Re: [OSM-talk] OSM : It's a shame !!!
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, First of all, let me just say it is indeed impolite to share private conversation but I would love to see that tested in a court. That said, the whole point of people in FOSM waiting for OSM to fail is kind of annoying. I think someone has given you the wrong impression about FOSM. It's a free-standing fork of OSM that differs only in that it continues to use CC-BY-SA. We consider this to be a better license for contributors and we feel that contributors are the most valuable part of the equation. Sadly, OSM does not appear to value or care for contributors interests as much as I once hoped it would. Nobody expects OSM to fail. I was the first to point out to Steve Coast, in 2006, that OSM was already an unstoppable train. Not even the stress caused by the license change could prevent it's success. I understand why the fork happened (doesn't mean that I agree with it); I understand why some people are reacting the way they do but I have to admit it is getting ridiculous. FOSM is a fork. In many ways OSM is the fork. It is the project that is unsatisified with the status-quo. Although it has not yet managed to publish anything under ODbL and I wouldn't bet money on it achieving that objective any time soon. It is a conscious statement that you wanted to break away. I am glad that you guys had that *freedom* in the first place (despite all the FUD that the new contributor terms won't allow forking) and I wish you the best of luck in this project as I wish the best of luck to other mapping projects like Common map for example. Now, you decided to leave the project so just leave it. We all have the same goals. Free and open mapping data. Your language suggests you are trying to push people away. While there is indeed a license fork, there has never been a need for a fork of the community. You will recognise many fosm contributors as being major characters in the OSM community. I am not going to go to FOSM and ask for my data to be deleted playing on my moral right for example (even though sometimes I am seriously tempted to ask for my data to be removed out of exasperation due to the behaviour of some members of FOSM). Please explain more about the behaviour of fosm members? We don't have members as such, but I get what you mean. As far as I can see fosm contributors are a very happy and contented bunch. Especially when compared to some of the rhetoric on this list. If you strongly believe that ODbL won't stand the legal scrutiny, mount a legal challenge to it. Just do it. That said, you have to realize that ODbL is currently the licence that is being used more and more in France for OpenData and actually across the world having being reviewed by several legal departments. You may not agree with the way it was drafted but it seriously look like it has some legs. If you point out elements that have been copied, we will be happy to make sure that people is not copying from your data. Anyway up to a point, the data will be replaced and the very use of copyright on fact is tenuous at best. I think from that point of view, despite all the mistakes the foundation made during the process (we are after all volunteers), the foundation has shown lot of willingness to sort many issues; it just that at some points we can only agree to disagree hence why there was a fork. You are just trolling. You are not even constructive towards FOSM. From the way I look at it, FOSM is only a half hearted fork where there are only a few people actually contributing, the rest of them is just sulking that OSM didn't go their way. There's nothing half-hearted about fosm. Many of the people involved in it have been working with OSM since the very early days and are unlikely to go away. Some of OSMs most prolific contributors now contribute exclusively to fosm. Maybe it is time to be more constructive towards the choice that you made. From that point of view, I really appreciate the work of some people in FOSM who are actually being constructive. In short, feel free to complain when your data is *REALLY* used wrongly. Else, put up or shut up regarding the ODbL. If you really believe that it is not going to work, mount a proper legal challenge. No doubt, if the license change and redaction is not handled properly then it will end up in the courts. We will all lose if that happens. The laywers will be the only ones that win from that outcome. Emilie Laffray On 29 May 2012 10:53, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I did not give you permission to share a private conversation on the list. That is also about copyrights, Davie. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list
Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in determining tainted ways
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: On 15/12/2011 13:17, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 11:59 AM But what if the source changes ? When I use high-resolution imagery to improve areas formerly mapped from low-resolution imagery, I change the source tag - i.e. from Yahoo low resolution satellite to Microsoft Bing satellite. Since my edit is correlated with a change of source, shouldn't it be considered a break from being a derivative ? Yes it should be considered a break, because in that case you know what the source for moving the nodes was. Good. Now do the license change impact auditing tools currently take that into account ? Should they only take the object's source tag into account or also mention of a source in the changeset commit comment ? I think there may be a need to better understand how copyright works in this respect in the real world. The location of individual nodes probably has no copyright component, however the shape of a way probably does [1]. If several people have adjusted the shape of a way then they most likely all have joint ownership of the copyright of the whole of that way [2]. Joint ownership is an important principle to understand. If someone edits a way then they are making a derivative of that way and inheriting *all* of the joint copyright ownerships. Even if their changes are to remove the effect of a change by one of the previous contributors it does not, as far as I know, delete that contributors copyright. If this is true, then the only way to disinfect a tainted way is to revert back to the version prior to the infection and applying subsequent changes to that version. Simply negating changes does not delete copyright ownership because the ownership extends to the whole work. Does anyone know of any precedents that show how copyright, once gained, can be deleted from a work? 80n [1] Section 1 (b) (i) of http://membled.com/work/osm/Map_Project_Memo_public_FINAL.pdf [2] Section 2a of http://membled.com/work/osm/Map_Project_Memo_public_FINAL.pdf ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Who mapped it first with ref to forth coming deletions
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Doesn't make any difference to the CTs, but I've noticed but I'm not the first named author of a few ways which I'm 99.99% sure that I created: the ways with the ID 2232-2235. I still remember the surveying/editing session in which I created the ways. These were very early ways (spring 2006) so I'm guessing that recording the history of who created/edited ways only came in after that? However, ways with even lower IDs (e.g. 223) do have myself as original author. Curious as to why my involvement with the 223x ways appears to have been lost... All history prior to 7th October 2007 was lost when the API was upgraded from 0.4 to 0.5. An email from that date confirms this[1]: 4. History cleared. History will continue to be written as before, but we have removed past history data from the database today. When accessing existing objects you can still see the person who last modified them (even if that modification was before the switch), but no details about any previous modifications. Everything that was not version 1 on 7th October 2007 has an incomplete history and ought to be considered to be unsafe. 80n [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-October/018638.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
There are some people [1] who are starting to get upset about the fact that contributions that they are making will get deleted on April 1st. Innocent contributors who know little or nothing about the license change are happily editing roads that will soon get deleted. There's little to tell them that this will happen. Shouldn't the API be preventing edits to non-CT content already? There is little point in allowing edits on top of non-CT content as they'll get deleted in April. At the same time this will seriously piss-off anyone who loses all their hard work. Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content? 80n [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-December/060996.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:08 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: [ ... ] Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content? And that would allow reconciling and improving that non-CT data how? I don't think I made any point about reconciling and improving non-CT content. Why do you bring that up? It's a subject that needs to be addressed but but its related to my point how? You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get deleted. It will be very demotivational if that unavoidably deletes fresh contributions made over the next three months. What plans are there to put some controls in place? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 80n wrote: Isn't it time to block edits to non-CT content? There is certainly an issue here, and what you describe as non-CT content can take two forms. There is content that will not be relicensed. This is the content input by those who have declined the Contributor Terms. The two forms you describe are quite irrelevant and just muddy the water. One form of content *will* get deleted, the other form *may* get deleted. Trying to convert *may* into *will* doesn't help the hapless contributor who just wants to edit something today. Does anyone have a plan? I'd suggest something like: Step 1. Identify what is safe content that can definitely be built up. Step 2. Prevent innocent contributors from touching content that is not safe. Is it any more complex than that? 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] License Change View on OSM Inspector
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: It is important to note that the OSM Inspector view is not the final word - not even an official word - on the question of what gets deleted. It is just my interpretation of the current situation. Frederik, If the OSM Inspector view is just your own interpretation of the current situation then this is surely problematic. Contributors may be reassured by OSM Inspector that a path is safe and that it can be edited. It may then later get deleted. Who gets to make the official decision about what is safe and what is not? And when does that decision get made? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Editing of content that will be deleted on April 1st
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:03 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.comwrote: On 13/12/2011 21:38, 80n wrote: You've known for quite some time that non-CT content will ultimately get deleted. The original promise was that it requires a critical mass to proceed. According to the OSMF wiki there are fewer than three quarters agreeing, and some of the major countries will lose nearly half their ways according to http://odbl.de/ . David, many people have been coerced or suckered into agreeing. I've been badgered many times (including three times today, on this very thread by an OSMF board member). Many people have been railroaded into compliance by threats that their contributions will be deleted, despite this being patently untrue (there is at least one fork that will not delete anyone's data). You should probably never believe in promises from politicians, especially if they don't have a viable plan for how they will achive it, 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Now you can see how much vandalism the OSMF will carry out on April Fools
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 80n wrote: I think Frederik has managed to decimate more of London than five years of bombing did during WW2 ;) Well, there's quite an easy way for you and Ed A to fix that, of course. ;) Richard, I already did fix it, just not in the way that you'd like. Sorry. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright status of OSM map data - publishable memo for USA
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Anthony wrote: (By the way, to answer Frederick more directly, the laws surrounding joint authorship are *not* relatively universal. In the UK, joint authorship works in almost exactly the *opposite* way. In order to exploit a joint work, you need the permission of *all* the joint authors, not just one.) Yes, I talked with Francis Davey about this and he said the same. The joint work rules are an American pecularity and generate lots of well- paid legal work drafting contracts to get around them. Everywhere except the USA there isn't this problem. Does anyone have insight into how Wikipedia deal with this? Is it even a concern for them, and if not, why not? 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright status of OSM map data - publishable memo for USA
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: I asked two attorneys in the USA to look into the question of whether the OSM map data falls under copyright. Please see earlier messages in this thread for details of how the lawyers were chosen and the question asked. They produced a written report which they asked me not to distribute publicly because of attorney-client privilege. I have sent a copy of that report to the LWG and the OSM board, and I am happy to share a copy with anyone who'd like to see it, but I think it is necessary to have some results which can be fully public. To this end the lawyers have produced a public version which does not mention OSM by name, although the issues addressed are those relevant to our project. You can see the report at http://membled.com/work/osm/Map_Project_Memo_public_FINAL.pdf This is good work Ed. Very clear and seems to address, full-on, most of the issues surrounding the topic. There's a word missing in the last line of section 2 (b). I guessing from the context the missing word is 'enforce'. In case it isn't, could you seek confirmation from the authors? Some of the conclusions I get from this (and others are welcome to draw out other conclusions and loose ends) are: * Maps are copyrightable, even when stored and represented as a database. * Facts are not copyrightable, but the creative bar is very low and if any originality is involved (selection, coordination, or arrangement, no matter how crude humble or obvious) then anything except the raw facts is copyrightable. * Tracing from maps, and from GPS tracks, is most likely copyrightable. Although the GPS tracks are unlikely to be copyrightable. * Individuals contributions will have copyright status if they pass the orginality test (selection, coordination, or arrangement, no matter how crude humble or obvious). * If the map is considered to be a compilation then all contributors, as joint authors, have joint copyright ownership. The hanging question in my mind is, if we assume, for the moment, that every contributor has joint copyright ownership, what rights would they actually have? Do they have full and unrestricted copyright in the whole compilation? Are they bound, or limited, by any of the terms or conditions that they agreed to when signing up? Are they in any way limited by the CC-BY-SA license grant? Would the Contributor Terms deny them any of their joint ownership rights? 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright status of OSM map data - publishable memo for USA
