Re: [talk-ph] Fwd: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday
Hi Andre, If you check out the Philippines page http://www.odbl.de/philippines.html, most of the largest contributors have already accepted the Contributor Terms. Right now we are in phase 2. This means that people can *voluntarily* accept the CT if they want to. It's not mandatory yet. Tomorrow will be the start of phase 3, which means that anybody who has an OSM account cannot edit or contribute data unless he or she accepts OR declines the Contributor Terms. I also think that OSMF will send out a general contact message to all of the OSM accounts who haven't accepted/declined to do so. Hopefully, in the next several weeks, we will see an uptake in acceptances. Eugene On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Andre Marcelo-Tanner an...@enthropia.com wrote: how come our acceptance is rather low? http://odbl.de/ There are few large editors, have they not all agreed to it, or some disagree? Andre On 3:59 AM, maning sambale wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz Date: Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 5:39 AM Subject: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday To: OSM talkt...@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 ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Introduction
Hi all, Now, I really understand why I was hesitating to start adding roads. ;-) Anyhow, I'll change it to 'track'. Here's the sign that you can find at the ends of Voetwegen and Burrtwegen in Rumst (incl. Terhaghe, Reet) and Boom http://xian.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Reet/i-6r5rqGd/0/S/dsc_5065-S.jpg This is why I called it BW23. After they started placing those signs a couple of years ago, it took me awhile before I knew what BW and VW meant. It is still unclear to me which name I should use. I'm in favor of BW23, since that is on the sign. Now for the surface. Do I have to split the road each time the surface changes ? First it is asphalt (the part that was already in OSM before I started), then it turns into this http://xian.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Reet/i-K27fcBJ/0/M/dsc_5067-S.jpg a combination of sand and stones, mostly sand. A bit further more sand and less stones (this part becomes muddy when it rains) http://xian.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Reet/i-tk4DBqt/0/S/dsc_5068-S.jpg After the turn it is more grass and less sand http://xian.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Reet/i-tk4DBqt/0/S/dsc_5068-S.jpg A bit further it is again a clearly track, grass in the middle sand + little stones (kiezel) on the sides (no picture) So what do I do for that ? I know unpaved was the simple solution ;-) Another path looks like this: http://xian.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Reet/i-tk4DBqt/0/S/dsc_5068-S.jpg It is possible to drive there (house owner does this), so it is a track. What do I do with the little pole at the end ? It prevents cars from passing, but cyclist can. A totally unrelated question: The N171 is not finished yet, far from, they still have to start. However it is already drawn on OSM. Are there tags to indicate that it is planned, or do you have to remove it (the non-existing segment) for now ? Jo, I will look at your changes, since the numbering is incorrect. PrintBottle is nr 37, the building was marked as SchotteCo before I changed it. We live in nr 35, our house is not yet marked as a building, neither is the house of our neighbor. I have to verify the number of the building that is currently marked as 37. It should be 31 or so. regards m p.s. Do I have to split mails with many questions into smaller ones ? ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Introduction
On 04/16/2011 10:33 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: It is still unclear to me which name I should use. I'm in favor of BW23, since that is on the sign. Het uiteindelijke antwoord moet van de bevoegde overheid komen, in dit geval het gemeentebestuur veronderstel ik. Eens navragen bij het kadaster? Of bij de wegendienst? Verder vind ik deze hele conversatie een zoveelste discussie over het geslacht der engelen. Ieder diertje zijn pleziertje hoor, maar het is prachtig weer en half Belgie ligt te wachten om gemapt te worden. Mijn eigen prioriteiten liggen nu even elders. Marc, welkom bij OSM, en veel plezier gewenst bij het mappen! KA ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Introduction
Karel Adams wrote: On 04/16/2011 10:33 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: It is still unclear to me which name I should use. I'm in favor of BW23, since that is on the sign. Het uiteindelijke antwoord moet van de bevoegde overheid komen, in dit geval het gemeentebestuur veronderstel ik. Eens navragen bij het kadaster? Of bij de wegendienst? They won't have the answer. These roads and paths simply don't have a name... Also, the cadastre doesn't have anything to do with road names (the names you sometimes see on their plans is often also wrongly spelled). Street names are defined by the municipality, in the municipality counsels. The buurtweg/voetweg numbers go back to the Atlas der Buurtwegen made in the 1800's. The issue is a bit like road numbers: what would the name of the A1/E19 be for example? In principle, these roads and paths wouldn't have a name=* tag at all. But since we like names, we have some freedom in this, and since all abbreviations should be written as full in the tags, this becomes name=Buurtweg 23 By the way, the fact that they don't have a name, made me introduce the vicinal_ref=* and vicinal_type=road/path tags. You can see those tags at work in Borsbeek where I tagged many road with them. But I didn't use the name tags for those paths and roads that don't have a real name. Verder vind ik deze hele conversatie een zoveelste discussie over het geslacht der engelen. Ieder diertje zijn pleziertje hoor, maar het is prachtig weer en half Belgie ligt te wachten om gemapt te worden. Mijn eigen prioriteiten liggen nu even elders. It's pretty cloudy outside for now :-) Anyway, yes, lots of discussion, but you have to discuss it at one point, no? Otherwise the data would be unusable. If no discussion ever took place, we wouldn't even know what tags to use for the road classification... Greetings Ben (ok, I now see I'm replying in English to Dutch, but I'm not gonna rewrite it now...) ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Introduction
Marc Gemis wrote: Now for the surface. Do I have to split the road each time the surface changes ? Between paved and unpaved: yes, since that changes the road classification. Between different surfaces: not if you don't want to. I just use surface=unpaved and be done with it. First it is asphalt (the part that was already in OSM before I started), then it turns into this http://xian.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Reet/i-K27fcBJ/0/M/dsc_5067-S.jpg a combination of sand and stones, mostly sand. A bit further more sand and less stones (this part becomes muddy when it rains) http://xian.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Reet/i-tk4DBqt/0/S/dsc_5068-S.jpg After the turn it is more grass and less sand http://xian.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Reet/i-tk4DBqt/0/S/dsc_5068-S.jpg A bit further it is again a clearly track, grass in the middle sand + little stones (kiezel) on the sides (no picture) So what do I do for that ? I know unpaved was the simple solution ;-) Another path looks like this: http://xian.smugmug.com/Hobbies/Reet/i-tk4DBqt/0/S/dsc_5068-S.jpg Can you resend this with the correct links? The last three links to the pictures are the same... A totally unrelated question: The N171 is not finished yet, far from, they still have to start. However it is already drawn on OSM. Are there tags to indicate that it is planned, or do you have to remove it (the non-existing segment) for now ? Yes, the tags are already there: highway=proposed + proposed=trunk (but the trunk may change one day, I don't know how the road will look like eventually). Proposed streets are rendered differently as well Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
[OSM-legal-talk] A legal question
Hello, I want to use OSM data/map in order to create a map based service. The users of my service will be able to create meta-data (POIs, trips and path) on the map and share it them with their friends. Please note, I'm not going to change the map data itself at all, only storing meta-data that was created by my users. Is it something that I must contribute back to the community or something that I can set as optional setting to my users? if the answer is yes, can I give my users the option to authorize who can view their data? Thanks, Eldad. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A legal question
Hi Eldad, It sounds like your meta data is derived from the OSM map data, in which case it must be licensed as CC-BY-SA. This doesn't mean you have to actively contribute it back to the community. You can restrict access or allow users to set up access controls on your website. But if someone who does have access to the work decides to copy it and make it publically available, you can't prevent them from doing so. The CC-BY-SA license gives anybody that freedom. Kind regards, Simon. On 16/04/2011, at 10:54 PM, Eldad Yamin elda...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I want to use OSM data/map in order to create a map based service. The users of my service will be able to create meta-data (POIs, trips and path) on the map and share it them with their friends. Please note, I'm not going to change the map data itself at all, only storing meta-data that was created by my users. Is it something that I must contribute back to the community or something that I can set as optional setting to my users? if the answer is yes, can I give my users the option to authorize who can view their data? Thanks, Eldad. ___ 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] A legal question
Hi Eldad, This link http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License may also help with general information. We are evolving it to help folks such as yourself, so if there is anything unclear or confusing, please do no hesitate to email me. Mike On 16/04/2011 15:55, Simon Biber wrote: Hi Eldad, It sounds like your meta data is derived from the OSM map data, in which case it must be licensed as CC-BY-SA. This doesn't mean you have to actively contribute it back to the community. You can restrict access or allow users to set up access controls on your website. But if someone who does have access to the work decides to copy it and make it publically available, you can't prevent them from doing so. The CC-BY-SA license gives anybody that freedom. Kind regards, Simon. On 16/04/2011, at 10:54 PM, Eldad Yamin elda...@gmail.com mailto:elda...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I want to use OSM data/map in order to create a map based service. The users of my service will be able to create meta-data (POIs, trips and path) on the map and share it them with their friends. Please note, I'm not going to change the map data itself at all, only storing meta-data that was created by my users. Is it something that I must contribute back to the community or something that I can set as optional setting to my users? if the answer is yes, can I give my users the option to authorize who can view their data? Thanks, Eldad. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A legal question
Hi Eldad, The licence will not restrict you from deciding who can view what on your service. Your example is correct, you can show the data only to friend X, and this friend X, who has access to the data, may clone the data to somewhere else. Once it is somewhere else, then you will no longer have any way to restrict it. Basically, the licence does not restrict commercial use. Anyone who has access to the data is allowed to copy it, and is also allowed to charge for it. You can ask people to pay, but if they copy it without paying, then you have no remedy. The only way to stop competitors from cloning the data, is to not give them access to it, in the first place. So, your terms and conditions don't really make sense, for CC-BY-SA data. Regards, Simon. From: Eldad Yamin elda...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sun, 17 April, 2011 12:46:47 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A legal question Thank you Simon and Mike! First, I must say that my data is not completely driven from OSM map data, it can be submitted without viewing the map. Second (According to what Simon said), I understood that any data that is derived from OSM map data must be published under CC-BY-SA license. Does it strict me from deciding who-can-view-what on my service? For example, a user can decide that only his friend X can view his submitted data, therefore only friend X can view and clone the data to somewhere else (under CC-BY-SA). Third, I want to stop competitors from cloning data that was submitted by my users. According to the question: Can I charge for distributing OSM data or data derived from OSM data?: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License#What_do_you_mean_by_.22Attribution.22.3F Does it mean that if a competitor want to use my service (pull data) - I can explicitly ask him to pay? For example, in the terms and condition on my website, I can say the data is completely free under the CC-BY-SA license, if you wish to copy data and publish it for commercial use, you will need to pay for it and attach our TC to it - please contact us at supp...@x.com for more details Thanks again, Eldad. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Hi Eldad, This link http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License may also help with general information. We are evolving it to help folks such as yourself, so if there is anything unclear or confusing, please do no hesitate to email me. Mike On 16/04/2011 15:55, Simon Biber wrote: Hi Eldad, It sounds like your meta data is derived from the OSM map data, in which case it must be licensed as CC-BY-SA. This doesn't mean you have to actively contribute it back to the community. You can restrict access or allow users to set up access controls on your website. But if someone who does have access to the work decides to copy it and make it publically available, you can't prevent them from doing so. The CC-BY-SA license gives anybody that freedom. Kind regards, Simon. On 16/04/2011, at 10:54 PM, Eldad Yamin elda...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I want to use OSM data/map in order to create a map based service. The users of my service will be able to create meta-data (POIs, trips and path) on the map and share it them with their friends. Please note, I'm not going to change the map data itself at all, only storing meta-data that was created by my users. Is it something that I must contribute back to the community or something that I can set as optional setting to my users? if the answer is yes, can I give my users the option to authorize who can view their data? Thanks, Eldad. ___ 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
