Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
Anthony, Anthony wrote: I think that the people count more than the data they contribute. That's a good statement. I'm happy that you have finally come to understand what this project is about! I was beginning to think you might just be here for the fun of the argument, whatever argument it was. Actually, that's a quote. Oh. Never mind the above. Anyway, the number of people who have submitted nearmap changesets is 121, the total number of people who haved edited in Australia is 2752; so while NearMap-affected data may be up to 10% of Australia, NearMap-using users only make up 4.3% of those who edit in Australia. (NB: The 2752 is a quick count in the planet file and will also include the occasional world-wide bot etc.) World-wide, we have ~ 130k users who have contributed data, so in terms of users, around 2% of them have edited in Australia, and NearMap-using users make up 0.095% - which is not far away from the 0.125% of data I counted in my last post. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
Andrzej, andrzej zaborowski wrote: So 300 mappers' work is not something we should make a fuss about? Let's put it this way: If 300 mappers are enough to put in a veto against the CT or the license change then we can stop right now, because I am pretty sure that *whatever* you do (even if you propose we stay with the current license, do you agree yes/no), you can manage to find 300 people opposed. Also, as I just wrote in another mail, in the case of NearMap the number seems to be more like 120. If ways can be found to accommodate everyone then those ways are certainly preferable, and I am (as Anthony has pointed out) on record for saying that the community is more important than the data. There are probably not many ways to better alienate someone than by saying sorry we have to remove your data. So if it can be avoided then it should be avoided. But in the grand scheme of things, not changing the license (I *knew* this would become a license discussion ;) is, in my opinion, likely to alienate many more people (or keep them away in the first place), so we are willing to pay a price for being able to proceed with the license change. And personally I don't think that losing 5% of mappers (I'm thinking: A mapping party with 19 people attending instead of 20) would be too high a price to pay, provided that they're evenly distributed. I wouldn't want to lose 5% of world-wide mappers and lose them all in Australia (leaving nothing), or lose 5% of world-wide mappers but only the most prolific 5%, etc. Hopefully people who will make the switch decision have a different opinion. Those who will make the switch decision so far have refrained from saying numbers, and that's a sensible decision I think. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NearMap Community Licence and OSM Contributor Terms
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:03:37AM +1000, John Smith wrote: On 20 August 2010 07:57, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: They can use the data the same as anyone can. My believe in share alike long predates CloudMade and OpenStreetMap. I think most problems currently with the CT is because there is too many conflicting goals. If OSM/OSM-F's future really is with PD then fine say so, if it should stay BY-SA then fine say so, but this wishy washiness of trying to appease PD and SA groups isn't going anywhere. During early stages “public domain” was rejected. Skimming through the OSMF board meeting minutes, I can trace this back to January 2008: “3. OSM Data License - Richard provided an update on the current situation. Creative Commons, through their Science Commons initiative have published their protocol on open data at (http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/). The protocol places science data in the public domain and there is no attribution or share alike component. As such it is not therefore thought that OSM contributors would sign up to this approach should it be adopted by OSM. It was agreed that further consideration of the Open Data License would be investigated and Richard tasked with contacting Jordan Hatcher, one of its authors to further discuss.” Source: http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/9/99/20080117_meeting_minutes.pdf I agree with John that we should choose the route and stick to it. I thought the above was to be the route, and one which I agreed with, and the ODbL satisfied that for me. Most of the ambiguity and conflict is in the Contributor Terms, and has been pointed out (many times, to much annoyance) already. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Anyway, the number of people who have submitted nearmap changesets is 121, the total number of people who haved edited in Australia is 2752; so while NearMap-affected data may be up to 10% of Australia, NearMap-using users only make up 4.3% of those who edit in Australia. I'm not sure which is worse, the assumptions you're making or the conclusions you're drawing from them. But tell me this. What percentage of users are we going to lose if the contributor terms *don't* allow a future switch to public domain? Just you? Not even you? On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:11 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: But in the grand scheme of things, not changing the license (I *knew* this would become a license discussion ;) is, in my opinion, likely to alienate many more people (or keep them away in the first place), so we are willing to pay a price for being able to proceed with the license change. You're the one who brought up the license. I thought we were talking about the contributor terms. Still waiting for the legal talk. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