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:30 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: * Tracing from maps, and from GPS tracks, is most likely copyrightable. Although the GPS tracks are unlikely to be copyrightable. Oops, I meant to say: * Tracing from imagery, and from GPS tracks, is most likely copyrightable. Although the GPS tracks are unlikely to be copyrightable. * If the map is considered to be a compilation then all contributors, as joint authors, have joint copyright ownership. And this point is specifically applicable in the US. Does this joint authorship doctrine apply in other jurisdictions? 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSmosa.net run now.., contribution model
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Aun Johnsen li...@gimnechiske.org wrote: It is not entirely correct that it is not possible to have a distributed editing API, for example on osmosa.net, but that would require a heavy redesign of the database, server and API parts of OSM. It's entirely possible. We've been doing it, for real, for several months. We've been taking OSM content and applying it to a separate database which also has direct contributions. This is the opposite direction to what you are contemplating, but the same principles apply. All you have to do is: 1) Generate minutely-diff files from your OSM instance, containing just the local edits. 2) Post-process the diff files to change the id of any new elements to a negative value. This is simply a matter of multiplying the id by -1 if the element's version attribute is 1. 3) Import to OSM using your favourite load tool. 4) Resolve any edit collisions. In practice, the risk of edit collisions is very small, and when they do happen it is non-destructive and easy to resolve with no special skills. You might find there is political resistance to this idea from some OSM people, but nobody can stop you from doing it. 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Whatever you publish could have other ingredients than just data; perhaps, a few hundred hours' worth of a cartographer's editing in Illustrator. *That* you don't have to release; it is yours to keep. That can't be right. If I take a produced work and spend a few hundred hours adding hundreds of facts to it then it doesn't count as a derived databse? How do you judge whether a cartographer's efforts are just worthless prettifying or the introduction of new information? If you cannot reproduce the Produced Work 100% faithfully from the Derived Database in what sense does the Derived Database contain all of the information required to create the Produced Work? 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 11/28/11 10:43, 80n wrote: If you cannot reproduce the Produced Work 100% faithfully from the Derived Database in what sense does the Derived Database contain all of the information required to create the Produced Work? It doesn't, and it doesn't have to. Only in so far as the *database* has been augmented to make the produced work does such information have to be released. Any other, non-database input (what you seem to call worthless prettyfing - I guess that members of the trade might disagree!) that becomes part of the Produced Work is not affected by the ODbL. If new information is added at the non-database stage - let's say someone prints out a map, paints something over it making the whole thing a work of art, then notices a missing road and pencils it in - then that is not the making of a derived database and does not have to be shared. If the same guy, however, goes back the the data, adds the road, and makes a new rendering from it, then it is. That's a very fine line you are trying to draw. What you are saying is that I can create a map, publish it as a produced work and then update that map as much as I like with impunity. Technically I can do that using a pencil as you suggest, or I can do the same thing by processing the produced work into a digital form and applying pencil marks using an automated process. But if you allow the latter then you effectively allow reverse engineering of the produced work. Why should a lead pencil be considered ok, but an electronic pencil not be permitted? 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 11/28/11 11:58, 80n wrote: That's a very fine line you are trying to draw. Yes, I agree it is difficult. I think that it is entirely possible to arrive at an identical end product through different processes, where one process has different license implications than the other. For example: I could render a map from OSM and then render something else on top of it, say a commercially acquired set of hotel POIs. That would clearly be a Produced Work; I could point anyone asking for the source data to the planet file and the rendering rule, and keep the hotel POIs to myself. This is an overlay on top of a Produced Work. Whether it's produced by layers at the browser end or by compositing two separate images doesn't seem to be materially different. I could also remove all hotels from my OSM copy and add in the commercial hotels instead, then render a map from it. Unless the commercial dataset is missing data, the resulting map could look 100% identical to the map from the first process, but this time I would be required to release the hotel dataset because it is part of the derived database used to create the produced work. Leaving aside the step about removing content for the moment, I don't see how this is materially different from the first example. You've simply overlaid your hotels on top of the OSM data. I don't think the mechanics of how you achieved this are, from a legal perspective, important. Any process can be considered as a series of inputs to a black box and some outputs. If the inputs are the same (an OSM database and a set of POIs) and the output is the same (a map with an overlay of the POIs) then it shouldn't matter whether it was achieved using a complex machine or monkeys with typewriters. Same thing with your reply to my pencil example - depending on how exactly you update your produced work, you might or might not have to release a database. If this were to be possible then it would be a very undesirable flaw. The intent of ODbL was to protect OSMs database and ensure share-alike. If it can be circumvented then it fails one of its main purposes. I am interested in exploring this further with the aim of finding good community norms, nailing down the problem cases, and making the introduction of ODbL for OSM a success. I'm interested in finding out where the weaknesses in ODbL are and ensuring that they are understood. Version 1 of anything is likely to have imperfections and it would be better to find them sooner rather than later. A working version of ODbL is the goal I would aim for. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: I see that you and Frederik disagreed here. (FWIW I think he is right - a PNG file can clearly be seen as a database of pixel values. It is an image too, and perhaps even a map or a photograph, but legally it would be hard to argue that it *not* a database.) Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, every digital file is a database of bytes and thus everything you create digitally from any ODbL database is a derived database and not a produced work. This seems silly. The European definition of a database is a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means. Individual pixels comprising a typical image (say a PNG map tile) are not independent works. Each pixel cannot stand on its own and aren't useful unless considered together with its neighboring pixels to form an image. Pixels may not be independent works but I think they might be data or other materials, in which case they are covered by that definition. The nearest thing we've got to a good definition of this is that if you use it like a database then it is a database. Whether the courts would agree with that definition remains to be tested, but much discussion here has not yet arrived at anything better. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Right, so I guess what Kai Kruger wrote you only have to share the last in a chain of derived databases that leads to a produced work, right? is not so? As far as I can see there is no requirement to show your workings as long as you make the Derived Database available under ODbL. Suppose you transform the OSM database, adding in some non-OSM-content along the way and produce a table containing three columns: x, y and colour, where x and y are pixel coordinates for an image and the colour column specifies the colour value for the pixel. The result is that you can publish a table and an image that contain identical information. The table has to be licensed as ODbL and the image, being a Produced Work, can be published under any license whatsoever. So far so good. Assuming the Produced Work was not published under a friendly license it can't be used so we can forget about that. The Derived Database can, however, be transformed into the same (or a similar) image which can be reincorporated. How? By making your own Produced Work you can license it under an OSM friendly license[1]. You would, of course, need to hand trace from it to recover the non-OSM-content but that's easy to do and there's a large army of OSMers who are very skilled at this task, so that's not a problem. For any Derived Database it will always be possible to recover the content by making a liberally licensed Produced Work from it and tracing. 80n [1] You have to do this step because any unfriendly publisher would block the use of the ODbL content directly by simply refusing to agree to the Contributor Terms. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:39 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 27 September 2011 12:09, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you, Andrew. I wonder if Grant received a similar answer but interpreted it in a different way. Grant? Hi 80n, yes the responses will be forthcoming. We are waiting on some further clarifications. LWG also now only meet fortnightly. Grant If you have explicit special permission why do you seek further clarification? Was it not explicit enough? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to publish the text of the permission you have received. We can then see for ourselves. Grant I'm still waiting for a response to this. Is there some reason why you cannot publish what you have? We've seen how wires get crossed with Richard's attempt to transcribe a message. Anything less than a verbatim copy of what you received has the potential to lead to confusion and misunderstand. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: [personal comments redacted] / Grant Grant You forgot to cc the lists. Could you please, for about the fifth time of asking, publish a verbatim copy the permission that you have received. If you have some reason that you can't then you need to explain yourself. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [sharedmapau] Re: ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote: Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: The answer from AGIMO (data.gov.au) will actually be irrelevant. I was hoping that the original communications would make clear exactly how relevant they are. At the moment we're all just guessing. Based on the reply that I received from Grant, he appears to have no intention of providing any information to back up his claims. It's over a month since he was asked to provide the supporting evidence. I think we can conclude that he doesn't have it. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 19:51, waldo000...@gmail.com waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: +1. Surely forwarding the emails is less work for you anyway than transcribing parts of the emails (?!). Did you consider why forwarding the full emails might be less than wise? - I have, and will share my thoughts: a number of people on this list are both vocal and vitriolic regarding OSMF. Making the licence negotiation details public could hand to those who do not have good intentions towards OSM, potential tools to try and damage the project. Scenario A: A person could cut and paste the detail along with a whiny cover letter to data.gov.au saying no fair, me want too - piggy backing on the work done by licence group for the benefit of OSM, all the while decrying anything OSMF does. Scenario B: Someone could nitpick over detail and then jeopardise the agreement by complaining vociferously to anyone who will listen about how it's illegal because a full stop is misplaced; maybe complaining to individual data owners e.g.: Look at this, data.gov.au just re-licenced your data If that were the case then I'm sure that the LWG is capable of making these points themselves. The fact is they haven't given any justification for not disclosing the original text of the statement. Copyright infringement is a serious business. Anyone who is encouraged to copy from some third party source without being able to refer to an authoritative permission is taking big risks. I'm not suggesting it will happen, but it could, especially given the historical (and breathtakingly non-sensical), level of animosity towards OSMF and it's work. Regardless of whether this could happen (and I am sure it wouldn't), it's not a good enough reason to not do the right thing. Clarity and transparency is essential if their efforts are to be trusted. Unless I misunderstand it, the licence group volunteer to sort this stuff out, project users can assume they act in good faith and applaud their successes. So why aren't we believing that this is what they have done, under the oversight of the OSMF (who are there to oversee)? *Never attribute to malice that which * ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Will OSM tiles be CC-0 soon?