Some people have problems with section 2 of the proposed CT because of granting of rights to OSMF. Section 2 of CT 1.2.4[1]: [...] You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. [...] But to reiterate a point I raised before, this is not a new thing in Free/Open projects: Apache Software Foundation Contributor License Agreement[2]: [...] You hereby grant to the [Apache Software] Foundation and to recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works. [...] Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the desire to import other data for which the contributor has no right to sublicense)? [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms [2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the desire to import other data for which the contributor has no right to sublicense)? Apache has been a mature project for quite some time, what you should be asking instead is why did others go for GPL for their httpd. In any case this sort of clause is most common with projects like google map maker, In fact until recently this was a reason used to promote OSM, the fact that it didn't use the same terms as google map maker. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the desire to import other data for which the contributor has no right to sublicense)? Apache has been a mature project for quite some time, what you should be asking instead is why did others go for GPL for their httpd. In any case this sort of clause is most common with projects like google map maker, In fact until recently this was a reason used to promote OSM, the fact that it didn't use the same terms as google map maker. The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open communities. I personally have not used the reason you state to promote OSM over GMM. I have always emphasized in my outreach that you can use OSM data in more ways than GMM's data (such as using OSM data to create Garmin maps--Garmin is the most popular PND brand in my country). I understand though that some may have used the no central body as a promotional banner, but that is a really poor method since the FSF and ASF has had copyright assignment and rights grants respectively for a long time now. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On 17 April 2011 15:17, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open communities. They also aren't generally the most popular, just like BSD lags behind Linux, which could be due to the strong sharing clauses of the license. I personally have not used the reason you state to promote OSM over Neither have I, but others have as comments to that extent were on the wiki. GMM. I have always emphasized in my outreach that you can use OSM data in more ways than GMM's data (such as using OSM data to create Garmin maps--Garmin is the most popular PND brand in my country). That's hardly a reason, if GMM was published for personal use someone is bound to be able to convert it to garmin format just like others created tools to use OSM data on Garmin devices. I understand though that some may have used the no central body as a promotional banner, but that is a really poor method since the FSF and ASF has had copyright assignment and rights grants respectively for a long time now. The FSF have 20 years of not only expressing strong opinions about moral aspects of licensing, but they have stuck to their guns, something that the OSM-F hasn't done, SteveC states at various times in the past he will only support share a like licenses, yet the ODBL and CT both weaken this stance considerably. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:25 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 15:17, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open communities. They also aren't generally the most popular, just like BSD lags behind Linux, which could be due to the strong sharing clauses of the license. The virality (or share-alikeness) of a license is orthogonal to whether contributors assign rights or not to a central body. The FSF have 20 years of not only expressing strong opinions about moral aspects of licensing, but they have stuck to their guns, something that the OSM-F hasn't done, SteveC states at various times in the past he will only support share a like licenses, yet the ODBL and CT both weaken this stance considerably. On the share-alike, I disagree, but this is a personal preference. I like the share-alike aspects of ODbL over CC-BY-SA for OSM data. You think ODbL weakens it, but I like it because you have access to the derivative data and not just the final product. On sticking to ones guns, this could be a plus (being consistent) or a negative (being stubborn). Same with the converse: being flexible vs. being wishy-washy. Comparing the FSF to OSMF in this way without considering the context is not very persuasive. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:29:29 +0100 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: This licence change now gives every mapper the means of undermining the map through withholding of their own data, once freely given and now very likely a foundation of data created by other mappers, also in good faith. I understand that many mappers feel they _can't_ relicense some or all of their work, and that's a really tough situation. But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part of. Please consider the corollary to this Why does the ODbL faction not start with a fork of ODbL compliant data? Why do they need to force a split of the existing CC-by-SA data? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Mike N writes: Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for the cases I'm aware of. The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people who violate it. We have a license which allows us to do that now. Is anybody suing the copyright infringers? No, they are not. They're not even sending demand letters. Has anybody even BOTHERED to register their copyright (a low-cost and essential first step for protecting your copyright)? Not that I know of. Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all. Thus, the only question that people should be pondering is: How much damage to the map are people willing to accept in exchange for no benefit at all? People speak of consensus, but there is no consensus, because there are a number of people who object to the license change (and this is no secret to anyone). So, can we please stop talking about consensus, and start talking about ramming the license change down the throats of people who love the map and aren't willing to walk away from it? Because clearly, the people who don't care about how badly the map will be damaged without their contributions, have already left. Changing the license is butt-stupid. Always has been, always will be. It's never too late to give up on a butt-stupid idea, and it's never early enough. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Frederik Ramm writes: We're not sacrificing countries. We saw that we have built our project on (legal) sand, Nonsense. Your choice of what to tag and how to tag it is a creative choice. You own that expression of the idea of a map. There is no reason for you to wait to sue somebody for infringing your copyright. If you aren't willing to do it now, why should we believe that you're going to do it once the license has changed. If you aren't willing to sue somebody once the license has changed, then why in God's name do you want a different license? Changing the license is very expensive and brings with it zero practical benefit. Or, to misquote Charlie Sheen, Duh, Losing! Let me say this again: anybody who defends the license change should be able to name an infringer whom they aren't suing because the license stops them, and should be able to outline their plan for suing the infringer. The plan should include the infringed portion of the work and the funding source for the legal team. On the bright side, the sooner we stop trying to change the license, the less OSM will be damaged, and the sooner we can heal the community. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 17:09 -0700, Kai Krueger wrote: Dermot McNally wrote: FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can see as an outsider. No, the vote part really isn't that difficult. Wikipedia managed to hold a vote on their licensing change. I never followed the wikipedia change, but did they create a new untested licence? Did they ask users to agree to the licence over a 12 month period? How many changes/revisions did their licence undergo between being announced and finally being accepted? Im fairly sure the answers to these questions is significantly different to the answers in the OSM licence change situation. David Dermot McNally wrote: But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part of. Until there is a clear vote of the community to determine what they want it is impossible to say which side of the debate is true to the community. At the moment, we simply don't know. And so it is unhelpful to accuse long time OSM enthusiasts as not being true to the community because they disagree with your opinion. Many of them have the community just as much at hart as the proponents. They just disagree or are unsure on the effects this change will have on it. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6278003.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 Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:18 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: I never followed the wikipedia change, but did they create a new untested licence? Did they ask users to agree to the licence over a 12 month period? How many changes/revisions did their licence undergo between being announced and finally being accepted? And I think they included the people who made the original license in the review and discussion which I feel is missing here. What does creative commons say about these new licenses and terms, have they been asked to review the newest batch? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Dermot McNally writes: But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part of. In every schism, it's not clear who is splitting from whom. Don't presume an answer without first asking the question. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 07:00, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: Why does the ODbL faction not start with a fork of ODbL compliant data? Why do they need to force a split of the existing CC-by-SA data? A lot of the differences of opinion on this matter are finding expression in the words people choose to use to describe the different points of view. I found your use of faction interesting enough to check some dictionary definitions of the word. Here's one I found particularly apt: 1. a group of people forming a minority within a larger body, esp a dissentious group So let's see which point of view ends up mainstream and which belongs to a dissenting minority. So far, as I look at the volume of map data, as I look at the vast majority of the people who have built and maintained the map and the infrastructure on which it runs, what I see is people who, sometimes with misgivings, are throwing their weight behind the licence change. Among such people I see unity of purpose. Opposition to the change seems to stem from a number of disparate of often contradictory reasons, none of which I personally find compelling. What I can not with any seriousness regard the opposition I have seen as is the mainstream. It is on the anti-change side that I see not one faction, but several. Others may not (yet) share my view, and should observe the rate at which the remaining community votes yes and no. Nothing in this process will remove the freedom from anybody to continue to use the data already mapped exactly as they always have, nor to continue maintaining a data set under those terms. But if The Community should be seen to support the licence change, I will see it as irresponsible for individual mappers to take their ball and go home just because they can. 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 16 April 2011 08:28, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: In every schism, it's not clear who is splitting from whom. Don't presume an answer without first asking the question. Actually, I have thought widely on this. My slightly earlier email this morning outlines my thought on what defines the mainstream in this difficult issue. 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 Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:11:11 +0200 Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: 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. Wikipedia went from GFDL to a GFDL/CC-BY-SA dual license - with the help of the FSF. If OSMF wanted to go from CC-BY-SA to a CC-BY-SA/ODbL dual license, that would greatly simplify things. Yes, that would make great sense, but I would like to see some more expert opinions, expecially the people who build this entire open source thing to begin with. Did anyone ever contact Eben about this new license? The gpl was the basis for the creative commons, and you are saying it is not good enough, so I think you should be able to convince him as a lawyer about this. If this new thing is really needed, then it should be easy to convince the experts about it. Here are two points I would like to see : 1. a porting of the new terms to other languages and jurisdictions. 2. a review and blessing of the new contract by the software freedom law center, the open source institute and the creative commons There is not even a porting of the new terms and license and contract to other jurisdictions, or translations. At least creative commons has tried to port itself to other places You are asking people to agree to some contract that is not translated into their language and may not be applicable in their jurisdiction, they might even be minors, I find this needs to be looked at carefully. Lets get the license and contract submitted to license-rev...@opensource.org, and to cc-commun...@lists.ibiblio.org, for even a discussion outside this little circle, even an opinion from Lawrence *Lessig* or Eben Moglen softwarefreedom.org, would greatly interest me. It should be possible to get bessings from legal experts and license experts in the world of open source and free software. It should be possible to get this contract reviewed and approved by OSI as well. I personally will wait and see what people who I trust and respect have to say about this topic who are not involved and not partial, some type of neutral and calm review of the entire situation. This entire discussion has gotten very emotional and personal, lets get some neutral third party expert opinions. mike So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing? I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to legal-talk. I am quite prepared to start writing emails (phrased neutrally) requesting an opinion if these people have not been asked before. If then the opinion is that the new licence has merit, we then need work on how the contract provisions fit in with other legal codes not just those derived from either the Westminster or Napoleonic codes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:34:20 +1000 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: 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 OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors retaining their own copyright. http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and interestingly this assessment of how LibreOffice is going http://webmink.com/2011/02/11/is-libreoffice-open-by-rule/ We can also note how the new fork is handling their compound licensing issue. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 08:31, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing? I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to legal-talk. I am quite prepared to start writing emails (phrased neutrally) requesting an opinion if these people have not been asked before. If then the opinion is that the new licence has merit, we then need work on how the contract provisions fit in with other legal codes not just those derived from either the Westminster or Napoleonic codes. How long have you been in this discussion, Elizabeth? Quite a while, according to my recollection. Given that you seem to now see a requirement for this kind of validation, I find it strange that you wouldn't have sought it at a much earlier stage than this. Normally abject opposition should come after, not before, neutral appraisal of the proposal, shouldn't it? 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 16 April 2011 17:37, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors retaining their own copyright. http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and interestingly this assessment of how LibreOffice is going http://webmink.com/2011/02/11/is-libreoffice-open-by-rule/ We can also note how the new fork is handling their compound licensing issue. What's more interesting is Oracle's move to wash their hands of direct control over OpenOffice... http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/15/oracle_letting_openoffice_go/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 17:42, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: wouldn't have sought it at a much earlier stage than this. Normally abject opposition should come after, not before, neutral appraisal of the proposal, shouldn't it? There has been so many issues with the new license, the new contributor terms and the way the whole thing as been handled that it's hard to know where to start pulling at threads, pull the wrong one and the whole jumper will fall to bits... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