On 20 August 2010 09:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: So you *need* CT in which the contributor basically signs over his data to OSMF who then make a database from it. Has anyone given much thought to how this works for the sui generis database right of the European Union? In other words, *does* the free contribution of multiple items of data, not in themselves substantial enough to form a database, give the person to whom they are contributed (whatever that might mean) a database right in the sum? I am wondering (as others have wondered) where the substantial investment is? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask the question. I realise that you all have a team of lawyers who do/have thought about all this and that is inherent in the ODBL but I am just curious. It isn't obvious to me that this is simple. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
On 20 August 2010 18:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: In my eyes the ODbL and CT are part and parcel and I refer to both as the license change. I don't think that you can separate them. Is that because you don't think people will swallow the CTs unless they are a package deal? The reason is that ODbL is a license for databases, and what the individual contributor contributes is not (or at least: not usually!) a database. I know what they are, but they don't have to be joined at the hip... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
Hi, John Smith wrote: In my eyes the ODbL and CT are part and parcel and I refer to both as the license change. I don't think that you can separate them. Is that because you don't think people will swallow the CTs unless they are a package deal? No, my statement above is not politically or rhetorically motivated. I believe, and have explained the message from which you are quoting, that it is not legally possible for individuals to contribute non-database data to a database without a contractual agreement - the CT in our case. If you are employed in a company that produces a database, then that is probably either written in either your employment contract or in the labour laws of your jurisdiction (that the employer gets to do with the data what they want, and thus can release the data as a database under a license of their choice). But mappers are not employed by OSMF, so we need some sort of contract that says I, the mapper, allow OSMF to make a database from my data and publish it. The reason is that ODbL is a license for databases, and what the individual contributor contributes is not (or at least: not usually!) a database. I know what they are, but they don't have to be joined at the hip... OSMF cannot publish any data as part of OSM without permission. The CT is about getting that permission or assuring that it has been given; so yes, I do believe that both are joined at the hip. (Not, of course, this particular version of the CT, if that's what you're getting at - *some* sort of CT that enables OSMF to publish the data as part of a database.) Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
Hi, Francis Davey wrote: Has anyone given much thought to how this works for the sui generis database right of the European Union? Certainly the EU hasn't, the whole database right is written for a world where company X pays employees to gather data. I am wondering (as others have wondered) where the substantial investment is? Fair question. I'd say the substantial investment lies in operating the servers and generally rallying the community. I am certain that the number of man-days invested by OSMF in its entirety (i.e. all working groups, board, technical team etc.) is substantial compared even to the most prolific individual mapper. But then again these people would probably do what they do even if they were not the formal OSMF but just a bunch of hackers! Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
Hi, John Smith wrote: (Not, of course, this particular version of the CT, if that's what you're Exactly... you are trying to sell us a particular happy meal that isn't making us happy... us being...? And I'm not trying to sell anything. If you agree that some for of CT is required, and you have a better idea, then why don't you try to sell it to us. My main problem is that we're having this discussion now, when the CT were finalised in December last year, and we started to have new users agree to the CT in spring this year. What new facts have arisen since then? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: My apologies. In that case: My main problem is that we're having this discussion now, when the CT were finalised in June, instead of before that. Which discussion? It looks to me like we did have this discussion before that. I remember hearing talks of an Australian fork as far back as December. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] It's a shame
Next week I will be visiting the Adelaide Hills (South Australia) and was planning to resurvey Mt Barker in order to add the street names to a lot of roads that have not yet had them tagged. However to do so at this stage would be pointless since eithe of two of the three previous editors could effectively auto-delete my work simply by failing to relicence their existing contributions. It is for this reason that I believe clause 3 of the CT is essential. This current situation must not be allowed to happen again. Hopefully by Christmas (another visit to the Adelaide Hills) collaborative mapping will again be possible. Cheers Nick Hocking (nm7s9) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Size of NearMap Contribution
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, andrzej zaborowski wrote: Hi, On 20 August 2010 03:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: one million objects is really not something we should make a big fuss about. [...] After the Haiti earthquake, 1 million objects were traced by 300 people in two weeks. So 300 mappers' work is not something we should make a fuss about? Hopefully people who will make the switch decision have a different opinion. I find the choice of 300 people quite ironic. That's about the membership of OSMF, from where comes the pressure to change the licence and the CTs. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] It's a shame
On 20 August 2010 21:30, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: It is for this reason that I believe clause 3 of the CT is essential. This current situation must not be allowed to happen again. The problem is the scope of section 3, not it's existence. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