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: On 26 October 2011 11:19, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi I want to talk about the tiles, since they have always been a very important part of these project, ever since we got white-lines-on-landsat[1]. When we are ODBL pure, the tiles produced by OSMF servers can have any license with attribution. Will they continue to be CC-by-SA or do people think that the tiles license should change too? No absolute decision has been made, but seems most practical to remain CC-by-SA. Why wouldn't OSM publish their tiles under the most liberal license they are able to? 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:48 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew, that's great that you've had a response from AGIMO. Yes it is, I made sure to thank them for this. Would it be possible for you to share a copy of their response with this group? I've made a similar request to Grant about his explicit, express permission and it seems reasonable to ask you the same question. Sadly, we really need first hand documentary evidence for any claim, either way, to have any value. Below I quote the response from the data.gov.au team which I received: OpenStreetMap (OSM) are utilising datasets made available from data.gov.au under CC-BY 2.5 or CC-BY 3.0 only. They are required to attribute the authors correctly, which they now are through their Wiki. This provides an appropriate chain of attribution, in accordance with Creative Commons licensing, for any end user of OSM products. In the example you provided, you as end user would be obliged to attribute OSM when you used the extracted data. They, in turn, are obliged to attribute the original government dataset. We do not consider that what we are providing is “special permission” – we have only clarified our position on appropriate attribution. Thank you, Andrew. I wonder if Grant received a similar answer but interpreted it in a different way. Grant? Perhaps we'll never know 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: On 27 September 2011 12:09, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you, Andrew. I wonder if Grant received a similar answer but interpreted it in a different way. Grant? Hi 80n, yes the responses will be forthcoming. We are waiting on some further clarifications. LWG also now only meet fortnightly. Grant If you have explicit special permission why do you seek further clarification? Was it not explicit enough? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to publish the text of the permission you have received. We can then see for ourselves. 80n, why the interest in Australian gov data licensing? Or maybe we'll never know. ;-) I'm interested in all matters relating to OSM licensing. Particularly statements that might encourage contributors to damage the provenance of OSM by submitting content that infringes other people's rights. As you know the value of OSM is that it is (largely) unencumbered by contributions from sources that reserve copyright. While some people may have lower standards than others, anything that increases the amount of infringing material in OSM needs to be resisted. Your unattributed statements are likely to be damaging unless you provide the documentary evidence to back them up. At first you claim to have explicit special permission but now you are back pedalling and seeking clarification. It would have been much better, and would *still* be much better, if you were to just publish what you received verbatim. Is there some reason why you are unwilling or unable to do this? 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: The Licensing Working Group has obtained explicit special permission Hi Grant, are you there? Can you please provide a link to this explict special permission that you've obtained? I'd particularly like to know what they think they've granted as a right, rather than what permissions you think they've given. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote: Righto, I've got a response from the AGIMO. They have clarified that they have not granted any additional license to OSM. OSM can only use the data under the existing licenses (i.e. the existing CC licenses). Andrew, that's great that you've had a response from AGIMO. Would it be possible for you to share a copy of their response with this group? I've made a similar request to Grant about his explicit, express permission and it seems reasonable to ask you the same question. Sadly, we really need first hand documentary evidence for any claim, either way, to have any value. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-GB] Surrey Hills Mapping Party, Sunday September 25th
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Hi 80n, Sorry I'm missing this - but I just arrived back from Colorado yesterday and have had a family occasion too, so consequently a bit tired! Would be good to know of any missing footpaths still in that area though after today - am looking for an excuse to do some in-fill Surrey footpath mapping in the next few weeks. Nick There's definitely a couple of footpaths that didn't get done in the area I was covering. Here http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=51.206779164493284lon=-0.43889866445895503zoom=17layers=0FB0F0connecting Wonham Way to Felday Road is a probable Bridleway and here http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=51.19715935186187lon=-0.43335185741756144zoom=17layers=0FB0F0between Sutton Place and Franksfield is a footpath spur that looks like it should go somewhere. Generally most signposted paths appeared to have been mapped but I was concentrating on highway=road elements rather than footpaths yesterday so there may be others that I didn't notice. 80n ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: The Licensing Working Group has obtained explicit special permission to incorporate geographic datasets from data.gov.au Grant Would you be kind enough to provide a link to this explicit special permission please? 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 September 2011 19:49, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: That reminds me.. I've just updated the name of the Princess Highway through Engadine based on the signed name via ground survey. I've made the change in fosm, http://api.fosm.org/api/0.6/changeset/102770/download feel free to mirror such change in OSM if you like (this changeset is licensed CC0). Should the changeset have a tag to indicate this? license=CC0 perhaps? In such a case it is definitely useful to keep the Princess Highway route relation as that road, even though it has a different name, is still part of the Princess Highway, the signs say so. In Engadine, yes. In Sutherland, Wollongong, and numerous other places on the way to Adelaide, no. I've got pretty extensive imagery on the road from Engadine to Kirrawee. I'll post it to Panoramio, and reference it to the relevant ways/relations in OSM. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] How to start to remove non-CT compliant data..
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Furthermore, the goal is not to have a CT-clean database. You already have a CT-clean database. The goal, apparently, is to have an ODbL-clean database. I think you mean a CT-clean contributor-base. Much of the database content is un-infected by the CTs. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Adopt a PD-Mapper ....... was Re: Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Would the LWG support assigning the change sets of mappers that have made some kind of PD/CC0 declaration, to mappers that are willing to vouch for the data and accept the CTs? This seems simple. All you need to do is contact a mapper and ask him to give you his username and password. You can then accept the CTs on that account, change the email address and proceed as normal. Don't really see any need to involve the LWG. They would need to go through a similar process of contacting the mapper anyway I expect, so you might as well just get on with it. At least for mappers that have not explicitly declined the CTs this would seem to be doable without creating a conflict. Simon __**_ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/legal-talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk wrote: The OSMF had an obligation, under the UK data protection laws, to preserve the confidentiality of personal information. It would have been a breach of confidence to make it public at the time. Not so. UK Data Protection laws exist to safeguard 'personal' data. Saying that ' there has been a large number of applications for OSMF membership by people who appear to be employees of Apple ' for instance, is perfectly in order - you are not releasing any 'personal data' UNLESS you also released, say, email addresses and names of the people, which can personally identify them, perhaps to back up your assertion. Saying 'a large number of applications from CloudMade' would have been effectively the same as naming the members. You'd only need to look here http://web.archive.org/web/20090524055747/http://cloudmade.com/team to have a pretty good idea of who was a member. The important point is that we didn't reveal this information. We saw an irregularity and investigated. We concluded that all the applications were bona-fide and they should be allowed as members. I've no idea whether they subsequently voted and I don't really care. What I do care about is that Jim Brown is making an assertion that this was done because CloudMade employees wanted passionately to join OSMF. This is what I'm calling him out on. Jim, do you still maintain that a large number of CloudMade employees and associates all spontaneously decided to join OSMF within one twenty-four hour period? 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk wrote: On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk wrote: Well, this is a sideshow to the main debate, but you are still not revealing personal data, merely a fact about some or all members of a group. You are clear to do this under the UK Data Protection Act. I can say 'Most of the voting population of the UK live in this country and you can cross-refer to the UK electoral register, for names and addresses, but that doesn't mean I've released the personal details of 40 million people! In this instance, Cloudmade were releasing personal data. But since they're not under UK law, the fact that they released their own employees names and faces and email addresses is presumably between them, their employees, and the US government. The data point that we would have been revealing is that these people were members of OSMF. Membership of an organisation is personal information and we did not want to leak that information in any form whatsoever. Like you say, it's a sideshow. We didn't reveal the facts at the time and I believe that was the correct thing to do. There's nothing irregular about a co-ordinated signup from one company. We verified that the people joining were real individuals, not sockpuppets, and that was that. What I am surprised about is that Jim Brown continues to insist that these people signed up because they were passionate about OSM when the evidence suggests it was a co-ordinated act probably for the purpose of block voting. Jim, there is nothing wrong with doing such a thing, and I'm puzzled why you make some other excuse. 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk wrote: From the legislation guidance notes An individual is 'identified' if you have distinguished that individual from other members of a group. In most cases an individual's name together with some other information will be sufficient to identify them. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/determining_what_is_personal_data/whatispersonaldata2.htm So if you had said that a large number of applications had been made from Apple employees, then since we have no way of knowing whether every single Apple employee, up to and including the janitor, had made an application to join, we are not be able to reverse-engineer the membership status of any individual employee, and so this is not 'personal' information but aggregate group information. Regardless of whether the data protection act was relevant, we acted on the side of caution. CloudMade is not Apple. If we had disclosed that a large number of CloudMade employees had just signed up then because it was such a small company it would have been pretty easy to deduce who might or might not be a member. In any case since there was no wrong doing there was nothing to disclose anyway. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 26/08/11 10:47, 80n wrote: The data point that we would have been revealing is that these people were members of OSMF. Membership of an organisation is personal information and we did not want to leak that information in any form whatsoever. Of course the Companies Act actually requires the Foundation to provide a full list of members to anybody that asks anyway... Indeed. And if somebody [1] had asked then there is an obligation to provide that person with the list of members. But that's not the same as broadcasting the information in public to everyone. You, as a member of OSMF, can request a list of members but that probably wouldn't disclose email addresses and you might not be able to infer if anyone on the list was a Skobbler employee. Announcing that a large number of Skobbler employees is exceeding the obligations that the board has. That announcement should not have been made. 80n [1] As I recall only members can request a membership list and they have to provide a reasonable justification for their list. Failure to supply the list can be challenged in the courts. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Surrey Hills Mapping Party, Sunday September 25th