John Smith wrote: On 16 April 2011 17:37, Elizabeth Dodded...@billiau.net wrote: OpenOffice.org has had a major fork just recently. The LibreOffice fork has chosen different licensing arrangements, including the contributors retaining their own copyright. http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/developers/ and interestingly this assessment of how LibreOffice is going http://webmink.com/2011/02/11/is-libreoffice-open-by-rule/ We can also note how the new fork is handling their compound licensing issue. What's more interesting is Oracle's move to wash their hands of direct control over OpenOffice... http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/15/oracle_letting_openoffice_go/ Probably pertinent how current this move is ... I think that the fact that the main development team simply moved over to LibreOffice was something Oracle had not anticipated, but is exactly what open source is about? Unlike OO, OSM has a number of 'competitors' providing the same data, so a split is less likely to happen, but I do wonder if it isn't about time to readdress the area of merging data from different sources? Rather than throwing everything in the one pot and mangling it, creating a more open data interface so that third parties can supply feeds in much the same way as we use a range of background tiles at the moment. I am thinking directly here about paralleling the current OS data with OSM data. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: if it isn't about time to readdress the area of merging data from different sources? Rather than throwing everything in the one pot and mangling it, creating a more open data interface so that third parties can supply feeds in much the same way as we use a range of background tiles at the moment. I am thinking directly here about paralleling the current OS data with OSM data. That is a great idea. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 08:42:00 +0100 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 April 2011 08:31, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: So has anyone asked the FOSS gurus of licensing? I have never seen it mentioned while I was subscribed to legal-talk. I am quite prepared to start writing emails (phrased neutrally) requesting an opinion if these people have not been asked before. If then the opinion is that the new licence has merit, we then need work on how the contract provisions fit in with other legal codes not just those derived from either the Westminster or Napoleonic codes. How long have you been in this discussion, Elizabeth? Quite a while, according to my recollection. Given that you seem to now see a requirement for this kind of validation, I find it strange that you wouldn't have sought it at a much earlier stage than this. Normally abject opposition should come after, not before, neutral appraisal of the proposal, shouldn't it? Dermot So as you have forgotten the beginning, Australian mappers have a number of difficulties with the proposed new licence and contributor terms. That is, a majority of Australian mappers. We have estimated our exposure in our continent to the risk of data loss as very high (i forget the proportion, someone will give you the information if you want confirmation). Where I stand, I do not see a minority against the new licence. It may well be parallax error at my end, or it may be the same at your end. However, I am unable to sign up to the contributor terms. I cannot sign over my work because some of it is in breach of those terms. I am not withdrawing my stuff because I wish to vandalise the map. I have used a number of sources which are CC-by-SA, and that prohibits me from signing. Certainly we should consider Mike's idea, and not hide behind our existing ideas. Will you be writing the emails to the people Mike mentioned? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, so my own 'need' for OSM has been somewhat diluted since I have an open alternative. I was looking at mirroring my own copy of OSM, but the OS data gives me the facilities I need with less hassle. Doesn't OS require attribution if you use their data? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 04/16/2011 02:05 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: On 16 April 2011 01:29, Dermot McNallyderm...@gmail.com wrote: This licence change now gives every mapper the means of undermining the map through withholding of their own data, once freely given and now very likely a foundation of data created by other mappers, also in good faith. I understand that many mappers feel they _can't_ relicense some or all of their work, and that's a really tough situation. But mappers who just plain _won't_ agree to leave their data in, even though there is no legal obstacle to it, should strongly consider whether they are being true to the community they claim to be a part of. At this point it's only known that there's an unspecified non-zero part of the community which wants OSM to switch license. Not everyone needs to be true to that part of the community just like not everyone needs to be true to the part that wants OSM data in Public Domain or the part that drinks coffee with milk etc. Let us try and separate the issue of license change from the issue of the CT for a moment. Let us assume that there was no immediate license change planned; that OSMF intended to continue using CC-BY-SA for now; and that they only sought CT agreement from mappers, in order to make a potential future license change easier. The CT contain this clause whereby it becomes impossible to do what Dermot writes above - if 2/3 of mappers agree to use another free and open license, then that is the new license and everyone's data is changed to that new license. I think that *that* is the major change here, and I have outlined in the past that I believe that you cannot be a part of a crowdsourced mapping effort if you consider your contribution to be only rented out to the project. If you want to participate in OSM, where all the time others will build upon your work, then you cannot sensibly say but if you decide to change your license later I might choose to take away my contribution. If you contribute to OSM, you pour a glass of water into an ocean. You cannot wrap that in plastic and label it yours. I made a comparison with voluntary work in real-life communities; if you have spent a lot of time and love helping to build a nice playground for the village school but later the whole school decides to adopt some pedadogic direction of which you don't approve and you put your kid elsewhere, you cannot tear town the playground. It wouldn't be right (and it would be very unlikely to make you happy). Now if someone says I'm willing to sign the CT on the condition that before OSMF switches to ODbL, they execute the exact license change procedure outlined in the CT, with asking 2/3 of active mappers etc., then this is something I can understand and respect. I do however have the impression that there are some people for whom calling for a public vote is just another means to delay and hopefully derail the process, and secretly they never intended to continue supporting the project after a license change anyway. These people are dishonest, they should simply click disagree and leave. I have no sympathy or patience for people who are unwilling to make the kind of committment requested by the CT. If you want full control over your data then make your own little OSM just for yourself. I have a suggestion, one which we could implement in true crowdsourced spirit and without any OSMF involvement. We simply draw up a document that is basically a modified version of the current contributor terms, which says I am willing to make the following contract with OSMF on the additional condition of OSMF holding the 2/3 vote as described below before they change from ODbL to CC-BY-SA. We then devise some sort of sufficiently legally binding way for people to sign this document. Everyone who thinks that the CT are ok in principle but who would like a proper vote first, signs this document instead of the real CT. Then one of three things will happen: * The number of people who sign this is close to zero. This would then mean that those calling for a vote are unwilling to sign the CT anyway, and whichever way the vote goes it would not change the fact that they're leaving - in that case, why bother to hold a vote. * The number of people who sign this is so small that their edits practically don't make a difference and OSMF might decide to go ahead and ignore these people, and treat them like they had said no. * The number of people who sign this is significant, in which case OSMF would be very tempted to actually hold the vote before switching ot ODbL - something they are perfectly within their right to do, even if everyone else has signed the standard CT -, and everybody would be happy. Of course all this would have to be watertight enough to not allow someone to back out if the vote result is pro ODbL. There's of course a drawback to this, and that is that while you sign the CT with conditions
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 04/16/2011 10:29 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: We simply draw up a document that is basically a modified version of the current contributor terms, which says I am willing to make the following contract with OSMF on the additional condition of OSMF holding the 2/3 vote as described below before they change from ODbL to CC-BY-SA. Oops. That should have rad from CC-BY-SA to ODbL. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 04/16/2011 01:29 AM, Dermot McNally wrote: FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution. Turns out this stuff is complicated. With hindsight, the proper way of doing this would have been to setup the LWG some time around 2007, have LWG reach out to the community in the wides possible manner, make sure people understand the problems, maybe even have national groups in some countries, devise possible solutions, and seek community involvement in every step. Apart from the fact that this would have required more manpower an patience than might be available from the volunteers involved in OSM, this attempt at including everyone would probably have been in vain since OSM grows so fast. Assume that some time in mid-2008 a vote of all registered users has resulted in a 95% we must drop CC-BY-SA vote; then in mid-2009 you would already have had two new users for every one who had taken part in that vote, new users who have not been consulted and who have not been part of the process. And so on! One would then have to say to these people what you are saying now: I'm not the first person to say so on the lists, but it seems to bear repeating - the process has not been a secret, the key details of what problem the change attempts to solve have been documented for a long time now and absolutely anybody with a thirst for knowledge on the matter has had many resources at his or her disposal. But, just as today, this would be unlikely to make them happy. In our concrete case, When I first became aware of the documentation and read it, I certainly felt consulted, and very soon after it became possible to indicate approval, it was clear to me both that the promoters of the change wished me to do so (at that point I felt asked) and how I might go about doing so. The situation you describe is now something like 1.5 years in the past... there will ALWAYS be people who feel they were not consulted, and if the process takes years rather than months, they will (at least for the foreseeable future) ALWAYS be the majority. I'm very glad we have at least made CT agreement mandatory for new users now which sort of softens the issue. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] License graph
Not sure if anyone else is already doing this but two days ago I thought it would be fun (maybe even useful) to graph the number of users who have accepted/declined the new license/CT in anticipation of the next phase going into effect on Sunday. I hacked together a quick dirty script to use as a data source in the Zabbix instance I have set up at home. Zabbix is geared towards system monitoring so it is a little odd to graph something completely unrelated but it was available and easy to do and at the end of the day, a graph is a graph. Anyway, I didn't feel like sending out the URL to my private zabbix instance at home to the mailing list so I set up a cron job to periodically refresh a static image on a more legitimate server. It can be seen here: http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count.html Enjoy, Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
John Smith wrote: On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, so my own 'need' for OSM has been somewhat diluted since I have an open alternative. I was looking at mirroring my own copy of OSM, but the OS data gives me the facilities I need with less hassle. Doesn't OS require attribution if you use their data? Same as adding a link to OSM where that is the source ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
nice j -Original Message- From: Toby Murray [mailto:toby.mur...@gmail.com] Sent: 16 April 2011 10:01 To: OSM Talk Subject: [OSM-talk] License graph Not sure if anyone else is already doing this but two days ago I thought it would be fun (maybe even useful) to graph the number of users who have accepted/declined the new license/CT in anticipation of the next phase going into effect on Sunday. I hacked together a quick dirty script to use as a data source in the Zabbix instance I have set up at home. Zabbix is geared towards system monitoring so it is a little odd to graph something completely unrelated but it was available and easy to do and at the end of the day, a graph is a graph. Anyway, I didn't feel like sending out the URL to my private zabbix instance at home to the mailing list so I set up a cron job to periodically refresh a static image on a more legitimate server. It can be seen here: http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count.html Enjoy, Toby ___ 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 16 April 2011 19:04, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: John Smith wrote: On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, so my own 'need' for OSM has been somewhat diluted since I have an open alternative. I was looking at mirroring my own copy of OSM, but the OS data gives me the facilities I need with less hassle. Doesn't OS require attribution if you use their data? Same as adding a link to OSM where that is the source ... So your original suggestion that the OS recognises your suggestion about things should be public domain is patently false. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
