On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:02:54PM -1000, Brian Russo wrote: > If I'm not mistaken the 256^2 PNG restriction is because that is what the > WMS-C standard specifies (A flaw in the standard IMO - most of our tiles are > JPG). > > (Totally not trying to derail this main discussion) > > Overall I think your revised standard looks great though I admit I haven't > pored over it in detail. > > I did have one question about licensing. > > "Each layer should be marked with the license of its source, including (at a > minimum) descriptive text for the license, plus flags for public domain, > attribution, non-commercial, and sharealike licensing. " > > I'm skeptical on the real utility of OAM if these sort of restrictions are > put in place. My preference would be for including only public domain > imagery.
Public domain imagery -- really public domain -- is hard to come by, by comparison to imagery that will be donated by a governmental organization that wants only to have credit to their name. > Anything else and I think we may just end up with a collage of > differently licensed imagery and you have to jump through hoops to figure > out what imagery is licensed under what etc.. I think that solving this problem will definitely be a neccesity. OAM originally had a tactic of "Don't upload anything that is more restrictive than attribution licensed, because we haven't solved that problem yet." Once you do solve that problem -- which is handled in the proposal by the 'layer groups', you have the option of selecting the 'public domain global' layer group, the 'attribution-or-public-domain' layer group, etc. In other words, though I respect the concern, I think that it is something that can be solved through technical means, and not require an overly limited set of data in OAM to address a particular case. > Not to be dramatic, but I'd > say it diminishes my interest in OAM as a large part of my interest is > rooted in the problem that right now releasability/licensing issues is > really the main draw for me. I.e. we can use the basemap and/or release > products knowing that other people can use the basemap for "whatever". I think this is definitely something that we should address, but I think saying "Only public domain imagery" will hurt the project as a whole. (Encouraging public domain imagery is obviously a plus.) > For HADR applications in particular there is often sensitive information > included in products that are created. If I understand share-alike correctly > then this means our derived product using OAM would need to be licensed > under that. Bluntly, that just won't work. An example could be two countries > that are hostile to each other and let's say you take OAM data and overlay > airfield or similar sensitive data on it. You would then give a map like > this to something like ICRC, USAID, etc with the caveat that the information > cannot be disclosed widely, etc. You can't use sharealike data in that case, > unless I'm misunderstanding the license. In which case, you should use the attribution-only layergroup, so that you don't have sharealike (or non-commercial) data. > Even attribution can be a problem when you consider things like mobile > devices where real estate is precious and the tools may not be built with > this in mind. Priority for adding attribution display capability so we can > use OAM is.. pretty much nonexistent. In which case you should use the public-domain only layergroup... and be aware that, outside the US, you'll basically only have Landsat. > Anyway, I'm really not trying to be a naysayer or overly dramatic - feel > free to point out holes in my logic if I'm misunderstanding the CC licenses, > I just think such a licensing/releasability issue could fundamentally > undermine the main point of OAM - which (in my eyes) is that it's a big cool > skin of imagery that you can do whatever you want with. Again, I understand > my usage case does not match everyone's. I think that the public-domain only data will be a 'small cool skin' of imagery, but it should still be there and usable. In addition, if you can deal with other licenses -- for print works, and many others, Attribution probably works relatively well -- then you can have access to more imagery. Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt MetaCarta _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://openaerialmap.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_openaerialmap.org