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: On 25 August 2011 16:23, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Grant It's an OSM mapping party. Are you going to come along? Great. What brought on the change of heart? You misunderstand. There is no change of heart. Anything contributed to OSM automatically gets fed into fosm.org so both projects benefit. While I don't personally contribute to OSM any more, I don't have a problem with you or anyone else contributing to OSM. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in a mapping party. At the last Surrey meetup there were both OSMers and fosmers, we all get along well and so I'm not expecting there to be any issues. There are very few people with the entrenched mindset that there should only be one map and that all other mapping projects are inherently hostile competitors. It's not like that at all. Actually, I'm expecting that there will be attendees with several different agendas. Large parts of Surrey are not ODbL so at one end of the scale I'd expect some people to want to remap existing CC-BY-SA content. There are also some people who want to create a CC0 map. There's been talk of creating a clean unencumbered dataset for this area that can then be fed into OSM or used for any other purpose. That might play out as well at this mapping party. None of these things get in the way of getting out into the beautiful Surrey Hills doing what we all like doing the most. Sure, it could be fun... I'll bring some OSM promo material. It is always a lot of fun. Did I mention that Shere is one of Surrey's prettiest villages, or that the Olympic Cycle Road Race route runs through the area. It's a great area for walking and cycling, and a fine place to spend a day out. 80n ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Jim Brown j...@cloudmade.com wrote: I almost hesitate to jump in, but I'd like to give the perspective from Cloudmade that I think is probably mirrored in skobbler. In Cloudmade staff are passionate about OSM and mapping. Many of the staff wanted to join OSMF 2 years ago and we encouraged that. And we got the same reaction from some parts of the community. Jim My recollection was that they all got passionate about OSM on the same day, just one day before the close of email voting for that year's election. Care to comment on that? 80n However, I can clearly state that my team (and most of them were my team) would have told me to f#%k off if I even tried to tell them how to map, hack or vote. The employees of Cloudmade are as diverse a set of mappers as any other group of OSM members and it was down right rude at that time to view them as corporate surrogates being directed to some sinister goal. They may share some common concerns but so do lots of other collections of people in OSM. In short I think the same thing is happening to the individuals at skobbler who are probably wondering now (like my guys did in the past) why the hell did I bother getting involved? My $0.02 only. Jim Brown CTO - CloudMade j...@cloudmade.com Sent from my iPad On 25 Aug 2011, at 05:34, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 August 2011 22:26, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com writes: This was completely easy in the past, but is it realistic to keep OSMF relatively unimportant if it is rights holder for all the data? It might be better to spin off a separate organization which is the rights holder, separate from the less contentious OSMF functions like providing funding to keep the servers running or organizing SoTM. Wouldn't spreading resources thinner only make it easier for someone with enough money and other resources to game the system? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Jim Brown j...@cloudmade.com wrote: Sure... They were passionate prior to that of course. Look at the evolution of the kyiv map over time. It's also really telling that so many have left Cloudmade and still are part of the community, these are individual mappers your are talking about. People who give a damn about OSM, They just started talking and asking about getting into OSMF, which they needed help doing as you probably recall I think. It used to be much harder to join. So we decided to help, and so they joined. The thing you need to explain is the timing. Why was there a mass signup just before the end of the voting period? Why did you decide to help them at that moment? I'm doubly surprised that you still think that was some evil plan. Nothing particularly evil came from it as I recall. Who is making an accusation that it was an evil plan? What I said was My recollection was that they all got passionate about OSM on the same day, just one day before the close of email voting for that year's election. Why do you feel the need to be defensive? But if you do still think there was bad intent, it is obviously pointless to try and change your mind. I'm just glad most of the community seems to be over it. It was never publicly disclosed to the community. The OSMF had an obligation, under the UK data protection laws, to preserve the confidentiality of personal information. It would have been a breach of confidence to make it public at the time. I can only ask you about it now because you raised the subject here yourself just now. As Gert [1] mentioned, it was inappropriate for Henk to have publicly announced that Skobbler were apparently doing the same thing this year. So, could you please explain the timing of this co-ordinated signup by CloudMade employees and associates? 80n [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2011-August/001145.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] Surrey Hills Mapping Party, Sunday September 25th
There's going to be a mapping party in the Surrey Hills on September 25th. More details here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surrey_Hills_Mapping_Party This is the second Surrey Hills Mapping Party. The first was almost five years ago in October 2006. Some of you may remember that one... 80n ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Surrey Hills Mapping Party, Sunday September 25th
Grant It's an OSM mapping party. Are you going to come along? 80n On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: On 25 August 2011 14:49, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: There's going to be a mapping party in the Surrey Hills on September 25th. More details here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surrey_Hills_Mapping_Party This is the second Surrey Hills Mapping Party. The first was almost five years ago in October 2006. Some of you may remember that one... Is this a OpenStreetMap.org or FOSM.org event? Regards Grant ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.dewrote: Hi, On 09.08.2011 22:43, 80n wrote: Expecting the crowd to go and re-map stuff wholesale, for somebody else's benefit is just absurd, it's never going to happen. You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not someone else's benefit, but a benefit for the whole community. The data is not simply replaced, but mostly improved by having more high-resolution imagery available. You can read the whole success story in the forum. What's your estimate for how long it is going to take? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 08/10/11 08:38, Stephan Knauss wrote: You're wrong with this. At least in the country I'm most active the transition to ODbL ready data is making huge progress. And it's not someone else's benefit, but a benefit for the whole community. I, too, am positively surprised by the speed and diligence with which mappers all over the place are working towards getting ready for the big switch. What are you looking at that provides this information? Or is it just anecdotal? Most had held back initially to give people a chance to reconsider, but now things are really moving, and with a very positive attitude at that - it's not grumble grumble grumble why do we have to do this but we're doing our part to put OSM on a solid legal footing, cleaning up behind those whom we couldn't persuade. For this, it is obviously very important *not* to allow any further CC-BY-SA contributions as those would give people a sense of fighting against windmills. Everyone is working to bring the amount of non-relicensable contributions down to zero; adding more non-relicensable contributions would not only pull the rope in the other direction, it would also ruin the spirits of everyone working to fix things. Agreed. fosm.org is the place for CC-BY-SA contributions. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] I want my access back
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:53 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: As I do not agree with the CT and did not click the right checkbox, I have been blocked contributing access. ** ** OSM promised me that my contributions to be removed in the process to OdBL. That did not happen. Nor has a OdBL version of the OSM database been launched. Gert, your contributions are being looked after at fosm.org. You are welcome to edit there and there's no threat of them ever being deleted. ** ** OSM is still CC-BY-SA and it seems that that won’t change soon. ** Sadly I think you are right. The removal process was never thought through properly. OSM will be stuck with CC-BY-SA content for a very very long time. Expecting the crowd to go and re-map stuff wholesale, for somebody else's benefit is just absurd, it's never going to happen. Mapping is addictive but pointless mapping is no fun at all. So the only recourse is to do bulk deletions. But I don't see anyone hurrying to write the software to do that even if anyone could agree on what it should actually do. ** I think the decision to block my account and that of many others has been a bit premature, and the community should reconsider their decision. ** ** Especially now it looks as if the OdBl will never make it for legal and practical reasons. True. ** ** ** ** Gert Gremmen ** ** ** ** - [image: Osm] Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) P* Before printing, think about the environment.* ** ** ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk image001.gif___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Rather, it's this: in the absence of enforcement, good guys will comply with the licence voluntarily, and bad guys won't. In the absence of enforcement they good guys will comply with the license if they can. If the terms are onerous then even the good guys will fail to comply. ODbL is way too onerous. Firstly it's not easy to understand what would be required for compliance (the language is unclear and even the best available advice is conflicting) and secondly if the requirement is for a database then it's impractical in many cases. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A case for CT + CC-BY-SA
and will likely not get it completely wrong. But it goes beyond that. The complexity of the ODbL itself makes it hard to define what you need to do to comply, and we have alreadly seen some indication of this when people asked what the ODbL means in detail. And, of course, choosing a dual licensing approach would let people pick the license they are more comfortable with. * Inadequate protection * CC-BY-SA might not work for data. OSM data is not currently abused in a manner that threatens the project, and that might never even happen. Nevertheless, it seems wise to make sure that we can either prevent this or at least react when it happens. It is true that, by continuing to offer the database under CC-BY-SA, we would no longer /preemptively/ address this potential issue. Making contributors agree to the CT gives us the ability to react *if* legal weaknesses of the CC-BY-SA are actually abused at some future point, though, and I believe that this is sufficient. * Conclusion * The CC-BY-SA is popular, understandable and easy to implement for users of our data. It does not build legal barriers that make using OSM much harder than it strictly needs to be, which encourages people to use OSM in creative, productive and unexpected ways. Continued publication of the OSM database under CC-BY-SA will therefore help us fulfil our project's mission, and can be implemented without disruption of the ongoing licensing process. There's one other consideration which would support your proposal. The task of deleting all non-ODbL content from the OSM database is onerous. It's likely to take a long time to do manually and the final automated removal will either do a lot of damage or be too lenient and forever leave doubt about the provenance of OSM's content. Currently this process is so poorly defined that I personally don't think it will ever happen and so you'll get your CT+CC-BY-SA by default anyway (but then I have issues with the CTs as well so it's no solution for me, which is why I created f...). 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this at their most recent meeting... They have now done so! In response to community requests, the LWG formally clarifies as follows: The intent of the Contributor Terms as regards contributions that come from or are derived from third parties is: 1) To ask the contributor to be *reasonably* certain that such data can be distributed under the specific specific licenses, as explicitly listed in clause 3 of the contributor terms: CC-BY-SA 2.0 and ODbL 1.0. Well, I'm reasonably certain that the Ordnance Survey have not permitted their content to be licensed using the DbCL. While they may have stated that their content can be distributed as part of a database that licensed under ODbL they made no reference to what content license should be used. This was probably an oversight, but with an explicit statement about which content license is applicable the default assumption has to be that their content is still published with *only* an OS OpenData license not with a DbCL license. I'm sure if I'm wrong about this someone will be able to point me to the statement where this is covered. 80n ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] Tracing Techniques
I've been looking for information about tracing techniques and good practice. All I've found so far is this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapping_techniques which doesn't talk much about tracing from imagery. Is there some wiki page that I've not found? I'm specifically interested in good practice and advice about how to deal with issues like parallax when tracing tall buildings, interpretation of shadows and so on. Anyone got any good advice or hints from practical experience about this kind of thing? 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tracing Techniques
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote: This page has some hints for mapping buildings from orthoimagery: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Roof_modelling Josh, that's really useful. The page name is not one that makes it easily findable, but I guess it can be linked to from the Mapping Techniques page. It's also mainly in German although the diagrams are informative on their own. It'd be really good to get it translated to english. Anyone seen any discussion about how to recognise and/or deal with awnings, garage forecourts, multiple height structures, free standing walls, shade structures, etc? 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tracing Techniques
I also found this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/BuildingsTools Not tried it yet, but may be useful for JOSM users. On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 7:13 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote: This page has some hints for mapping buildings from orthoimagery: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Roof_modelling Josh, that's really useful. The page name is not one that makes it easily findable, but I guess it can be linked to from the Mapping Techniques page. It's also mainly in German although the diagrams are informative on their own. It'd be really good to get it translated to english. Anyone seen any discussion about how to recognise and/or deal with awnings, garage forecourts, multiple height structures, free standing walls, shade structures, etc? 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au