John Smith wrote: On 16 April 2011 19:04, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: John Smith wrote: On 16 April 2011 17:53, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: The whole database should be public domain, and any third party pushing 'commercial' data into that should understand that. Even the UK government have now accepted that we should have free access to this sort of data, so my own 'need' for OSM has been somewhat diluted since I have an open alternative. I was looking at mirroring my own copy of OSM, but the OS data gives me the facilities I need with less hassle. Doesn't OS require attribution if you use their data? Same as adding a link to OSM where that is the source ... So your original suggestion that the OS recognises your suggestion about things should be public domain is patently false. No I said 'free access to this sort of data'. But I don't see that having the courtesy to recognise where data can from should be any sort of a problem. 'Requiring it' just acknowledges that some people do not extend that common courtesy. I find no restrictions on what I need to do with the data. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 19:49, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: No I said 'free access to this sort of data'. But I don't see that having the courtesy to recognise where data can from should be any sort of a problem. 'Requiring it' just acknowledges that some people do not extend that common courtesy. I find no restrictions on what I need to do with the data. Just because attribution is not restriction for you, doesn't mean others feel the same way, OS (along with many other data producers) require it, yet the PD proponents don't want any such strings. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for that. I have been beaten into submission. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be No, but in the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing I'll eventually say Yes), but the important part of my question was everyone else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked? FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution. Turns out this stuff is complicated. No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued. Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a small fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put the cart before the horse. Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@ into a field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I'll go unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept button. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 22:10, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued. Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a small fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put the cart before the horse. Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@ into a field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I'll go unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept button. Many of those that you deem as trolls are in the same position as you, no one can get straight answers to some fairly simple questions, and it seems things are being pushed ahead regardless so what are people supposed to do other than leave if they disagree, like you have chosen to do. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Ian, On 04/16/2011 02:10 PM, Ian Dees wrote: Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn't look like I will. You asked when the community of OpenStreetMap was asked about the license change. ... No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued. I think, historically, the decision making process was not 1. decide that we need a new license, 2. let's go look for one, but rather a little-step-by-little-step process. The question is, who is the community of OpenStreetMap. Anyone committed enough to come to the first State of the Map conference in Manchester (2007) was certainly involved as this is where we held a panel discussion on the license. But even if a vote had been held at that conference, could it still be considered binding today? Anyone reading either the talk list, or the osm-announce list, or any of the Australian, German, Spanish, French, German, Czech, Dutch, or Colombian mailing lists or some of the forums, will have been aware of Pieren's poll (http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w) which, even though not an official vote, gave people the option to formally express an opinion and be counted. Of course you could have sent an email to everyone, to catch those who do not read the lists. But then, to be honest, if someone doesn't have any background to the discussion and is asked, out of the blue, whether they support a license change - would that really help? Would they not have to be presented with the causes for and against - and who would have the authority to decide *what* they are presented with? And if they are isolationist enough to not even read the low-volume announce list, do we really have to assume they are interested? You write information presented clearly and thoughtfully, but if you read the histoy of the why you shold vote yes and why you should vote no pages on the Wiki, it should become clear that it certainly not an easy task to present information clearly and thoughtfully and without bias. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never thought it would come to actually deleting data. I always thought that that was OBVIOUSLY so insane that *somebody* would have killed the idea of relicensing. The trouble is, is that, just as no one person is responsible for creating the idea, no one person has the ability to kill it. Maybe SteveC, but he's convinced that Google is going to steal our data. As if our data had any value once separated from the community that keeps it alive. -russ Ian Dees writes: Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for that. I have been beaten into submission. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be No, but in the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing I'll eventually say Yes), but the important part of my question was everyone else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked? FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution. Turns out this stuff is complicated. No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued. Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a small fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put the cart before the horse. Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@ into a field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I'll go unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept button. Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn#39;t look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for that. I have been beaten into submission.brbrdiv class=gmail_quoteOn Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally span dir=ltrlt;a href=mailto:derm...@gmail.com;derm...@gmail.com/agt;/span wrote:br blockquote class=gmail_quote style=margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;div class=imOn 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees lt;a href=mailto:ian.d...@gmail.com;ian.d...@gmail.com/agt; wrote:br br gt; Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be quot;Noquot;, but inbr gt; the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing I#39;llbr gt; eventually say quot;Yesquot;), but the important part of my question was everyonebr gt; else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked?br br /divFWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, butbr it#39;s basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I canbr see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consultedbr about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complainedbr throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution.br Turns out this stuff is complicated./blockquotedivbr/divdivNo, it#39;s not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued./div divbr/divdivInstead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a small fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put the cart before the horse./div divbr/divdivAnyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@ into a field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I#39;ll go unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept button./div /div ___ talk mailing list
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
My thinking on this is very similar. I have no particular objection to the new licence and contributor terms - I don't really care which licence my contributions are governed by. I am very surprised at the apparent tolerance to loss of data from the map for the sake of transferring to a more robust licence. I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely) doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new licence or contributor terms - From what I can tell from a few wiki pages, it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be resolved before forcing people to re-licence. It is because it is not clear whether we will have to delete all data from these sources that I have not accepted the new licence yet - My view is that if we have to delete that data, then we should not bother re-licensing. I am concerned that if I accept the new licence/contributor terms that I will be seen to be supporting deleting this data, which I do not. I think this is the same issue as Ian's question about how we will decide if the change is right or not. If these issues have been resolved, and there is a mechanism for deciding what level of data loss is acceptable, then I will happily re-licence my own data, but I am looking for some reassurance before I do so. Regards Graham. On 16 April 2011 16:20, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never thought it would come to actually deleting data. I always thought that that was OBVIOUSLY so insane that *somebody* would have killed the idea of relicensing. The trouble is, is that, just as no one person is responsible for creating the idea, no one person has the ability to kill it. Maybe SteveC, but he's convinced that Google is going to steal our data. As if our data had any value once separated from the community that keeps it alive. -russ Ian Dees writes: Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn't look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for that. I have been beaten into submission. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be No, but in the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing I'll eventually say Yes), but the important part of my question was everyone else -- the community of OpenStreetMap. When were *they* asked? FWIW I would have favoured earlier specific requests for a vote, but it's basically been an impossible position for the LWG from what I can see as an outsider. On the one hand, everybody wants to feel consulted about the change. On the other, plenty of people have complained throughout the process about being offered a half-baked solution. Turns out this stuff is complicated. No, it's not complicated. When whoever it was decided that we need to change license, the *first* thing that should have happened is a communication of the desire with the community, information about it presented clearly and thoughtfully, questions responded to in a timely manner, and a vote held by the active mappers to confirm that yes, this change should be pursued. Instead what happened is... none of that. I appreciate the hard work of those that spent the time to draw up the new license and work with a small fraction of the community to make decisions on it, but I think they put the cart before the horse. Anyway, I apologize for bringing this up again and degenerating talk@into a field of flames. I was hoping to get a straight answer this time. I'll go unsubscribe from talk (like a lot of others :) ) and click the accept button. Wow, I still have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone and it doesn#39;t look like I will. The trolls have come out yet again. Sorry for that. I have been beaten into submission.brbrdiv class=gmail_quoteOn Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Dermot McNally span dir=ltrlt;a href=mailto:derm...@gmail.com;derm...@gmail.com/agt;/span wrote:br blockquote class=gmail_quote style=margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;div class=imOn 16 April 2011 00:07, Ian Dees lt;a href=mailto:ian.d...@gmail.com;ian.d...@gmail.com/agt; wrote:br br gt; Thanks for asking me (if this were a vote my answer would be quot;Noquot;, but inbr gt; the interest of moving on from this nonsense and keeping data flowing I#39;llbr gt; eventually say quot;Yesquot;), but the
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 04/16/2011 05:40 PM, Graham Jones wrote: I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely) doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new licence or contributor terms - From what I can tell from a few wiki pages, it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be resolved before forcing people to re-licence. Isn't it funny how, just over a year ago, we couldn't care less about anything the Ordnace Survey did, and suddenly we are a project that must choose their license according to what is compatible with OS? If these issues have been resolved, and there is a mechanism for deciding what level of data loss is acceptable, then I will happily re-licence my own data, but I am looking for some reassurance before I do so. I say to you the same I said to Ian - even if OSMF would publish what mechanism they plan to use (and I'm pretty sure they don't have one yet), then that mechanism would not become part of the contract and it could be changed at any later time, say, after majorities in the OSMF board have changed after the next election or something. I'm sorry but I think you can either trust people to do the right thing or not trust them, but nobody will give you a written statement (or if they do it won't be worth much). Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 04/16/2011 04:13 PM, Ian Dees wrote: But, as you said, that poll was unofficial, only included 500 people, and if I remember correctly had some very confusing options at first. My guess is that more than 10.000 people have been informed of the poll (via the lists I mentioned). The fact that only 500 decided to state their opinion can hardly be counted against the poll. Why do we need official? This sounds an awful lot like what happened, but instead of offering a Yes/No at the end we only have the option of Yes I agree to the new license/No, and I realize I can't edit the map anymore. We seem to have skipped the crucial middle step. I'm pretty sure that we would have a ton of people complain that Yes/No is not ok, they also want to be able to say Yes but only if X, No unless Y, or something. And what would the question have been? Yes I agree to the new license / no I accept that anyone can rip off our data because it is unprotected, maybe? For example, in my student government groups if someone wanted to change the constitution or institute a new by-law they first had to come together with other people of a similar persuasion, come up with a document that enumerated the changes, then present it to the general assembly to be decided on with a vote. From my point of view OSMF and LWG have come up with a proposal for change and are immediately implementing it without querying anyone else. I understand all of that. However, in many of these situations you have working status quo, and then someone wants to make a change, and they have to answer the question why make the change at all, what improvements does it bring, what's the reward? We have a situation where those who have spent time with it, and talked to lawyers and all, are positively sure that we do not have a working status quo. Doing nothing is not an option. In licensing terms, this house is on fire. Day after day we're violating our own license and making promises that we cannot keep. Anyone who is *interested* in the matter can, and has, involve themselves in the process, read about reasons, participate in discussion, and so on. Anyone who is not interested has a right to be not interested, but they should not expect to be served the explanation on a silver platter, much less be asked: Do you think the house is on fire yes/no? - their input would not be helpful at all. And this basic concept carries on further; in this issue everyone can have a say but it is not a democracy where the voice of someone who is totally un-informed counts as much as anyone else's. You have to get involved to be heard. And I don't think this is necessarily bad. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely) doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new licence or contributor terms - From what I can tell from a few wiki pages, it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be resolved before forcing people to re-licence. Isn't it funny how, just over a year ago, we couldn't care less about anything the Ordnace Survey did, and suddenly we are a project that must choose their license according to what is compatible with OS? Probably because OS OpenData has been used fairly significantly by many folk in the UK since released. Without any sort of public indication otherwise from the LWG, it was difficult to believe that a new licence chosen wouldn't be compatible with data which appears to only require attribution. Not that I agree with it, but OS StreetView has been used to map out entire towns in the UK ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
