necessary to enforce the attribution requirement (otherwise any user
could just change the license to one that doesn't require
attribution).
It would not be legal for them to get
On 15/03/2014, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
On 14.03.2014 23:21, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
There's one fairly obvious to me : the share-alike requirement is
necessary to enforce the attribution requirement (otherwise any user
could just change the license to one that doesn't require
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:44 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/03/2014, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
On 14.03.2014 23:21, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
There's one fairly obvious to me : the share-alike requirement is
necessary to enforce the attribution requirement
2014-03-15 12:16 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole si...@osmfoundation.org:
Apple: the Foundation has engaged (documented) multiple times with the
company on this matter, even though, as you VERY well know, the data
they use is pre-licence change and the OSMF has no IP rights in the
data. While not
Paweł Paprota writes:
Unless you protect and license your work, you *will* be exploited
by a powerful corporation.
It is not possible for any powerful corporation to exploit
OpenStreetMap data.
That's because OpenStreetMap is not way #20101312, it is Paweł
Paprota. OpenStreetMap is not node
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:26:23AM -0400, Alex Barth wrote:
Hello everyone -
I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of
OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally decided
to, um, share. I've been listening long to many OpenStreetMappers I respect
a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/14/2014 12:41 AM, Michael Kugelmann wrote:
Am 13.03.2014 15:26, schrieb Alex Barth:
Looking forward to your comments,
No! Stay at Share alike to avoid misuse of open data! Compare it to
the GPL which is frequently used in OS-Sortware.
Am I
With current ODbL I'm mainly concerned about 1. small and medium
corporations as well as 2. government entities.
I'm not so concerned about big companies, especially G* exploiting
OSM (although I dislike some behaviours of G*).
So I'm in favor of CC-BY (e.g.
On Friday 14 March 2014, Florian Lohoff wrote:
[...]
Today maintaining the Linux Kernel or OSM without a HUGE community is
a lost fight so there is nothing to gain by taking this data _from_
the community. Those who do this are the ones to loose, not the ones
giving away their code/data.
One thing I would like to hear about in this context of this discussion,
are examples of concrete use cases that are not happening because of
share alike and that are in general things that the community would like
to support (so not evil corp can't take the data now and keep it).
Concrete in the
2014-03-14 10:58 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch:
Example: one of the classical straw men is that government GIS offices
over the whole world would wide spread directly take OSM data and
integrate it in to their own official datasets, if you believe that, I
have a number of bridges
Norbert,
1. Yes, it would be fair to say that ODbL is much closer to LGPL than
it is to GPL. The ODbL does not require Share-Alike merely on
combining two datasets, but only if you modify the data that's in OSM
in addition to adding your own.
2. Using GPG is good. Using GPG without MIME
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:58:57 +0100, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
One thing I would like to hear about in this context of this
discussion, are examples of concrete use cases that are not happening
because of share alike and that are in general things that the
community would like to support
To throw another log into the fire: What about imports?
OSM having a share-alike licence enabled us to incorporate (and otherwise
use) all kinds of open data sets, which may be licensed PD/CC0, CC-BY,
CC-BY-SA or ODbL. (A lot of open government data in the EU is released
under CC-BY or
Am 14.03.2014 12:43, schrieb o...@k3v.eu:
...
On the flip side of this, if share alike is so great where are the
examples of organisations contributing back to OSM because of it?
Mostly I think organisations contribute because it is in their interest
to do so (a better map makes their
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:43 AM, o...@k3v.eu wrote:
On the flip side of this, if share alike is so great where are the
examples of organisations contributing back to OSM because of it?
We see this already. I've spoken to companies and orgs who have said
specifically that they would not
Simon Poole wrote:
One thing I would like to hear about in this context of this discussion,
are examples of concrete use cases that are not happening because of
share alike and that are in general things that the community would like
to support (so not evil corp can't take the data now and keep
Am 14.03.2014 14:17, schrieb Jukka Rahkonen:
..
Hi Simon,
We have considered that we cannot use OpenStreetMap as a background map in
any of the applications where users are sending location aware information
back to administration. For showing existing data it would be OK but not
On 14 March 2014 12:01, Martin Raifer tyr@gmail.com wrote:
OSM having a share-alike licence enabled us to incorporate (and otherwise
use) all kinds of open data sets, which may be licensed PD/CC0, CC-BY,
CC-BY-SA or ODbL. (A lot of open government data in the EU is released under
CC-BY or
Hi Jukka,
although I'm curious about an answer from someone who's more competent
in the legal things, I'm not sure with your argument here.
ODBL does not require Share-Alike for produced works.
The map, even when based on OSM data is a produced work.