Sorry this was supposed to be copied to legal-talk, not the osm-fork list. Apologies. On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.bizwrote: ** If it is UK Ordnance Survey data that is the issue, we now have direct clarification from them that they have no objection to continued distribution of data derived from their OS OpenData under under the ODbL. At the moment, this excludes Code-Point Open, (postcode) data. Hope that helps. The statement from the OS did not specify what content license was to be used for their content. They did not explicitly mention that their content could be included using the DbCL. My understanding is that the OpenData license would be the one that was applicable unless a more permissive license was *explicitly* granted by them, which it was not. Is this a correct reading of how things stand at the moment or have OS subsequently clarified that they are happy for their content to be licensed using DbCL within a database that is protected by ODbL? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: ** If it is UK Ordnance Survey data that is the issue, we now have direct clarification from them that they have no objection to continued distribution of data derived from their OS OpenData under under the ODbL. At the moment, this excludes Code-Point Open, (postcode) data. Hope that helps. The statement from the OS did not specify what content license was to be used for their content. They did not explicitly mention that their content could be included using the DbCL. My understanding is that the OpenData license would be the one that was applicable unless a more permissive license was *explicitly* granted by them, which it was not. Is this a correct reading of how things stand at the moment or have OS subsequently clarified that they are happy for their content to be licensed using DbCL within a database that is protected by ODbL? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au
Sorry this was supposed to be copied to legal-talk, not the osm-fork list. Apologies. On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:35 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.bizwrote: ** If it is UK Ordnance Survey data that is the issue, we now have direct clarification from them that they have no objection to continued distribution of data derived from their OS OpenData under under the ODbL. At the moment, this excludes Code-Point Open, (postcode) data. Hope that helps. The statement from the OS did not specify what content license was to be used for their content. They did not explicitly mention that their content could be included using the DbCL. My understanding is that the OpenData license would be the one that was applicable unless a more permissive license was *explicitly* granted by them, which it was not. Is this a correct reading of how things stand at the moment or have OS subsequently clarified that they are happy for their content to be licensed using DbCL within a database that is protected by ODbL? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] What A Day
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote: I personally cannot seem to be able to get any joy from fosm.org, at the moment I am just getting a 500 Internal Server Error message. Me too. Previous efforts were more successful (no error messages), but I've never seen a map, just a blank grey box where a map probably goes. It has had some outages. Two things: 1) fosm.org was unavailable for 12 hours today. I think it went down just as I stepped onto a plane, so I was unaware and unable to do anything about it until back on terra firma. 2) It's clear that some people cannot access fosm.org even when it is up. I think this is because some browsers don't support xslt. More information would be helpful. I will switch to server-side xslt if that is indeed the cause. 3) (ok, three things), there is no map hosted as fosm.org at the moment, there are people working on rendering (such as bigtincan) and I'm happy to encourage such diversity as it makes the project stronger. I'm trying to keep the core of fosm small and tight. I don't want to create features like user dairies else I'd be accused of forking the community. We all have the same goals, some people just want to license them differently. The default layer on http://maps.bigtincan.com/ is rendering from fosm data. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Simon, Andreas, all, when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym of John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork. The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of motivations, the most benign probably being a sincere worry about data loss - they believe that the license change is going to hurt OSM so much that they must do all they can do retain a live copy of the old OSM, or even dissuade OSMF from changing altogether. Frederik, I'm sure you've been paying attention an know full well that the reason fosm.org exists is because we have grave concerns about the new license. The only thing we are forking is the license, we are not forking the tagging scheme or the community or even the objectives of OSM. Data loss is your problem not ours. I see people doing thought experiments about how they can get around the wishes of contributors who have, in good faith, provided their content under the CC license. Those people who have not agreed to the CT have not consented for their content to be used in any other way. You should respect that. A main objective of OSM was to create maps that were free enough to be used by everyone. Anything that steps across the line will taint OSM with the impurity that we strived for so long to avoid. There will forever be doubt about the provenance of OSM data. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote: The more who contribute directly to fosm rather than OSM, the less the work there will be for fosmers dealing with duplicated data resulting from merges. If it becomes a big problem, I think we should be able to do manual merges of OSM data into fosm, assuming we have the volunteers. Otherwise we can just leave OSM data behind if no one is longer to merge it into fosm. The probability of collisions is quite small in practice. We are able to automatically sync all OSM updates into fosm.org in near real time. Consequenly fosm.org already has more content than OSM and the gap will continue to widen. It will become a massive gulf if OSM ever has the courage to mass delete all non-ODbL licensed content, but I can't see that happening any time soon. The worst case for a collision is an edit in OSM that conflicts with an earlier edit made to the same element in the fosm database. In this case we place the OSM edit in a conflict log and preserve the fosm edit. Other kinds of conflict include the same feature being added to both OSM and fosm independently. This will result in the feature being duplicated in fosm, but it's easy to manually delete such artifacts when they are noticed, retaining whichever is the best one. My largest concern is with piecemeal replacement of non-ODbL licensed content in OSM with inferior quality tracing. This will appear as legitimate edits to the fosm sync process and will result in fosm being degraded needlessly. We've talked about mechanisms for watching areas where this might happen and for users who might be doing this. We can revert such edits in fosm and get the good stuff back providing we notice that it has happened. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: FOSMs not going anywhere for some simple reasons. The people running it are ineffective, the data will be incompatible when OSM switches, fosm doesn't have any of the agreements to derive data from aerial imagery. I could go on, but those are the big ticket items. Everyone should be aware of the theater show that 80n is running merely to disrupt the community, and it's very sad that so far he's been successful. You seem worried, Steve. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Following my correspondence and a follow-up informal meeting by Henk Hoff, I am now pleased to announce that the licensing group of the Ordnance Survey has explicitly considered any licensing conflict between their license and ODbL and has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0. Mike, Did the response that you received from the Ordnance Survey make reference to which content license could be used? Have they given permission to use their content with *any* content license or do you think they overlooked the need to consider this detail? 80n ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: So presumably we also need confirmation from Ordnance Survey that they're happy for their content to be distributed under DbCL (or at least under the ODbL+DbCL combination). I think that's a red herring, isn't it? ODbL imposes additional requirements over and above DbCL. OSM is not distributing OS OpenData under DbCL alone, nor does it permit anyone else to do so (subject to the usual 'Substantial' test, which is of course Database Directive stuff and therefore governs OS's existing data distribution business anyway). ODbL licenses a database of content. The content of the database can carry any license of the author's choosing. Because the OS have not specified any other content license the assumption must be that their content is still licensed under the OS OpenData license. You cannot just presume otherwise. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever they are - is there a fosmf?) There is no fosmf, and I rather hope there never will be. seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org did with the original CTs; should they ever need to relicense (say move from cc-by-sa 2.0 to 3.0) the data, then as far as I can tell they will need to contact all the contributors or themselves risk data loss. CC-BY-SA 2.0 already has an upgrade clause and there's no intention of ever changing the license. If it was every necessary it would be done the right way, by forking the project. And anyone is free to do that at any time... It would perhaps be better to have their CTs now such that it is clear that only active contributors will be contacted if such a change is required and what majority will be required for a change to happen. Perhaps this should be discussed on talk-le...@fosm.org when they get as far as setting up email lists. Since fosm.org is not about forking the community, only the license, I very much doubt that we'll need one of those. And I very much doubt that we'll have anything to talk about that isn't also directly applicable to OSM (tagging, mapping parties, imagery etc). I'm also curious who counts as the contributor for all the stuff imported from OSM; presumably it counts as a single contributor's imports. No, the contributor is the person who owns the copyright. That's you for your contributions. Anyway, as this process has taken about 5 years so far I am glad it is reaching the end at last, and a small loss of data which with the rapid growth in the number of contributors should take little time to replace. If only... Almost all of us here joined the project after it was clear that an attribution sharealike licence applied to our contributions, and now there is such a licence that covers the data, and CTs that make any future move from say ODBL 1 to ODBL2 less painful, that can only be a good thing. Oh, and another added benefit is that once we reach phase 5 I can probably come back on various OSM related email lists without all threads degenerating into license debates. That would be something positive. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:35 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: n 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each and every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is the important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate changes to the Copyright and License page. fosm.org has a link, indirectly, to that page and all the appropriate copyright notices in it's API. Can anyone see any problems with how we are doing that? Incidentally I think the wording on that wiki page could do with some polishing It is impossible to adequately acknowledge the many individuals ... Of course it's not impossible, impractical might be closer to the truth, but I'm not even sure that conveys the right sentiment. 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:25 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: n 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each and every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is the important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate changes to the Copyright and License page. fosm.org has a link, indirectly, to that page and all the appropriate copyright notices in it's API. Can anyone see any problems with how we are doing that? Thanks, Henk this is useful feedback. I can see problems with fosm.org having the Attribution-link deeplinken to the Attribution page on the openstreetmap wiki. Just to name two: 1) It suggests that fosm and osm are one and the same. which they are not. I'd hate to imply that ;) I'll see if I can put some content on an intermediate page that clarifies. 2) fosm will not / cannot attribute those who only work on fosm. All content outputs from fosm.org attribute fosm, osm and contributors. Most of the website's html pages do not contain or publish maps or map content, only the api and diff files contain any content and those are attributed like this: osm version='0.6' generator='FOSM API 0.6' copyright='2011 FOSM contributors, OpenStreetMap contributors' attribution=' http://www.fosm.org/attribution' license='Creative commons CC-BY-SA 2.0' The one exception is currently Potlatch which is embedded and obviously displays map content. I guess ideally Potlatch itself should read the data source headers and display the copyright and attribution notices that are appropriate. Perhaps that would make sense once all OSM data sources provide such information. Personally I don't care much about the second issue. That's with fosm and it's contributors. If their contributors don't want to be attributed, that's up to them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com wrote: As I suggest in the subject line: I'd really love us not to punish the world's disadvantaged with our license/CT disagreements. That's why fosm.org exists. No data will get deleted. It will continue to exist and can be updated at fosm.org. If you are worried that your data is threatened then that's because you are now looking in the wrong place. Fosm has more data than OSM already and will continue to sync with all OSM updates as well as accepting new updates directly. OSM is not trying to punish anyone, its just that the community thinks that less data under a different license is better for them. If you are happy with the way things were then you don't have to lose anything, just change your URL from osm.org to fosm.org. 