Michael Collinson mike at ayeltd.biz writes: 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. Thanks for your reply. I understand that those in charge of this matter do not think that a CC-BY-SA/ODbL dual licence is the optimal answer from a purely legal point of view. I don't expect I would be able to persuade them otherwise, any more than they would be able to persuade me and others away from our view that staying with CC-BY-SA only is the best option. My point is that the final scheme chosen should reflect the whole project and try as far as possible to include everyone. It's not a case of simply picking the 'best' answer and then pushing it through, but of finding a balanced compromise that everyone can agree too. By excluding contributors who don't agree with the new scheme you are wielding a very sharp stick. That makes it important to be very restrained in what you try to push through. It would not be a good idea to set a precedent that the OSMF should simply push through the 'best' answer and exclude dissenters. One day, you might find yourself on the other side of the stick. So while I understand that the great and the good who have considered the licensing question did not favour dual licensing as the ideal solution, it may nonetheless be the right compromise. You are asking a great deal of people who joined the project in good faith to make a free, CC-licensed map of the world, not controlled by any single body. They would have to compromise a fair bit to accept the new licence and the new way of working, where the OSMF has the final say over licensing. If it appears that you aren't willing to compromise on any point at all - not even to allow use of the older licence as an option - then it is less likely that contributors will feel ready to make the necessary compromises on their side. There has to be a bit of give and take from both sides, even if only a small bit. I'd also like to note that of the two big examples given of major and successful relicensings - Mozilla and Wikipedia - in both cases the old licence continues to be available as an option for those who want it. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes: much less be asked: Do you think the house is on fire yes/no? Please point to some real flames. In all the time the licence discussions have been happening, nobody has mentioned *one* *single* *case* where the licence of the map isn't respected and we are not in a position to enforce it, but with the extra legalese in the ODbL we would be. Since the situation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of examples by now. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We have a situation where those who have spent time with it, and talked to lawyers and all, are positively sure that we do not have a working status quo. Doing nothing is not an option. And yet we've been doing nothing for several years now. If the picture was anything like as bad as you paint then we would have been forced into action a long long time ago. Show us the evidence please. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 17:00, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Isn't it funny how, just over a year ago, we couldn't care less about anything the Ordnace Survey did, and suddenly we are a project that must choose their license according to what is compatible with OS? ... I say to you the same I said to Ian - even if OSMF would publish what mechanism they plan to use (and I'm pretty sure they don't have one yet), then that mechanism would not become part of the contract and it could be changed at any later time, say, after majorities in the OSMF board have changed after the next election or something. No-one expects the OSMF/LWG to have all the answers worked out in advance but surely someone can answer questions about what their intentions are. Such as is it the LWG's intention to make the license/ct's compatible with OS Opendata? If it isn't then all those people currently tracing thousands of roads a week in the UK might as well take a break and get some fresh air. After so many years, someone must surely have given at least a bit of thought to how removing incompatible/un-relicensed contributions might be handled? What's wrong with starting a thread with those ideas and letting other people give their input? I am quite prepared to trust people who I feel are being honest about their intentions but the lack of information just gives the impression that something underhand is in the works. I can imagine it would be easy for those people who believe cc-by-sa doesn't apply to map data to justify re-adding any deleted contributions on the basis that most of it is effectively pd. I just think that would be a really bad idea as far as maintaining any kind of community trust goes. Kevin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
2011/4/16 Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com: ... all those people currently tracing thousands of roads a week in the UK might as well take a break and get some fresh air. fresh air is not the worst ingredient to OSMapping. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
2011/4/16 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com: By excluding contributors who don't agree with the new scheme you are wielding a very sharp stick It would not be a good idea to set a precedent that the OSMF should simply push through the 'best' answer and exclude dissenters. One day, you might find yourself on the other side of the stick. I agree that it is important how a community deals with dissenters. So while I understand that the great and the good who have considered the licensing question did not favour dual licensing as the ideal solution, it may nonetheless be the right compromise. As far as I understand this, we would then have all the cons of cc-by-sa (e.g. that some mayor mapping company could rip us off) with our data not protected in some jurisdictions, which was one of the main reasons to go to another license. That would be a really big compromise. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 04/16/2011 07:47 PM, Kevin Peat wrote: Such as is it the LWG's intention to make the license/ct's compatible with OS Opendata? If it isn't then all those people currently tracing thousands of roads a week in the UK might as well take a break and get some fresh air. If people are indeed doing that then I would *definitely* suggest the fresh air option, no matter what we intend to do license-wise; see recent imports discussion on talk-gb (Adding a further 250,000 roads quickly using a Bot). After so many years, someone must surely have given at least a bit of thought to how removing incompatible/un-relicensed contributions might be handled? Yes, certainly. As a non-LWG-member but avid reader of legal talk, and someone who can add two and two together, I can say the following with some certainty: * Data that has been created/modified only by people who agree to the license change will be kept unchanged. If someone should later complain nonetheless (e.g. I have created and not relicensed A road and B road, and this pub which is at the intersection is definitely a derived work, I demand it must be removed) then such data might be removed. * A mechanism will be devised to determine the splitting and merging of ways and take that into account, i.e. if a way has been created by someone who doesn't agree, but later split in two by someone else, then methods will be found to make sure the partial way newly created by the split will not count as created/modified only by people who agree. * Data that has been created/modified only by people who do not agree to the license change will not be kept in the new data base. If other data depends on this then that other data must be modified accordingly (e.g. a node might have to be removed from a way). * There will be some mechanism to remind us that something is missing. It is totally unclear what form this will take; it might be a separate database that says whithin this rectangle, 10 streets have been removed (without saying what they are and where they were so as not to infringe the copyright of whoever did not relicense those streets), or it might be a note tag on a route relation saying as part of the license change, 5 members of this route had to be removed or so. * There will be mechanism that show us these things *long before* the license change actually happens so that we have a chance to go there and resurvey the area, manually deleting the not-relicensed objects in that area. (In fact this is already starting to happen in some places in Germany, where the work of known objectors is being replaced by new data - premature action, I think, because people can still change their minds.) * Data that has been created/modified by some people who do agree and others wo don't will have to be scrutinized. Some decisions can perhaps be made in an automated or semi-automated process; for example, assume that someone has removed the created_by tags of 100.000 nodes in one go - this is certainly not an act that warrants any copyright, so if that person is the only one in the history of the object to have not agreed then that will simply be ignored. Other cases will probably be more complex, and it is very likely that we will want to involve the community, i.e. there will be ways to flag objects with an unclear licensing status, there will be general guidelines issued by OSMF, and mappers will then be asked to decide for themselves wheter something can be copied or not (just like mappers today need to decide whether a source can be used or not). There will be likely some form of mechanism for recording such decisions, e.g. mapper name decided on date that this object can be relicensed in spite of its unclear licensing status for the following reason: ... * It is likely that data from people who have explicitly said no I don't relicense will be treated differently from those who simply don't say anything. I could imagine - pure speculation on my part though! - a scene like this: The community in city X comes together and discusses prolific mapper Y, who hasn't been to the pub meet for the last year and hasn't made a decision regarding the license change. They don't know what happened to him but some mappers remember that he always said that he doesn't give a damn for intellectual property rights and he would prefer OSM to be PD. The mappers then decide to continue using his data in the relicensed database even though they don't have an explicit OK, knowing that if mapper Y should show up and say no they would have to remove his data later. This is a gamble that OSMF will certainly not make centrally but it might be possible locally. * In general, just because an object has once in its history been touched by someone who doesn't agree to the new license doesn't mean it cannot be kept; just the information added in that one step cannot be kept. When it comes not to individual mappers who
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Ed, On 04/16/2011 06:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote: Since the situation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of examples by now. It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some proprietary giant's database. Would you prefer to wait? Or even: If you were a member of the OSMF board entrusted with our data's safe keeping, would you prefer to wait? And then, when users complain, you'd say: Oh well, lawyers told me back in 2008 that this would happen but I figured I'd rather not upset the apple cart? Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Frederik Ramm writes: It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some proprietary giant's database. Worry about the license less and map more. The more we map, the more value there is in participating in the community as a peer rather than a parasite. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 19:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If people are indeed doing that then I would *definitely* suggest the fresh air option, no matter what we intend to do license-wise; see recent imports discussion on talk-gb (Adding a further 250,000 roads quickly using a Bot). Over 2 ways were added in Britain in the last month (per ITO) and I would think a fair proportion of these must be coming from the OS data. ... Most of what I wrote here hasn't been formally said by anyone in OSMF, but OSMF haven't fully thought this through either, and the above is simply the logical course to take given all the conditions and plans that *have* been discussed. Thanks for your thoughtful answer. It is certainly a lot more detailed than anything I have read before. My first impression is how can a process with so many grey areas possibly result in a cleanly licensed dataset? Kevin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 16 April 2011 10:29, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 04/16/2011 02:05 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: At this point it's only known that there's an unspecified non-zero part of the community which wants OSM to switch license. Not everyone needs to be true to that part of the community just like not everyone needs to be true to the part that wants OSM data in Public Domain or the part that drinks coffee with milk etc. Let us try and separate the issue of license change from the issue of the CT for a moment. Let us assume that there was no immediate license change planned; that OSMF intended to continue using CC-BY-SA for now; and that they only sought CT agreement from mappers, in order to make a potential future license change easier. The CT contain this clause whereby it becomes impossible to do what Dermot writes above - if 2/3 of mappers agree to use another free and open license, then that is the new license and everyone's data is changed to that new license. I think that *that* is the major change here, Yes. and I have outlined in the past that I believe that you cannot be a part of a crowdsourced mapping effort if you consider your contribution to be only rented out to the project. If you want to participate in OSM, where all the time others will build upon your work, then you cannot sensibly say but if you decide to change your license later I might choose to take away my contribution. If you contribute to OSM, you pour a glass of water into an ocean. You cannot wrap that in plastic and label it yours. I made a comparison with voluntary work in real-life communities; if you have spent a lot of time and love helping to build a nice playground for the village school but later the whole school decides to adopt some pedadogic direction of which you don't approve and you put your kid elsewhere, you cannot tear town the playground. It wouldn't be right (and it would be very unlikely to make you happy). Now if someone says I'm willing to sign the CT on the condition that before OSMF switches to ODbL, they execute the exact license change procedure outlined in the CT, with asking 2/3 of active mappers etc., then this is something I can understand and respect. I do however have the impression that there are some people for whom calling for a public vote is just another means to delay and hopefully derail the process, and secretly they never intended to continue supporting the project after a license change anyway. That's possible but unlikely. There are some reasons why the vote would have been rather useless (which have been outlined in this thread) but they're not really obvious and that's why perhaps it's hard to realise. I have a suggestion, one which we could implement in true crowdsourced spirit and without any OSMF involvement. We simply draw up a document that is basically a modified version of the current contributor terms, which says I am willing to make the following contract with OSMF on the additional condition of OSMF holding the 2/3 vote as described below before they change from ODbL to CC-BY-SA. We then devise some sort of sufficiently legally binding way for people to sign this document. Everyone who thinks that the CT are ok in principle but who would like a proper vote first, signs this document instead of the real CT. But now you're talking about the license switch from CC-By-SA to ODbL only and taking for granted that the switch from linux model to FSF model is obviously good for the project. Here are some reasons why people might oppose that switch in the first place, and not because they find it fun to troll mailing lists, but because they want the project to succeed. I'm personally quite ambivalent of ODbL and CC-By-SA because the issues that decide which license would be better for us, are so complex. * The cost of switching is too high -- the community split, the banning of a part of current mappers from mapping, the loss of data that is already in our database. It's simply quite late for the switch with the little benefit that it brings. * Under the new CTs (some versions of the document anyway... still seems to be in flux), you may not be able to use (in OSM) data that has been built on top of our OSM data by others. For some of us this means a failure of the share alike clause. It's probably similar in case of the FSF-hosted projects and mozilla/apache projects, but for the majority of projects I know as free/open it would mean a failure. * Other potential or real issues in the CTs, which is a contract written by non-lawyers. Mistakes have been found in both the CT and the ODbL texts (and obviously in CC-By-SA text before that) after they started to be in use. * People in the status quo fork group are convinced that the current model with no CTs and the CC-By-SA is good enough. Taking the village school playground example, it's not like they are saying the current way of teaching is the only
