Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Which non-ODBL compliant source would this be, if I may ask? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7958977 where attribution=Based on Mosman Council data. It was CC-BY-SA. ...I also am not confident my nearmap derived data can be released under the ODBL because I find the statement made regarding this http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-June/008098.html unclear and self conflicting, but that's a can of worms I better not open. Regardless the OSMF and OSM community are aware of this and can and will make their own decision regarding this, so it doesn't matter what I think. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
Hi, On 01/19/12 03:07, andrzej zaborowski wrote: Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28.. pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters import ODbL-incompatible data. With version 1.2.4 requiring compatibility with only the current licensing terms, Ah yes. This really is a problem, and it certainly was a very bad decision to make that change to the CT. The issue has been discussed here http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005915.html and elsewhere on this list. We can only hope that most people misunderstand this whole thing and in their minds treat agreeing to CT and agreeing to ODbL the same. A strict reading of the current CT leads to the conclusion that while we can re-build the database to only contain data by CT agreers in April, we cannot release the result under ODbL because we do not even *know* which contributions are ODbL compatible and which aren't. I hope that LWG have some clever plan on how to deal with this. Otherwise they would not have made that change when they released 1.2.4, right ;-)? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
Same here, the OSM is pressuring me to accept the CT which would amount to prejury for imported CC-BY-SA data again here is my statement, I am still getting spam mails from bots on accepting the license. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Michael%20DuPont/diary/15777 mike On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: In one of the cases I'm talking about, those people never had the intention to deal with OpenStreetMap, they had a similar project to OSM under CC-By-SA long before OSM existed. Now OSM uses their map data and entire cities initially imported from their project are shown green. This is a consequence of how LWG wrote the Contibutor Terms and the cleanness-criteri -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:07 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28.. pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters import ODbL-incompatible data. With version 1.2.4 requiring compatibility with only the current licensing terms, an account's CT-acceptance and ODbL-compatibility are independent variables and this leads to a lot of misunderstandings. (This should be fixed if the database rebuild should use CT-acceptance as input, but the longer it takes to notice the problem the more costly the fix is going to be) Yep and I used this logic (which is confirmed by http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005916.html even though I didn't know it at the time) when I agreed to the CTs as I stated http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/diary/14416 On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Ah yes. This really is a problem, and it certainly was a very bad decision to make that change to the CT. The issue has been discussed here http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005915.html and elsewhere on this list. We can only hope that most people misunderstand this whole thing and in their minds treat agreeing to CT and agreeing to ODbL the same. A strict reading of the current CT leads to the conclusion that while we can re-build the database to only contain data by CT agreers in April, we cannot release the result under ODbL because we do not even *know* which contributions are ODbL compatible and which aren't. I hope that LWG have some clever plan on how to deal with this. Otherwise they would not have made that change when they released 1.2.4, right ;-)? Spot on. Thanks for highlighting this issue. There was a lot of noise made by some in the community trying to get mappers to accept the CTs, so even though I've uploaded some content CC-BY by another party which I have no right to relicense, I agreed to the CTs anyway with the logic andrzej pointed out. I would be happy to try to track down the source tags I used for this data for the LWG, but I'm not going to waste my time doing it if I don't feel the LWG will take it seriously when trying to clean the DB of non-ODBL content. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
Am 19.01.2012 10:53, schrieb Andrew Harvey: . There was a lot of noise made by some in the community trying to get mappers to accept the CTs, so even though I've uploaded some content CC-BY by another party which I have no right to relicense, I agreed to the CTs anyway with the logic andrzej pointed out. I would be happy to try to track down the source tags I used for this data for the LWG, but I'm not going to waste my time doing it if I don't feel the LWG will take it seriously when trying to clean the DB of non-ODBL content. Which non-ODBL compliant source would this be, if I may ask? Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
On 19/01/12 09:51, Mike Dupont wrote: Same here, the OSM is pressuring me to accept the CT which would amount to prejury If you cannot accept the CTs please don't. Nobody wants you to make a false representation. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 19/01/12 09:51, Mike Dupont wrote: Same here, the OSM is pressuring me to accept the CT which would amount to prejury If you cannot accept the CTs please don't. Nobody wants you to make a false representation. Well then it continues. 1. I get all these mails from people who are telling me to switch, they just dont stop or listen. 2. when I work on saving my data and providing maps under a license I understand and have experience, get forced out of the project. 3. when you get forced out, then you work on saving your work, and are not allowed to interact on the mailing list (forks are counterproductive) This is all pressure in various forms. I get shunned on facebook and get private mails from people in osm pressuring me. thanks, mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
On 16 January 2012 13:03, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/1/16 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com: The OSMF seems determined to avoid any edge cases by being very conservative. Is that necessary? I'm pretty sure not, but it's what we're going to have to live with. +1 Are you serious? Around where I map I estimate there are 500k to a couple millions OSM objects who's authors have never agreed to ODbL or OpenStreetMap CT, but which show green on the license change maps. And although OSMF has not started publishing data under ODbL yet, these people already feel like they've been cheated and have no say over how their work is being used. They asked me as an ex-osmf member where the official license-clean map was, where a human readable version of the OSM Contributor Terms could be had, whether any of the recent recommendations on what can be considered license-clean has ever been reality-checked with a lawyer, etc. All these times all I could answer was no or there's none and apologise. On the other hand when trying to have those issues cleared up myself I'm never getting my mails answered. It really looks like OSM's goal once was to be whiter than white legally, and now it's mostly about the risk of getting sued (expressly stated in LWG communication). Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
On 18 January 2012 23:33, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 01/18/2012 05:46 PM, andrzej zaborowski wrote: In one of the cases I'm talking about, those people never had the intention to deal with OpenStreetMap, they had a similar project to OSM under CC-By-SA long before OSM existed. Now OSM uses their map data and entire cities initially imported from their project are shown green. This is a consequence of how LWG wrote the Contibutor Terms and the cleanness-criteria. If somewhere an entire city [is] shown green then this means that *someone* in OSM has added odbl=clean to all the objects. That person, and not LWG, bears the responsibility. Can you point to an example? Giżycko is one example, http://osm.org/go/0Pp7zn7~-- . As FK28.. pointed out the major such cases are where mappers who imported ODbL-incompatible data accepted the Contributor Terms or CT-accepters import ODbL-incompatible data. With version 1.2.4 requiring compatibility with only the current licensing terms, an account's CT-acceptance and ODbL-compatibility are independent variables and this leads to a lot of misunderstandings. (This should be fixed if the database rebuild should use CT-acceptance as input, but the longer it takes to notice the problem the more costly the fix is going to be) I can understand people when they can't agree to the CT's for a variety of reasons, but why they would feel 'cheated' when the rest of us are merely trying to continue where they left off minimizing the damage, is beyond me. And this is something I can not understand. Say that you're contributing to a project with some purpose or license. Now a subgroup of contributors wants to change this and continue without any losses. If the original contributors don't think the new direction is correct, why should they all have to help that subgroup? I think that Jo does not talk about helping (in terms of doing work), but just about letting what you call a subgroup have the data. I.e. they don't have to actively spend time; the work is already done; all it needs is a yes. And while you're right in saying that just because you agree to let others have your work und free and open license A it doesn't mean that you also like free and open license B, the truth is that from a small distance, we're all in the same camp, the group of people who like free and open licenses. We might have our differences, some of us have a beard and prefer the team free software while others are clean-shaved and talk about open source software, and so some this sounds like a real big deal, but you only have to take one step back and you'll see that basically we're all of the same tribe. You're right here. When I said new direction I admit that's an exaggeration if we're talking about CC-By-SA vs ODbL. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