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:31 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible? 1. fosm.org is functional, you should try it. 2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests it will be a long time yet. 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: On 6/22/2011 12:51 PM, 80n wrote: 2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests it will be a long time yet. Timing isn't relevant to the question. Sounds like you'll have to stop using OSM then when it occurs. Timing is very relevant. Unless OSM gathers the courage to delete all non-ODbL licensed content then it will be a very long time before the final switchover. What is the point of all this nonsense if you don't ever actually get to do it? From here on in, OSM loses ground against fosm.org. The mass deletions in OSM (if they ever happen) will put OSM further behind. 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: ** On 6/22/2011 1:26 PM, 80n wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: On 6/22/2011 12:51 PM, 80n wrote: 2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests it will be a long time yet. Timing isn't relevant to the question. Sounds like you'll have to stop using OSM then when it occurs. Timing is very relevant. Unless OSM gathers the courage to delete all non-ODbL licensed content then it will be a very long time before the final switchover. What is the point of all this nonsense if you don't ever actually get to do it? Okay, I take this as you won't actually answer the question. A: We will definitely stop using OSM as soon as OSM switches to ODbL for it's output. Q: Now when will that be? 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Tragedy of the commons...
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:49 AM, 4x4falcon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: On 24/04/11 19:54, John Smith wrote: Once upon a time it used to be almost a race to map out new areas from Nearmap coverage, now whole areas of coverage go untouched for months or longer... Even from bing there is not much activity. What was once a source of pride in the community can now only be described as a 'tragedy of the commons' now that the death knell is being tolled on the OSM-F... I have restarted mapping in earnest, but uploading to fosm.org, I'd forgotten how enjoyable it was just to get on and map large areas that are blank and to make the map slightly more complete, knowing that I wasn't wasting my time to only have my edits reverted later. I've taken the opposite approach, I'm still adding to osm from nearmap, gps and bing as those edits will go into fosm.org as fosm is doing minutely updates from osm. When we are locked out completely and all my edits are removed from osm they will still be in fosm without duplication and I will they start adding to fosm then. This is a very sensible approach and one that I would expect most people to follow. That said, I do need people to use fosm and give me feedback if they encounter any issues. There's no tileserver yet, that's a priority, there's no gratification if things are rendered. After that there are all the window dressing bits on the fosm.org website, although I'm not intending to implement any user diaries, GPX uploads or other peripheral functionality at the moment. That will come later if there's sufficient demand. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: I've even seen status=desire to indicate that a path doesn't exist, but it would be nice if it did... Ed, you might be mis-understanding the meaning of that tag. Desire paths do very much exist on the ground and don't fall into the same category as abandoned or proposed railway stations. Here's a description, and a nice photo, of a desire path: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
Francis Thank you for your patience and the detail of your answers. This whole thing is a complicated business and the subtleties when various different licenses and so forth are combine are often unexpected. 80n On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: That is the situation you are describing. I'm not sure what you mean by the situation you are describing, but Ah, this is where we are probably at cross purposes. I am sorry for that - its been a long thread. 80n's original query concerned uploading work to OSMF by someone who has agreed to the contributor terms. That is a sublicence (because it is expressed that way) and that is something which CC-BY-SA does not permit (I think we agree on that point). it's not how CC-BY-SA works, since CC-BY-SA specifically says that it does not grant permission to sublicense. Instead Each time You Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License. ... and my mistake, yes of course the right to sublicense applies only to derivative works. Under the US 3.0 at least, the CC licence grants a right to sublicence derivative works but not the original work. Under CC-BY-SA, X licenses the work to Y, Z, and any other third party, granting permission to distribute the work under [the terms of] L1, L2, or any other Compatible License. The licenses to the contributions of X come from X, not from Y. Yes. If Y made modifications to the work, Y's license covers only Y's modifications. If Z then makes modifications, Z's license covers only No. Y's licence covers the whole of the derived work. X's licence covers all the work as not modified by Y. Z benefits from both those licences as against the respective licensors, which makes sense. Z's modifications. I assume the reason this is done is to simplify the chain of title, and also to avoid complications with copyright transfers, inheritance, infringements, etc. On the why though maybe a CC list would be the best place to ask. Yes, that was my understanding. The CC model is a new licence to all users of the work from the original licensor which avoids problems with chain of title. To the extent that CC licences are not contracts this is fine. Certainly in the UK CC doesn't rely on contract to work. I suspect there are more difficulties with ODbL style contract-reliant effects to third parties of this kind. Anyway, as you say this is fairly off topic and not what 80n asked. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:55 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: That would be a very narrow and strict interruption of cc-by-sa, The definition of a derivative work is pretty clear. ... a work based upon the Work or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, ..., or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,... Modifying content that has been downloaded from OSM is a transformation based upon the Work and (presumably) other pre-existing works (such as tracklogs or imagery). The test of this would be to try using JOSM to contribute without doing a download first. You will not get a good outcome. especially since the assumption is a derivative is required by the user to generate any changes made when the source of their changes would matter just as much. For example if they are using GPS data all they would use existing data for is to work out what doesn't need to be done. Same would go for the Canadian mass import currently occurring,same goes for other data imports such as OS. The only time it would matter is for things like extrapolation the position of streets based on the location of existing streets. Yes, it's editing of *existing* content that is the breach, not the contribution of pure new content in a previously mapped area or when an import is performed without reference to existing content. IANAL etc On 4/17/11, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach of the CC-BY-SA license. Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this creates a derived work. If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA. That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA. But anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can contribute this content under a different license. Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received* that content. If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- Sent from my mobile device ___ 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] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license. Clause 4 of CC-BY-SA 2.0 only permits you to distribute copies of a deriviative work under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. Uploading the derived work to OSM is a form of distribution. This can only be done under CC-BY-SAQ. You do not have the right to distribute the content to OSM on the terms required by the CTs. CC-BY-SA only stipulates that the data, when published, must be under CC-BY-SA. It doesn't say that you cannot enter contracts promising to release the data *in the future* under another license. You can indeed enter into a contract with OSMF but you cannot distribute CC-BY-SA content to them under the terms of that agreement. Arguably, users who have previously agreed that all their contributions to OSM are CC-BY-SA might still be covered by that as the CTs do not explicitly override that pre-existing agreement. The CTs require you to grant rights to OSMF that, for CC-BY-SA licensed content, you do not have. What OSMF subsequently proposes to do is irrelevant. If the data will be released *in the future* under a different license, then it's true that the CC license is breached. Agreed, this issue is with users attempting to grant rights to OSMF now, not in the future, that they do not have. Contributors, not OSMF, are in breach of CC-BY-SA if they distribute CC-BY-SA derived contributions to OSM having agreed to the CTs. They are attempting to distribute content to OSM under an agreement that is not CC-BY-SA and they just plain cannot do that. But, in the case of OSM-ODbL, assuming that all the ODbL rejectors' IP will be removed before the actual relicensing, since what remains is the IP of all who have agreed to the CT, then it's like everyone mutually agreed to relicense their own data under a new license, thus, not breaching the CC license. On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach of the CC-BY-SA license. Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this creates a derived work. If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA. That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA. But anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can contribute this content under a different license. Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received* that content. If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA. ___ 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] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I'd hate to see someone go and say we don't want your contribution. But if any mapper really believes that at some point in the future, they will want to withdraw their data from OSM because 2/3 of mappers choose a free and open license that this mapper might not be comfortable with - then that mapper's attitude is simply not something that we can live with in a community project That rather neatly sums up the position taken by OSMF doesn't it? Their attitude of we don't want your contribution is definitely not something we can live with in a community project. Everyone has made an irrevocable contribution to OSM. Nobody is threatening to remove their own data. It's just OSMF that is threatening to remove OTHER PEOPLE's data. That is exceptionally unpalatable. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: I guess your argument hinges on whether uploading data to the OSM servers is a form of publishing in terms of copyright. Indeed, it's the act of distribution. The question is, if the user uploads a derivative work to OSM is that than an act of distribution? If they were to distribute a copy of the derived work to some other third party such as Google, and grant Google rights that go beyond CC-BY-SA then it's clear that they have breached CC-BY-SA. There is no special condition or exception for OSM and so the same rule applies. If you create a work and never publish it (in other words, nobody else will see it), then it is not yet copyrighted. Even works for hire are not copyrighted until the hiring entity publishes it. Again, IANAL, but submitting data to the OSM server where it is *immediately* published via the OSM API and *immediately* made available to the public licensed as CC-BY-SA, doesn't put the contributor in breach of the CC license. Since the publishing doesn't occur until the data is made available via the OSM API (and the OSM Planet), then I believe there is no problem. On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 6:23 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license. Clause 4 of CC-BY-SA 2.0 only permits you to distribute copies of a deriviative work under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license. Uploading the derived work to OSM is a form of distribution. This can only be done under CC-BY-SAQ. You do not have the right to distribute the content to OSM on the terms required by the CTs. CC-BY-SA only stipulates that the data, when published, must be under CC-BY-SA. It doesn't say that you cannot enter contracts promising to release the data *in the future* under another license. You can indeed enter into a contract with OSMF but you cannot distribute CC-BY-SA content to them under the terms of that agreement. Arguably, users who have previously agreed that all their contributions to OSM are CC-BY-SA might still be covered by that as the CTs do not explicitly override that pre-existing agreement. The CTs require you to grant rights to OSMF that, for CC-BY-SA licensed content, you do not have. What OSMF subsequently proposes to do is irrelevant. If the data will be released *in the future* under a different license, then it's true that the CC license is breached. Agreed, this issue is with users attempting to grant rights to OSMF now, not in the future, that they do not have. Contributors, not OSMF, are in breach of CC-BY-SA if they distribute CC-BY-SA derived contributions to OSM having agreed to the CTs. They are attempting to distribute content to OSM under an agreement that is not CC-BY-SA and they just plain cannot do that. But, in the case of OSM-ODbL, assuming that all the ODbL rejectors' IP will be removed before the actual relicensing, since what remains is the IP of all who have agreed to the CT, then it's like everyone mutually agreed to relicense their own data under a new license, thus, not breaching the CC license. On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach of the CC-BY-SA license. Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work. If that content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this creates a derived work. If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA. That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA. But anyone who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can contribute this content under a different license. Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received* that content. If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA. ___ 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 -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On 17 April 2011 12:09, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: I asked a similar question in http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004270.html and the answer (which I can't find now) from Frederik and others is that most likely your contribution in this case equals to only the *modification* of the original data. So you're granting OSM a license on your modification of the original data, and not the exact contents of the XML document being uploaded. The question is whether you can upload a CC-BY-SA licensed work under any other license than CC-BY-SA? If I grant you a license to use a creative work under CC-BY-SA, can you then give it to some third party under a different license? I don't see that CC-BY-SA permits this. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 13:30, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: The question is whether you can upload a CC-BY-SA licensed work under any other license than CC-BY-SA? I am sorry if I misunderstood your original question. I am not quite sure I understand this one. What do you mean by upload .. .under a licence? That doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean, does CC-BY-SA permit a contributor to contribute to OSMF under the existing contributor terms? (Answer: no) or do you mean something else? Sorry, I was using jargon here which probably only makes sense to those very familiar with the OSM context. I'll try to make myself a little clearer. Suppose there is a creative work that has been published with a CC-BY-SA license. Suppose I take that work and make from it a derivative work. Can I then give a copy of that derivative work to a third party who insists that it is provided to them under an agreement that is like the OSM Contributor Terms 1.2.4? In other words, if I've agreed to the current contributor terms, does the act of submitting CC-BY-SA licensed content to OSM voilate the terms of the CC-BY-SA license? As a bit of background, the process of modifying the OSM map is a three step process: 1) A user gets a subset of the map from the OSM web-site 2) The user makes modifications to that map on their own computer 3) The user gives the modifications back to OSMF via the OSM web-site. All content within the OSM database is published as CC-BY-SA 2.0. This extends comprehensively however it is obtained. There is no special route that content takes when someone wants to edit something. They request a subset of the map (step 1) which is downloaded to the user's computer where they then modify it (step 2). This subset is licensed under CC-BY-SA just like any other content from OSM and their modifications are a Derivative Work. When user has finished modifying the map they then send it back to OSM (step 3) and in doing so they affirm that the modified content is granted to OSMF under a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence, or whatever the version of the contributor terms are that they originally signed up to. It seems to me that the CTs get in the way of the loop that is supposed to exist that permits someone to get OSM content, modify it, and then give it back. If the content in this loop is CC-BY-SA licensed then putting up a CT gateway or barrier would appear to break that loop. If I grant you a license to use a creative work under CC-BY-SA, can you then give it to some third party under a different license? I don't see that CC-BY-SA permits this. Yes, for some values of a different licence. Eg, CC-BY-SA 3.0 (us version): I mean a *really* different license, one such as CT 1.2.4 which is known to be incompatible with CC-BY-SA 2.0. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode Clause 4(b) permits the distribution of the work under certain other licences, including Creative Commons Compatible Licence(s). Its a bafflingly drafted licence (if I may say) since it also says You may not sublicense the Work (in clause 4(a)) which directly contradicts what is said in 4(b). Clearly what is intended is that there is a general rule against sublicensing, subject to a specific set of permissions under clause 4(b) even though this comes under a heading Restrictions. Re-distribution under a licence is sublicensing and cannot be anything else. This is probably a bit of a red-herring and I'm not sure it's relevant to the question at hand. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 16:56, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, I was using jargon here which probably only makes sense to those very familiar with the OSM context. I'll try to make myself a little clearer. Suppose there is a creative work that has been published with a CC-BY-SA license. Suppose I take that work and make from it a derivative work. Can I then give a copy of that derivative work to a third party who insists that it is provided to them under an agreement that is like the OSM Contributor Terms 1.2.4? I think I've already answered this, but to be clear: (1) obviously you can do it I'm not clear about what you mean here. Can you spell it out please? What does 'it' refer to in this sentence? why do you say obviously? And in what sense you mean can? (2) the act of contributing it is not an infringement of the CC-BY-SA licence, because that permits you to do all that is necessary (reproduce, incorporate etc) Ok (3) CC-BY-SA does not give you the authority to sublicence under an arbitrary licence, so you would have no authority to give the licence in CT 1.2.4 or something like it and that grant of licence would be void as against the original copyright owner (though binding on you) Ok, but can you explain what void as against the orginal copyright owner means? Does it mean the grant of license has no effect on the license granted by the owner of the orginal work? (4) If you do sublicense along the lines of CT 1.2.4 then you may be authorising acts on behalf of the recipient which would be infringements of the copyright of the original copyright owner and that authorisation would be a primary infringement of copyright, actionable by the original copyright owner. This point seems to me to be the crux of what I was trying to understand. But it leads to the subsiduary question, is the act of submitting content to OSM an act of distribution or publication as defined by CC-BY-SA? (5) The no warranty clause of the CT probably means you are not liable in contract for your inability to licence. This seems irrelevant. Does that help? Yes that helps a lot. In other words, if I've agreed to the current contributor terms, does the act of submitting CC-BY-SA licensed content to OSM voilate the terms of the CC-BY-SA license? In general, yes. But not if (for example) the content that was CC-BY-SA licensed belonged to the person you were submitting it to (because then you would not be authorising any infringement of copyright). As a bit of background, the process of modifying the OSM map is a three step process: 1) A user gets a subset of the map from the OSM web-site 2) The user makes modifications to that map on their own computer 3) The user gives the modifications back to OSMF via the OSM web-site. OK. That is what I thought and I have no doubts that *that* is fine. I.e. there is no contractual problem, for reasons I have already explained in this message and the last one. All content within the OSM database is published as CC-BY-SA 2.0. This extends comprehensively however it is obtained. There is no special route that content takes when someone wants to edit something. They request a subset of the map (step 1) which is downloaded to the user's computer where they then modify it (step 2). This subset is licensed under CC-BY-SA just like any other content from OSM and their modifications are a Derivative Work. When user has finished modifying the map they then send it back to OSM (step 3) and in doing so they affirm that the modified content is granted to OSMF under a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence, or whatever the version of the contributor terms are that they originally signed up to. As I said, a court would almost certainly construe the CT's so that the licence grant was limited to the changes made by the contributor. This seems like an important point. Can the changes be separated from the original work? If the changes cannot stand alone then they must be based on the original CC-BY-SA licensed work and are consequently a derivative work. The acid test here would be to demonstrate that such a contribution can be made with reference to the original work. If it can then it is clearly not a derivative work, but if it can only be made when the user has a copy of the orginal work then surely it must be a derivative? Or is there some other criteria that would better define / describe a derivative work? It seems to me that the CTs get in the way of the loop that is supposed to exist that permits someone to get OSM content, modify it, and then give it back. If the content in this loop is CC-BY-SA licensed then putting up a CT gateway or barrier would appear to break that loop. No. Although there are difficulties with the CT's if you want to incorporate data from other projects, the CT's do
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2011 19:29, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not clear about what you mean here. Can you spell it out please? What does 'it' refer to in this sentence? why do you say obviously? And in what sense you mean can? Sorry, all I meant was that there is nothing to stop you *doing* something whether it is legal or not. There's a point to this pedantry (or at least part of one). Its often confusing to talk about being able to do X or Y when what's really important is what the legal consequences of it might be. I am sorry if I was less than clear. Understood. (3) CC-BY-SA does not give you the authority to sublicence under an arbitrary licence, so you would have no authority to give the licence in CT 1.2.4 or something like it and that grant of licence would be void as against the original copyright owner (though binding on you) Ok, but can you explain what void as against the orginal copyright owner means? Does it mean the grant of license has no effect on the license granted by the owner of the orginal work? I meant that the grant had no effect on the legal rights of the original copyright owner. It won't stop them from enforcing any right that they were able to enforce before the grant. This point seems to me to be the crux of what I was trying to understand. But it leads to the subsiduary question, is the act of submitting content to OSM an act of distribution or publication as defined by CC-BY-SA? Well, assuming we are worried only by copyright (since CC-BY-SA says nothing about database rights) then the first question is what acts by a contributor might require the permission of he copyright owner (or they would otherwise infringe) then the second question is: does CC-BY-SA give that permission. If I obtain a work subject to copyright then contributing it to the project involves: (i) an act of copying (or reproduction); (ii) possibly an authorisation; and (iii) possibly an act of making available to the public (depending on whether the work was public or not beforehand). For simplicity lets assume (iii) doesn't apply as it will not in most cases. So, reproduction requires the permission of the copyright owner. CC-BY-SA grants a right to to reproduce the Work, so reproduction by the contributor won't infringe the copyright owner's copyright because the contributor has permission via the CC licence. distribution and publication aren't terms used in UK copyright law for classes of activity that require permission of the copyright owner. You can find a list of acts restricted by copyright at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/16 Distribution is a term used in CC-BY-SA, but I guess this is effectively embraced by the term Copy in the UK legislation, as you cannot distribute something without first making a copy. Section 16 (2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says: Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright. From this it seems to me that giving of a copy of a CC-BY-SA licensed work to OSM by someone who has agreed to the contributor terms would violate this clause. They are authorising OSMF to do acts that are restricted by copyright and are not permitted by CC-BY-SA, and that therefor is an explicit infringment of copyright. Have I missed something here? distribution is a term used in the EU Copyright Directive (in article 4): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML and corresponds to s16(b) and s16(ba) in the Copyright Act. But you are more likely to be concerned with the rights in article 3 concerning communication to the public. distribution is a permitted act under CC-BY-SA under 3(d). Restricted by 4(a) as only being under this license (USians don't know how to spell :-). License, licence, דערלויבעניש ,דערלויבעניש ;) distribution doesn't appear to be defined under the CC licence, but it seems to me that the sense of 3(c) and 3(d) must be wide enough to permit distribution in the EU/UK sense. A contributor's uploading of a work would not, on its own, amount to a distribution it seems to me, Why not? They are making a copy and providing that copy to a third party. Is there anything in copyright legislation that permits a copy to be made in private, where in private is between two consenting but separate parties? If I copy something and then give it to someone else under a private agreement between the two of us, am I violating copyright? but the contributor is almost certainly engaged in a joint enterprise with others (including the OSMF) to do so and again almost certainly authorises it as well. So the distinction probably isn't very important. Does that help? Yes that helps a lot. I'm glad. I'm sorry I haven't had a chance
Re: [OSM-talk] CC-BY-SA still available?