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
So hard to know which message to reply to in this very long chain. I'll try to pick out the main points in response to my message: *Ordnance Survey Open Data*: As far as I am aware our current licence etc is compatible with the OS licence, so by changing ours, we are making a conscious decision to move to a licence which *may* not be compatible with OS's. I understood from last time I asked about this that we were getting some legal advice on it, but I have not seen a response. As someone (Kevin I think) said, there are large chunks of the UK that appear to have been traced from this data, so deleting it would be quite a backwards step, and I would not support a course of action that would mean deleting that data. [The minor point about 'us' not being interested in what OS did a year ago is not true for me - I, like several OSM people contributed to the government consultation that resulted in the release of the data] *Process*: In my day job, if I want to implement a project I have to go through a process with decision gates between stages - concept, development, implementation etc. In this process it feels like we are at the gate between the development and implementation stages, but it is not at all clear to me how we will make the decision that the damage to the dataset is worth the benefit of the new licence. [I accept that it may not be 'we' the whole community that makes the final decision - it may be the LWG or the OSMF board, I don't know]. It feels to me that the 'accept' button is my last hold on the process. It is not that I do not trust whoever is going to make the decision, but I do not know who will make the decision, or what principles they will use to make it. If I knew this (especially the tolerance to data loss), I would be happy to accept. I am disappointed that we have got to this stage without having such things specified. I get the impression that most people responding to these queries are not members of the LWG or OSMF board (my apologies if I am wrong) - a response from people who are actually running the process, rather than well meaning people who are not directly involved would be appreciated. Regards Graham. On 16 April 2011 19:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 04/16/2011 07:47 PM, Kevin Peat wrote: Such as is it the LWG's intention to make the license/ct's compatible with OS Opendata? If it isn't then all those people currently tracing thousands of roads a week in the UK might as well take a break and get some fresh air. If people are indeed doing that then I would *definitely* suggest the fresh air option, no matter what we intend to do license-wise; see recent imports discussion on talk-gb (Adding a further 250,000 roads quickly using a Bot). After so many years, someone must surely have given at least a bit of thought to how removing incompatible/un-relicensed contributions might be handled? Yes, certainly. As a non-LWG-member but avid reader of legal talk, and someone who can add two and two together, I can say the following with some certainty: * Data that has been created/modified only by people who agree to the license change will be kept unchanged. If someone should later complain nonetheless (e.g. I have created and not relicensed A road and B road, and this pub which is at the intersection is definitely a derived work, I demand it must be removed) then such data might be removed. * A mechanism will be devised to determine the splitting and merging of ways and take that into account, i.e. if a way has been created by someone who doesn't agree, but later split in two by someone else, then methods will be found to make sure the partial way newly created by the split will not count as created/modified only by people who agree. * Data that has been created/modified only by people who do not agree to the license change will not be kept in the new data base. If other data depends on this then that other data must be modified accordingly (e.g. a node might have to be removed from a way). * There will be some mechanism to remind us that something is missing. It is totally unclear what form this will take; it might be a separate database that says whithin this rectangle, 10 streets have been removed (without saying what they are and where they were so as not to infringe the copyright of whoever did not relicense those streets), or it might be a note tag on a route relation saying as part of the license change, 5 members of this route had to be removed or so. * There will be mechanism that show us these things *long before* the license change actually happens so that we have a chance to go there and resurvey the area, manually deleting the not-relicensed objects in that area. (In fact this is already starting to happen in some places in Germany, where the work of known objectors is being replaced by new data - premature action, I think, because people can still change their
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Frederik, do you mean to say that after all these years of the project you haven't seen a single example of any company - large or small - taking the OSM data and being legally untouchable? Might it not be possible, given that there are many firms with more than capable legal departments, who are more than capable of taking advantage of such a loophole, that there is slightly more to it than the simple mantra of 'our licence does not apply'? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Sorry my last message was a bit intemperate. What I should have asked was this: if you still believe that some big firm can 'rip off' the OSM map data with impunity, despite the fact that this conspicuously has not happened (the opposite in fact - our licence is universally respected among large map data players) - then what, exactly, would persuade you that this isn't a realistic possibility? In other words, is your belief falsifiable in any way? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Kevin Peat kevin at kevinpeat.com writes: My first impression is how can a process with so many grey areas possibly result in a cleanly licensed dataset? I doubt that it can. This is one additional reason to continue offering the old licence as a dual-licence option. Those users of the map who are a bit legally paranoid and want to be certain that no contributor can complain, can continue to use CC-BY-SA. (There is of course the problem of plagiarized data, as now.) Those who are a bit more adventurous and don't mind the grey areas relating to object history and what derives from what, can make use of the new things the ODbL provides, such as the ability to make map tiles and distribute them under whatever licence you want without having to give attribution. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Ed Avis wrote: Might it not be possible, given that there are many firms with more than capable legal departments, who are more than capable of taking advantage of such a loophole, that there is slightly more to it than the simple mantra of 'our licence does not apply'? Yes, there is more to it: Our data isn't consistently better than that of any of the big map providers. In addition, the risk is still rather high that a license change would happen soon after such an incident, and the dataset under the old license would quickly become outdated. So any reasonably intelligent evil company™ would wait until there is more data up for grabs, and until it has become so hard for us to change our license that we cannot even do so in order to defend against obvious abuse. Or, of course, our license and/or concerns about bad publicity are actually sufficient to protect our data. But the lack of incidents until now doesn't really tell us whether that's the case. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 04/16/2011 09:21 PM, Kevin Peat wrote: Thanks for your thoughtful answer. It is certainly a lot more detailed than anything I have read before. My first impression is how can a process with so many grey areas possibly result in a cleanly licensed dataset? I assume that decisions will only be made globally where things are crystal clear, or where lawyers have been consulted beforehand (e.g. in my created_by does not count as creative enough to warrant copyright example). Regarding all other cases: In OSM we must *always* rely on our community when it comes to the question of whether our dataset is cleanly licensed or not. The laws of probability dictate that a certain amount of our data will always be not-cleanly-licensed, today as well as at any time in the future. Today, users can use a copyrighted map to enter data even though we tell them not to, and the license change will not make that go away. When, in the course of the license change, community members are asked to judge if a certain object meets the criteria for inclusion, they can lie, or err, just as they can with respect to their sources today. We can take measures to reduce that risk, we can educate them, we can advise caution, but we can never eliminate the risk. Because we cannot avoid the occasional mistake in licensing, we have to be responsive if someone claims that their rights have been violated; we have to investigate, respect their rights, and delete the infringing data if the claim is legitimate. This has happened a number of times in the past and will certainly continue to happen. I don't expect the license change to change the size or amount of such problems, but if they arise they can be fixed. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 04/16/2011 10:35 PM, Ed Avis wrote: what, exactly, would persuade you that this isn't a realistic possibility? I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either obvious (i.e. we can easily prove that they did it), or maybe they even admit it. Then I would like someone who has contributed data in that area to sue them, and I would like the lawsuit to have an outcome that hurts the big player (e.g. either that they have to pay a lot of money or that they have to release all their data or all their customers who used that data have to release whatever they built on top or something). And preferably I would like all this to take place in a non-European country with a reasonably well developed rule of law, e.g. the USA. If that happened, then I would be convinced that our data was indeed well protected by CC-BY-SA. It would still not be great (because it takes an individual to sue, and OSMF can't) but it would be sufficient. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes: I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either obvious (i.e. we can easily prove that they did it), or maybe they even admit it. Then I would like someone who has contributed data in that area to sue them, and I would like the lawsuit to have an outcome that hurts the big player Hmm... so the fact that such grabbing of data has never occurred does not count as evidence for you. This is problematic, since in general things only go to court if the legal status is questionable. If it's reasonably certain, the side that's in the wrong will back down long before then. For example, I don't think the GNU GPL has ever gone to court. There are however plenty of test cases involving copying of maps and map data, including in the United States. As I understand it these broadly support copyrightability of maps, although the case law for something like a phone directory is quite different. Anyway, we've been over that before. -- Ed Avis e...@wanisset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16/04/11 22:37, Ed Avis wrote: Hmm... so the fact that such grabbing of data has never occurred does not count as evidence for you. This is problematic, since in general things only go to court if the legal status is questionable. If it's reasonably certain, the side that's in the wrong will back down long before then. For example, I don't think the GNU GPL has ever gone to court. Then you think wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl#The_GPL_in_court Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:35 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: As far as I understand this, we would then have all the cons of cc-by-sa (e.g. that some mayor mapping company could rip us off) Show us the evidence to back up this assertion please. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 23:37, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes: I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either obvious (i.e. we can easily prove that they did it), or maybe they even admit it. Then I would like someone who has contributed data in that area to sue them, and I would like the lawsuit to have an outcome that hurts the big player Hmm... so the fact that such grabbing of data has never occurred does not count as evidence for you. This is problematic, since in general things only go to court if the legal status is questionable. If it's reasonably certain, the side that's in the wrong will back down long before then. For example, I don't think the GNU GPL has ever gone to court. Yes it has. Harald Welte's gpl-violations.org has hundreds of cases resolved successfully either in court or outside, including some very big software and hardware companies. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Ed, On 04/16/2011 06:58 PM, Ed Avis wrote: Since the situation is so serious, there should surely be plenty of examples by now. It only takes *one* example to take all our data and feed it into some proprietary giant's database. Would you prefer to wait? Or even: If you were a member of the OSMF board entrusted with our data's safe keeping, would you prefer to wait? And then, when users complain, you'd say: Oh well, lawyers told me back in 2008 that this would happen but I figured I'd rather not upset the apple cart? Show us just one example then please. We've been waiting for this predicted catastrophe for several years now. It hasn't happened. The only thing that has happened so far is that the license change process has been so protracted that it has damaged OSM much more than any imagined threat could possibly have done. Wake up Frederik. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either obvious (i.e. we can easily prove that they did it), or maybe they even admit it. We've waited five years for this to happen. CC-BY-SA licensed data is clearly not very attractive to these people. Perhaps the quality of the data is not good enough for them? Or perhaps they realise that it would be a net loss for them to infringe copyright. Then I would like someone who has contributed data in that area to sue them, and I would like the lawsuit to have an outcome that hurts the big player (e.g. either that they have to pay a lot of money or that they have to release all their data or all their customers who used that data have to release whatever they built on top or something). So far any copyright infringer has backed down gracefully rather than risk it. If the took legal advice then they were presumably advised that it was wasn't a good bet. Do you think that Google haven't considered the possibilty of incorporating OSM data into their MapMaker database? Why do you think they haven't? Perhaps our data is not good enough for them? Or perhaps, legally, they don't think they have the right? There is zero chance that any large organisation would try to use OSM's CC-BY-SA licensed map data and think that they would get away with it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Frederik Ramm writes: On 04/16/2011 10:35 PM, Ed Avis wrote: what, exactly, would persuade you that this isn't a realistic possibility? I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, I suggest that that hasn't happened because it won't happen because they're in the same boat as we are, and it isn't sensible to start drilling holes in OSM's side of the board. Or as Ed suggests, maybe their big legal department knows something you don't know? To misquote Jesse Vincent (of Best Practical and thus RT fame): Shut The Fuck Up and Make Some Maps. http://www.flickr.com/photos/mn_francis/917796606/ -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