Therefore even if the map is based on osm
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:58:57AM +0100, Simon Poole wrote:
One thing I would like to hear about in this context of this discussion,
are examples of concrete use cases that are not happening because of
share alike and that are in general things that the community would like
to support
Simon Poole wrote:
Two remarks/questions:
- is the derived data actually being publicly used?
Sometimes is, sometimes not. If it is publicly used then it may be that
only part of the attributes are public. Something that is not publicly
used right now may come public in the future but still
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
We see this already. I've spoken to companies and orgs who have said
specifically that they would not contribute to OSM if it was not
Share-Alike. No one wants to be competing against themselves in the
future.
This
2014-03-13 15:26 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com:
I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of
OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally decided
to, um, share. I've been listening long to many OpenStreetMappers I respect
a ton telling me it's not
On 14/03/2014, o...@k3v.eu o...@k3v.eu wrote:
On the flip side of this, if share alike is so great where are the
examples of organisations contributing back to OSM because of it?
There's one fairly obvious to me : the share-alike requirement is
necessary to enforce the attribution requirement
On 14/03/2014, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote:
For showing existing data it would be OK but not
for gathering data from users because user could locate a place corner of
Annankatu and Merimiehenkatu http://osm.org/go/0xPLoLTa0?m= by looking at
the OSM map. The interpretation
On Mar 14, 2014 8:24 AM, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi
wrote:
Simon Poole wrote:
One thing I would like to hear about in this context of this discussion,
are examples of concrete use cases that are not happening because of
share alike and that are in general things that the
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221
Looking forward to your comments,
No, thanks, the licence is good as it is.
--
-S
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
De : Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com
Hello everyone -
I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of
OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally
decided to, um, share. I've been listening long to many
OpenStreetMappers I respect a ton telling me it's not
Read this and substitute OSM for Wikipedia:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/13/google_stabs_wikipedia_in_the_front/
quote
The moral is: if you're a contributor to an open web resource, then
beware: the hippy ethos simply marks you out as a mug. Unless you
protect and license your work, you
Oh yes yes yes, let's have some real fun again, let's change the Licence !
Yves
On 03/13/2014 03:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
Hello everyone -
I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of
OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally
decided to, um, share.
On 13.03.2014 15:31, Simone Cortesi wrote:
Looking forward to your comments,
No, thanks, the licence is good as it is.
Far from it, there's a lot that's wrong with the ODbL:
First of all, it's too hard to understand. Even on legal-talk, you often
don't get useful statements about what is and
Under which license would you share it? And why?
OSM offers you so many opportunities, I wonder what could be missing.
On Mar 13, 2014 11:28 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote:
Hello everyone -
I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of
OpenStreetMap's share-alike
I wrote an unpublished blog article a week ago (obviously not in
response to post of Alex) that I've put online now
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/21225
It might be of interest where IMHO Alex didn't get it quite right.
Simon
On Thursday 13 March 2014, Tobias Knerr wrote:
No, thanks, the licence is good as it is.
Far from it, there's a lot that's wrong with the ODbL:
First of all, it's too hard to understand. Even on legal-talk, you
often don't get useful statements about what is and what isn't
allowed.
Besides predicting that exactly that would happen with Wikipedia once
google started providing WP based excerpts, I don't think that it is
really an argument pro/con any specific licence*.
WP historically was the sole consumer and distributor of WP data of
note, in the case of OSM that has
I've posted a comment on Alex post, but I need to clarify a few things.
The part were I also think ODbL may be a problem is regarding collaborating
with government agencies where share-alike is required.
It is a pitty that these agencies cannot join OSM because of ODbL, not
because they just
Alex,
I agree with you!
Figured I'd speak up as it always seems the no votes get all the attention
on the list.
-Jake
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.frwrote:
I've posted a comment on Alex post, but I need to clarify a few things.
The part were I also
Jake,
On 13.03.2014 20:17, Jake Wasserman wrote:
Figured I'd speak up as it always seems the no votes get all the
attention on the list.
This is not a vote; it is a discussion. Although the distinction becomes
blurred sometimes, in discussions it is common to think about an issue,
balance the
Am 13.03.2014 15:26, schrieb Alex Barth:
Looking forward to your comments,
No! Stay at Share alike to avoid misuse of open data! Compare it to the
GPL which is frequently used in OS-Sortware.
Best regards,
Michael.
___
talk mailing list
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 13.03.2014 20:17, Jake Wasserman wrote:
Figured I'd speak up as it always seems the no votes get all the
attention on the list.
This is not a vote; it is a discussion. Although the distinction becomes
blurred
57 matches
Mail list logo