80n writes: The only thing that has happened so far is that the license change process has been so protracted that it has damaged OSM much more than any imagined threat could possibly have done. Here, here! If anybody is SO bored that fiddling with the license seems like fun, come edit with me: Wayne, Livingston, Tioga, and Orleans counties in New York State (bad TIGER digi). Armchair mapping FTW, license fiddling FTL. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 16 April 2011 23:36, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either obvious (i.e. we can easily prove that they did it), or maybe they even admit it. We've waited five years for this to happen. CC-BY-SA licensed data is clearly not very attractive to these people. Perhaps the quality of the data is not good enough for them? Or perhaps they realise that it would be a net loss for them to infringe copyright. If this is what you have been complaining about then you have half missed the point. There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we (some?) in the community chose to ignore. Good read and background: Facilitating Collaboration On Geospatial Data Using Social and Legal Norms - http://www.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4/30/58/1134/DatabaseLicensing_110207.pdf 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 Sat, 16 Apr 2011 18:02:16 +0200 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We have a situation where those who have spent time with it, and talked to lawyers and all, are positively sure that we do not have a working status quo. Doing nothing is not an option. In licensing terms, this house is on fire. Day after day we're violating our own license and making promises that we cannot keep. Can you swap the flowery language for facts? Please give examples. I assure you, that my government has chosen CC licences for the release of its own data, and that they can spend far more on lawyers than OSMF ever will. I cannot believe that the house is on fire. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:20:27 -0400 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: I think Frederick gave you the best answer possible. It's not that the community was *asked* by some overarching committee, but instead that it just floated up. Like a turd in the toilet. Frankly, I never thought it would come to actually deleting data. I always thought that that was OBVIOUSLY so insane that *somebody* would have killed the idea of relicensing. The trouble is, is that, just as no one person is responsible for creating the idea, no one person has the ability to kill it. Maybe SteveC, but he's convinced that Google is going to steal our data. As if our data had any value once separated from the community that keeps it alive. -russ One of my questions, waiting a very long time for an answer, is What are the instructions of the OSMF Board to the Licensing Working Group A corporate structure sets up committees. The Board gives the committee a set of instructions. The committees are answerable to the Board. Now was the instruction find out if we need a new licence, and if so look around for one or was it find a way to put the OSM data under this new licence. From there it will be quite evident exactly which group of persons made this decision. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:50:03 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: If this is what you have been complaining about then you have half missed the point. There are people who have chosen NOT TO USE OSM because of legal ambigutity and points in the CC-BY-SA license which we (some?) in the community chose to ignore. Thanks for that Grant. Those people have a right to do so, and they are free to do so. I'm glad you are not forcing people to use OSM. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Russ Nelson wrote: Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all. I wonder why you believe that the only way a license change can possibly help OSM is by allowing us to sue more users of our data. Personally, I don't want to sue anyone. However, I want to unambiguously have the right to publish an OSM based map that doesn't provide attribution for every single mapper. I also consider improved compatibility with other licenses for produced works a welcome benefit. And I'm almost certain that the legal and social environment in which we operate will change during the next decades, so it would be nice to be able to react to them by modifying the terms under which we publish our maps; preferably without losing orders of magnitudes more data than we might now. Some also think that the shift of share-alike from works onto data makes sense, and I think that they have good arguments for that position. Clearly, there are a lot of advantages provided by the CT+ODbL that have nothing at all to do with legal action against our users. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:00 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/16/2011 05:40 PM, Graham Jones wrote: ... it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be resolved before forcing people to re-licence. Isn't it funny how, just over a year ago, we couldn't care less about anything the Ordnace Survey did, and suddenly we are a project that must choose their license according to what is compatible with OS? If OS used some obscure licence and someone suggested changing to it, then youd get people asking the same thing. The thing is, these services arent using obscure licences, theyre using a very common one. Becoming incompatible with CC-BY-SA doesnt just mean that you lose one source, or two sources, it means that you lose compatibility with hundreds. I say to you the same I said to Ian - even if OSMF would publish what mechanism they plan to use (and I'm pretty sure they don't have one yet), then that mechanism would not become part of the contract and it could be changed at any later time, say, after majorities in the OSMF board have changed after the next election or something. Silly me. Silly me for thinking that we here at OSM believed in the meaning of the O in OSM. Incase the OSMF board has forgotten, the O means Open, it doesnt mean you can pick and choose what they choose to allow the community to see. Wouldnt this have been a good thing to start planning, like, when it was first realised that it was needed? We've been complaining about these issues for years, and people like yourself have been telling dissenters to shut the hell up. Now that the time has come, the 'foundation' is only just realising the issues that the rest of us raised years ago and are now chasing their tails trying to setup these mechanisms in the space of a day or two rather than a year or two. I'm sorry but I think you can either trust people to do the right thing or not trust them, but nobody will give you a written statement (or if they do it won't be worth much). Isnt that a problem with contract law? OSMF could give you a written statement, which might be suitably legally compatible in 2 or 3 countries, but not in the rest of the world. Compare this to the current situation where the current licence is accepted around the world, with 2 or 3 exceptions. Wouldnt it be easier to resovle the issues in those couple of countries where they exist, than to find a contract which has to be worded properly (if thats even possible) to comply with every user's nation's laws. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Hi, On 17 April 2011 01:22, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Personally, I don't want to sue anyone. However, I want to unambiguously have the right to publish an OSM based map that doesn't provide attribution for every single mapper. I also consider improved compatibility with other licenses for produced works a welcome benefit. And I'm almost certain that the legal and social environment in which we operate will change during the next decades, so it would be nice to be able to react to them by modifying the terms under which we publish our maps; preferably without losing orders of magnitudes more data than we might now. Some also think that the shift of share-alike from works onto data makes sense, and I think that they have good arguments for that position. It probably makes sense (although both things may be desired sometimes). But while the new license might allow new users to take advantage of OSM it'll also take it away from some existing users because ODbL is not compatible with CC-By-SA in either direction. I know a relatively big project that's currently using OSM data under CC-By-SA and may be in a nasty surprise when they find OSM is no longer suitable. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:57 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Mike N writes: Even a proper reversion script will cause much collateral damage for the cases I'm aware of. The whole point behind having a license is to be able to sue people who violate it. You've got it exactly backwards. The whole point of having a free license is to waive the right to sue people who follow it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The CT contain this clause whereby it becomes impossible to do what Dermot writes above - if 2/3 of mappers agree to use another free and open license, then that is the new license and everyone's data is changed to that new license. That's not what the CT says. The CT says that OSMF can use one or more of the following licences. If 2/3 of mappers agree to use another free and open license, then OSMF can use that other license. Or OSMF can choose not to use that other license. Or OSMF can use that other license *and* one or more of the explicitly listed licenses. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:36 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I would like a big player with a big legal department - say, for example, Navteq - grabbing our data for a reasonably well mapped place, perhaps a city only, incorporating it into their data set in way that it either obvious (i.e. we can easily prove that they did it), or maybe they even admit it. We've waited five years for this to happen. CC-BY-SA licensed data is clearly not very attractive to these people. Perhaps the quality of the data is not good enough for them? Or perhaps they realise that it would be a net loss for them to infringe copyright. Navteq would be in a lose-lose situation: 1) They lose the case, and have to release their data under CC-BY-SA. 2) They win the case, by successfully arguing that all data (including theirs) is public domain. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:10 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 7:35 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: As far as I understand this, we would then have all the cons of cc-by-sa (e.g. that some mayor mapping company could rip us off) Show us the evidence to back up this assertion please. It's not just without evidence, it's logically nonsensical. If CC-BY-SA doesn't apply to OSM, then there's no harm in using it. If OSM is public domain, then slapping ODbL on top of it doesn't magically make it proprietary. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
Tobias Knerr writes: Russ Nelson wrote: Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all. I wonder why you believe that the only way a license change can possibly help OSM is by allowing us to sue more users of our data. A license is a threat to sue plus a list of reasons why you won't that threat out. Personally, I don't want to sue anyone. Then you should put the public domain notice into your Wiki page, so that everyone knows that you won't sue them under any circumstances. I'm not asking you to do anything that I haven't already done. However, I want to unambiguously have the right to publish an OSM based map that doesn't provide attribution for every single mapper. Then let's add a permission to the CC-By-SA which says We won't sue if you only attribute the project. I also consider improved compatibility with other licenses for produced works a welcome benefit. Then let's add permissions to the CC-By-SA which say We won't sue if you combine this work with other licenses. Here are the characteristics of those license which we deem acceptable. And I'm almost certain that the legal and social environment in which we operate will change during the next decades, so it would be nice to be able to react to them by modifying the terms under which we publish our maps; preferably without losing orders of magnitudes more data than we might now. Then let's add permissions to the CC-By-SA which say I also grant the OSMF permission to grant further permissions. Some also think that the shift of share-alike from works onto data makes sense, and I think that they have good arguments for that position. Clearly, there are a lot of advantages provided by the CT+ODbL that have nothing at all to do with legal action against our users. None of these are arguments for the CT+ODbL. They are arguments for granting extra permissions to current licensees. The REAL purpose of the CT+ODbL is to be a bigger stick with which we can beat up OSM users. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
Could you create a graph that shows the graph since you started collecting data in addition to or instead of just the last 48 hours? :-) This graph is very informative. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure if anyone else is already doing this but two days ago I thought it would be fun (maybe even useful) to graph the number of users who have accepted/declined the new license/CT in anticipation of the next phase going into effect on Sunday. I hacked together a quick dirty script to use as a data source in the Zabbix instance I have set up at home. Zabbix is geared towards system monitoring so it is a little odd to graph something completely unrelated but it was available and easy to do and at the end of the day, a graph is a graph. Anyway, I didn't feel like sending out the URL to my private zabbix instance at home to the mailing list so I set up a cron job to periodically refresh a static image on a more legitimate server. It can be seen here: http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count.html Enjoy, Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Tobias Knerr writes: Russ Nelson wrote: Unless somebody has a theory under which there will be more mappers suing more users, the only rational conclusion can be that the license change will hurt OSM, and not help it at all. I wonder why you believe that the only way a license change can possibly help OSM is by allowing us to sue more users of our data. A license is a threat to sue plus a list of reasons why you won't that threat out. Where are you getting this from? The verb license or grant licence means to give permission. The noun license (American English) or licence (British English) refers to that permission as well as to the document recording that permission. A license is a permission, not a threat. Personally, I don't want to sue anyone. Then you should put the public domain notice into your Wiki page, so that everyone knows that you won't sue them under any circumstances. I'm not asking you to do anything that I haven't already done. Even if you don't personally want to sue anyone, licensing under CC-BY-SA still be better than PD in that it can help avoid you yourself getting sued. Personally, I don't want to sue anyone. But I'd certainly be willing to threaten to countersue someone who threatened to sue me. Sort of a mutual assured destruction strategy of lawsuit avoidance. CC-BY-SA is the closest popular license to putting up a notice which says I won't sue you, as long as you don't sue me or anyone else. That's much better IMO than a notice which says I won't sue you no matter what. CC-SA (i.e. Sharealike 1.0, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/) was even better in that regard. But unfortunately, it never caught on. However, I want to unambiguously have the right to publish an OSM based map that doesn't provide attribution for every single mapper. Then let's add a permission to the CC-By-SA which says We won't sue if you only attribute the project. I'm not sure what this whole attribute the project stuff is about, as CC-BY-SA 3.0 already contains provisions allowing you to only attribute the project. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On 17 April 2011 01:53, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 23:36 +0100, 80n wrote: Do you think that Google haven't considered the possibilty of incorporating OSM data into their MapMaker database? Why do you think they haven't? Perhaps our data is not good enough for them? Or perhaps, legally, they don't think they have the right? I think the 'not good' enough argument pretty much hits the nail on the head. As great as our data may be, any commercial entity probably has access to similar data, which they can probably get with some sort of quality assurance guarantee. If google wants maps of a city/town/state, they just goto the government of the area and get it. They know its complete, they know its accurate, they know if theres a problem with the data that theres only one source to contact. That's not true everywhere, for example all of the places where google enabled Map Maker. It also must have not been true in Columbia where the google map data supplier used OSM and Google had no concerns with completness or quality guarantees. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License graph
Thanks! It would be interesting to observe how the response goes once Phase 3 kicks in. On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: I was actually thinking about doing that but went to bed last night after getting the first one up. At that point the point I believe the start point for the data was just barely off of the first graph. But I just added a 5 day graph. I will extend it as I get more data to show the long term trend. Toby On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Could you create a graph that shows the graph since you started collecting data in addition to or instead of just the last 48 hours? :-) This graph is very informative. On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure if anyone else is already doing this but two days ago I thought it would be fun (maybe even useful) to graph the number of users who have accepted/declined the new license/CT in anticipation of the next phase going into effect on Sunday. I hacked together a quick dirty script to use as a data source in the Zabbix instance I have set up at home. Zabbix is geared towards system monitoring so it is a little odd to graph something completely unrelated but it was available and easy to do and at the end of the day, a graph is a graph. Anyway, I didn't feel like sending out the URL to my private zabbix instance at home to the mailing list so I set up a cron job to periodically refresh a static image on a more legitimate server. It can be seen here: http://ni.kwsn.net/~toby/OSM/license_count.html Enjoy, Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:13 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 01:53, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 23:36 +0100, 80n wrote: Do you think that Google haven't considered the possibilty of incorporating OSM data into their MapMaker database? Why do you think they haven't? Perhaps our data is not good enough for them? Or perhaps, legally, they don't think they have the right? I think the 'not good' enough argument pretty much hits the nail on the head. As great as our data may be, any commercial entity probably has access to similar data, which they can probably get with some sort of quality assurance guarantee. If google wants maps of a city/town/state, they just goto the government of the area and get it. They know its complete, they know its accurate, they know if theres a problem with the data that theres only one source to contact. That's not true everywhere, for example all of the places where google enabled Map Maker. I'm not sure that it's true anywhere. What government provides no-cost data which is useful for routing? I think the best explanation for why Google hasn't blatantly and openly (*) assimilated all of OSM's data, is that they aren't sure they can do so legally. Sure, OSM is incomplete and contains errors, but lots of the public domain government data that Google has assimilated is incomplete and contains errors. (*) I'm not sure they aren't using OSM to extent some extent, such as to find possible errors to flag for manual review, without publicizing it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk-nl] Woonplaatsen, wijken, buurten en admin_levels
Ik probeer structuur te vinden in de huidige manier waarop stadsdelen, wijken en buurten getagged worden en zouden moeten worden. Op het moment zie ik dat veel buurten getagged worden als 'suburb', hetgeen volgens mij geen correct gebruik van die tag is. Ik heb de CBS 2008 gemeente, wijk en buurten informatie er even bijgepakt en vergeleken met de admin_levels zoals ze worden weergegeven op http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=administrative Het CBS kent gemeenten (admin_level 8), wijken en buurten. Het CBS rekent ook stadsdelen (admin_level 9), zoals veel grote steden in Nederland die kennen, tot wijken, maar in de meeste steden met stadsdelen worden de stadsdelen verdeeld in wijken (admin_level 11) en de wijken daarna in buurten. Voor die buurten is er dan dus geen admin_level beschikbaar. Op zich is dat geen probleem als er maar een tag is die recht aan de status van die buurten. place:suburb is dat niet, aangezien suburb ook kan bestaan uit meerdere buurten. Een suburb is volgens mij meer een type wijk (rand van de stad, nieuwbouw / vinex). Een onderscheid dat in Nederland voor zover ik weet niet wordt gemaakt. Voor de volledigheid admin_level 10: Als ik het goed begrijp kan een level 10 (woonplaatsen) niet voorkomen als je level 9 gebruikt. level 10 zou bijvoorbeeld zijn Amerongen, Doorn, Maarn binnen de gemeente Utrechtse Heuvelrug. Voorzover die woonplaatsen dan wijken hebben kunnen die in admin_level 11 vallen. Daarvoor voldoet het huidige systeem dus. Wat ik wil: 1. place:suburb verwijderen uit het Nederlandse territorium 2. Een tag om buurten (in steden) te beschrijven. Te definieren als Gebieden kleiner dan een wijk (admin_level 11) die een naam dragen vanuit de geschiedenis, en/of die de naam hebben gekregen tijdens een ontwikkelingsproject. place:neighbo(u)rhood lijkt dan een sterke kandidaat. De key place dient gebruikt te worden om nominatim e.d. goed te kunnen voorzien. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Neighbourhood Voorbeelden: admin_level 8: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Eindhoven admin_level 9: Zuidoost, Prins Alexander, Woensel-Zuid admin_level 10: N/A, N/A, N/A admin_level 11: Gaasperdam, Ommoord, Oud-Woensel place:neighbo(u)rhood: Holendrecht, Varenbuurt, Hemelrijken NB: Amsterdam lijkt in de meeste gevallen geen wijken te hebben maar rechtstreeks van stadsdelen naar buurten te springen (West -- Admiralenbuurt). Gaasperdam is daar dan weer een uitzondering op. Internationaal is dit onderwerp ook in beweging: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=11885 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-April/007339.html ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [talk-au] ABS CodePlay
On 16 April 2011 15:56, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 15:21:59 +1000 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: An Australian Bureau of Statistics initiative to help drive collaboration between students, developers and national and international statistical agencies. http://data.gov.au/2770/contest-abs-codeplay/ that link is to a comment spot rather than to information have you got another link? I was hoping the person that posted previous comments on ABS data would be able to comment further, but that came through on RSS... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[Talk-br] Gerando coordenadas automaticamente (Era: Brasil 5500)
Olás, Não usei Xapi, mas acho que consegui obter automaticamente uma lista com muitas das cidades. Por enquanto, coloquei apenas os resultados aqui: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:WikiProject_Brazil/Brasil_250_Cidades/Lista_Completa_de_Cidades Para os resultados que eu verifiquei, as coordenadas pareciam estar corretas. O maior problema é que há muitos nodos place com nomes repetidos. Por exemplo, há cinco Juazeiros pelo Brasil, então não sei de qual pegar as coordenadas. Estou tentado resolver esse problema procurando pelo Estado, ou talvez ignorando hamlets. Assim que eu cansar de tentar resolver isso, eu mando detalhes de como estou procedendo e compartilho o script com vocês. Abraços, LMB 2011/4/13 Rodrigo de Avila rodr...@avila.net.br: Será que a gente não consegue as coordenadas de todos os municípios usando o Xapi? http://developer.mapquest.com/web/products/open/xapi -- Rodrigo de Avila Analista de Desenvolvimento rodr...@avila.net.br • www.avila.net.br Em 13 de abril de 2011 14:09, vitor vitor.geo...@gmail.com escreveu: Pessoal, Atualizei o relatório: http://mapaslivres.org/brasil5500.html Vi que foram colocadas 100% das coordenadas do ES, parabéns! Agora é só ver as conexões que faltam. Só queria avisar para que não sejam colocadas no wiki coordenadas com separador decimal de vírgula. Abs, Vitor 2011/4/12 vitor vitor.geo...@gmail.com Olá Pessoal, Gostaria de apresentar para vocês o projeto Brasil 5500. Basicamente, é um projeto para colocar todas as cidades brasileiras no mapa. Fiz um script que testa a conexão entre entre cidades-pólo e cidades dentro de um mesmo estado. Os resultados podem ser vistos aqui: http://mapaslivres.org/brasil5500.html Como devem ter percebido, não estão todas as 5562 cidades brasileiras. Para que todas estejam aí, será necessário buscar as coordenadas que estão faltando e adicionar aqui: http://goo.gl/WZQIw Quem quiser adicionar coordenadas, me avise que eu mando o compartilhamento. Periodicamente postarei o relatório, utilizando as coordenadas que estão nesta planilha. O script precisa ainda de alguns ajustes, como por exemplo marcar rotas tortuosas. Sugestões são bem vindas! Bom mapeamento! ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-br] Gerando coordenadas automaticamente (Era: Brasil 5500)
Eu de novo... Implementei duas heurísticas que conseguiram achar as coordenadas de mais umas 700 cidades, subindo o número de coordenadas obtidas para 4521 (com o detalhe de que há uma certa chance de que pelo menos alguns desses 700 estejam incorretos -- essas heurísticas são apenas heurísiticas ;-) ) Coloquei os resultados atualizados, junto com uma descrição do que eu fiz e um link para o script utilizado na página de discussão da Lista Completa de Cidades: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:WikiProject_Brazil/Brasil_250_Cidades/Lista_Completa_de_Cidades Não quis colocar os resultados por cima da página oficial porque nada disso foi verificado com muito cuidado. Conto com vocês para fazer isso ;-) Qualquer dúvida, gritem aí! LMB 2011/4/16 Leandro Motta Barros lmbar...@gmail.com: Olás, Não usei Xapi, mas acho que consegui obter automaticamente uma lista com muitas das cidades. Por enquanto, coloquei apenas os resultados aqui: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:WikiProject_Brazil/Brasil_250_Cidades/Lista_Completa_de_Cidades Para os resultados que eu verifiquei, as coordenadas pareciam estar corretas. O maior problema é que há muitos nodos place com nomes repetidos. Por exemplo, há cinco Juazeiros pelo Brasil, então não sei de qual pegar as coordenadas. Estou tentado resolver esse problema procurando pelo Estado, ou talvez ignorando hamlets. Assim que eu cansar de tentar resolver isso, eu mando detalhes de como estou procedendo e compartilho o script com vocês. Abraços, LMB ___ Talk-br mailing list Talk-br@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-br
Re: [Talk-de] Mapnik deutscher Kartenstil: fehlende Bezeichnung von Flüssen
Am 16.04.2011 04:25, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: ca. 2-3 Monate, evtl. ein bisschen länger (Wochenbereich). Neben den Gebäuden wären auch Felder (farmland) umrandet nicht schlecht. Ich hab mir das mal genauer angesehen und der deutsche Stil wurde von der Revision 25213 vom 2. Feb kopiert. Geänderte XML-Dateien sind: osm.xml inc/layer-placenames.xml.inc inc/layer-amenity-points.xml.inc inc/layer-buildings.xml.inc inc/layer-water.xml.inc Da hat sich so einiges geändert, ganze neue Abschnitte und Aufteilungen. Da ist bald das einfachste die Datei mit der aktuellen einfach zu ersetzten und dann die kleinen deutschen Änderungen einzutragen. Dazu müsste man aber diese erst mal kennen. Genauso kommt ja neues dazu was sich vielleicht mit den geänderten deutschen Farben oder anderen Sachen beißt. Also das schwierige ist ja nicht die Verbesserungen einzubauen, die sind ja schon da, sondern den deutschen Stil dabei nicht kaputt zu machen. Eine 1:1 Kopie bringt am Ende ja nicht mehr viel. ^^ MfG yobiSource ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neue Nuklearkarte Deutschland
Hi, Irgendwie fehlt da etwas... Nämlich die Forschungsreaktoren. Wenn man sich die Geschichten von Leuten, die daran gearbeitet haben, anhört hab ich mehr vor denen Angst... MfG Andreas Am 02.04.2011 14:30, schrieb Gary68: So, neu, nun mit allem, was ich gefunden habe: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:MapgenGermanyNuclear.pdf Viel Spaß. Gerhard -- Diese Nachricht wurde maschinell erstellt und ist daher ohne Unterschrift gültig. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Schreibweise von Hausnummern
Buchstaben schreibe ich Grundsätzlich ohne Leerzeichen und Klein. Das ist aber eine rein persönliche Geschichte. In der Auswertung achte ich auch auf Leerzeichen und arbeite case-insensitiv. Die 1/2-Geschichte ist mir noch nie untergekommen, weswegen ich da nix sagen kann. Jedoch warne ich davor diese bei Interpolationen zu verwenden! Auch wenn es wieder von einigen Seiten heißt Das sieht man doch ist das Problem so speziell, dass man als Programmierer nicht drauf kommt. Die Zusammenfassung von Hausnummern sehe ich auch des öfteren. Ich nehme keine Leerzeichen (aber wie gesagt, ist was persönliches). In der Auswertung sollten Konstrukte außerhalb von /^\s*\d+\s*\w*\s*$/ das ganze soundso als String gehandhabt werden. Eine Hausnummer ala 2-3 kann nämlich sowohl eine Nummern Zusammenfassung sein, als auch eine Nummer der Reihe 2-1, 2-2 ... -- Diese Nachricht wurde maschinell erstellt und ist daher ohne Unterschrift gültig. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital 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
Am 14.04.2011 20:09, schrieb Frederik Ramm: 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... Das Problem ist, dass auch im -besten- Fall die Umstellung am Sonntag nur maximal (10 * 7 Tage * 300 Mapper/Tag) = 21'000 zusätzliche Mapper erreichen wird wenn man das jetzt 10 Wochen lang durchzieht (mit der Annahme, dass die grob 300 Mapper pro Tag, die noch nicht zugestimmt haben, immer verschiedene Leute sind, was natürlich nicht so ist). Das wäre also auch im aller besten Fall immer noch keine 50% der Altmapper. In Wirklichkeit wird die Zahl noch viel kleiner sein. Es führt wirklich kein Weg daran vorbei die Leute anzuschreiben, und zwar so früh wir möglich. Simon ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Alle Jahre wieder - Flyer-Neuauflage
Frederik Ramm wrote: Ziemlich verbluefft musste ich anhand eines Blicks in meine Unterlagen feststellen, dass wir mittlerweile 70.000 Stueck davon gedruckt und weitgehend verteilt haben. Nicht schlecht! Heh, wow. :) Waere es zum Beispiel Zeit, den Fokus im Text etwas weg vom GPS-Geraet und hin zum Luftbild zu legen, eventuell sogar das kleine dreiteilige GPS-Track-Bild durch irgendeinen Potlatch-Screenshot mit Luftbild ersetzen, a la 1. vom Luftbild abmalen, 2. vor Ort Details notieren, 3. Karte fertig? Die Luftbilder in meiner Gegend (liegt allerdings nicht in D) sind häufig nicht lagegenau und müssen immer erst anhand von GPS-Tracks richtig positioniert werden (meist ~ 10 m Versatz). Daher habe ich den Eindruck, GPS wird noch für einige Zeit die Hauptstütze von OSM bleiben. Hinzu kommt der rechtliche Aspekt: Wir wollen ja nicht den Eindruck erwecken, dass man einfach von jedem beliebigen Luftbild tracen und das Resultat nach OSM übernehmen darf. Dass eigene GPS-Tracks da unproblematisch sind, leuchtet viel eher ein, meine ich. Sollte man vielleicht einen OpenCycleMap- oder anderen thematischen Kartenausschnitt zeigen statt 2x Mapnik-Standard? Vielleicht den deutschen Stil statt des englischen nehmen? Klingt beides nach einer guten Idee. Müsste man mal ein Beispiel von ansehen, um zu beurteilen, ob es im Layout aussieht. Bleiben wir beim Sie, obwohl wir jeden, der einen Account anlegt oder seine Nase auf einem Stammtisch zeigt, sofort duzen? Ich würde sagen: du (kleingeschrieben) Interessanter Vergleich: im Apple Store wird jeder Besucher sofort und ohne Nachfrage geduzt, egal welches Alter. Das verwundert manch Älteren, kommt aber meiner Beobachtung nach auch bei Senioren ganz gut an. Die deutschlandweite Version will ich aber weiterhin ueber die Geofabrik kostenlos verteilen. Toll, vielen Dank! Schöne Grüße, Arne -- Arne Johannessen ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