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: If we make the numbers, then these new users are unaffected. Now would be a good time to mention what those numbers are. How many users need to agree to CT before the community is comfortable with the consequential data loss? What percentage of content must be covered by the new license terms before the community is comfortable with the consequential data loss? When are you planning to ask the community these questions? Or are you planning to make up these numbers in a closed room? ___ 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] 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 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 begins Sunday
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 6:08 AM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: So my understanding now, from Francis' comment, is that CC-By-SA and CC-By are not compatible (you can't accept the CTs if you've contributed data obtained under those licenses, without infringing those licenses?), but ODbL for example might be compatible with CT although it's not compaitble with the current OSM's license. But it might be in the future. Is ODbL licensed content compatible with the current CTs? My understanding is that ODbL does not allow you to grant a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence bla bla bla... to anyone. So no ODbL licensed datasets can be contributed to OSM. None at all. And that includes ODbL content that came from OSM in the first place. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 04/08/2011 10:21 AM, Rob Myers wrote: I think it would make more sense to work with the Creative Commons people on CC-BY-SA version 4, so we can upgrade licences without deleting any data or requiring every contributor to transfer rights to the OSMF. Then everyone could just keep on mapping. I'm not sure how much wriggle room there is for addressing OSM's concerns about BY-SA in the 4.0 revision process as it hasn't actually been announced yet. The noises emanating from CC seem to say basically that 1. certainly no CC-BY-SA 4.0 in 2011 and perhaps not even in 2012; So 4.0 will be ready long before OSM switches to ODbL then ;) 2. CC will not write licenses that restrict content over and above what is protected by law in any given country. While I personally find #2 honourable - after all they are for open data and against adding restrictions so it does make sense - this would, in our specific case, mean that we have no solution for the problem that our data is not protected in the US. Is there any evidence that OSM data has been abused more in the US than in any other country? OSM has been around a long time now and time has shown that the reasons for switching to ODbL are unjustified. Where is this threat that ODbL is supposed to be protecting us from? Also, Ed, I think that your wording transfer rights to the OSMF wrong because under the new scheme rights are not transferred, just granted. One of the major advantages of this is that OSMF is then the publisher of the database and thereby OSMF (and in extension, the community) is in a position to authoritatively interpret the license answer questions like can I do X, something that we cannot do today. No, that's not correct. Judges make authoritative interpretations of license terms. Not the people who own the IP or who wrote the license. I.e. even if we were planning to switch to CC-BY-SA 4, the Contributor Terms would still make a lot of sense. Bye Frederik ___ 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-talk] Why isn't any XAPI server available ?
The demand for XAPI is very high but it is currently only running on one quite small server, so requests will quite often fail. The main server, called Fafnir[1], has only 4Gb of ram and low end disk storage. It's doing the best it can but there is always more demand for XAPI queries than it can handle. There was a second server called hypercube that was provided by Telascience. However this was migrated to a virtual machine a couple of months ago and has not, since then, been able to bear much load. I'm hoping there will be an upgrade to this server that might help, but don't know when that will happen. More XAPI servers running on good hardware is the only realistic solution. 80n [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Servers/fafnir On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Vladimir Vyskocil vladimir.vysko...@gmail.com wrote: It seems there is no XAPI server available for a long time, what's going on ? Is this service deprecated ? I think XAPI is very usefull for quick extract using rules, it's a shame we can't do this anymore... Regards, Vlad. ___ 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] Why isn't any XAPI server available ?
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:47 PM, MP singular...@gmail.com wrote: More XAPI servers running on good hardware is the only realistic solution. Well, there could perhaps be another solution, like running your own XAPI server - the minutely diffs are usually less than 100Kb, so the required bandwidth to download from planet.openstreetmap.org would be less than 2 Kb/second in average. But the question is - how large would be the planet database on disk (how large would it get once you import the planet dump) I guess the database would be in order of tens of gigabytes, probably over 100 GB ... About 350GB And how much memory you need on the machine to run some reasonable queries (if 4 GiB works for main XAPI server, would it be usable on machine with only 1 GiB of memory?) Yes Martin ___ 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] xapi downage
It's running fine. There are a large volume of requests, the server is fully loaded, your requests may timeout. More hardware would help. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: It seems to be having the same problem again. Is there a better place to report it than spamming this list? ___ 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] xapi downage
Should be ok now. Seems like someone had been messing with the server ... it somehow had an identity crisis. On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Oscar Orbe oskaro...@yahoo.com wrote: aha! that must be the reason why I was getting osm/osm files with it... --- On *Sun, 1/9/11, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com* wrote: From: Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com Subject: [OSM-talk] xapi downage To: OSM talk@openstreetmap.org Date: Sunday, January 9, 2011, 4:19 PM Does anyone know when the xapi will be back online? It's been down for several days at least. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://mc/compose?to=t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 19/12/10 10:30, Andrew Harvey wrote: Where is this direct statement from Microsoft that says derived information from aerial imagery delivered through their map api can be licensed under a CT compatible license? Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM. The licence PDF states: Any updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the Application (even if not published to third parties) must be contributed back to openstreetmaps.org. openstreetmaps.org [sic] It's absolutely clear that if they don't even know the proper domain name for OpenStreetMap and didn't even spell check the document (Imagerty) that they have taken little care over this. I've not seen this license published on a Microsoft/Bing owned web-site so any cautious person would be prudent to doubt even the authenticity of this text. Personally I'm sure it's a genuine attempt by Bing to license something to OSM. I think they are trying to license the right for some applications to access their imagery api, with the additional constraints that any resulting edits are contributed to OSM. The agreement makes no observation or comment about the licenses involved (CC, ODbL, CT, DbCL) and would have to be considered a separate matter. In other words, this license makes no grants of rights to publish derived works under any particular license, over and above what was already there. If we couldn't do it before, we can't do it now, but that also implies that if we can do it now we were also allowed to do it before, although we may not have had the right to use their API and/or an application to do that. Agreeing to the CTs is a condition of doing so. - Rob. ___ 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] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: On 19 December 2010 14:40, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: The licence PDF states: Any updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the Application (even if not published to third parties) must be contributed back to openstreetmaps.org. Which is NOT the same as stating Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM. Indeed, had Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM, then I suspect you would have pointed to a paragraph which backed up that assertion. As I've written before[2] the only direct mention Microsoft have made of derived data made from tracing Bing Imagery is their statement that it isn't allowed [3]. Have you read? Microsoft mention a whole lot more than what link to http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx Try the google cache version: http://bit.ly/eUjkKS What you link to in [3] is Bing's standard terms for everyone else... Not what applies for OSM. Like I said, what applies for OSM only refers to the use of some applications. It make no grant of rights to derive works from their imagery. Without an explict override I'd expect Microsoft to have a very good case if they wanted to. But as David and I both said, we believe that it is their intent to allow. I've seem some crappy license agreements in my time so nothing unusual about this one. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Termsof Use?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: Download the license from the OpenGeoData post, it is called Bing Maps Imagery Editor API License FINAL.pdf That's quite curious. Several non-Microsoft sources have indicated that the license will be subject to future revisions. And yet the file name of this document claims it to be FINAL. Like I said, I've seen some crappy licenses... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Yes, an upgrade clause is (on balance) good, although some people regard that loss of control as immoral in itself. But that already removes the control of individuals over the licencing other individuals can use in the future. And OSM has already ended up with the wrong licence once. Yes, the current license is *so* wrong that the project is a complete failure. There are no contributors, and nobody is able to use the content. Measured by the simple criteria of whether or not OSM is successful then you just can't say that it's got the wrong license. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On 12/9/10, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think that, even more than free and open, share-alike is a term that is very difficult to define, and if one tries to define it, one will already have written half a new license. Share alike is a very simple thing to define. If you receive something you can only distribute it under exactly the same terms that you received it. Any variation on that, like for example, being able to distribute some part under different terms is share-different, not share-alike. Simple. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 12/07/10 09:24, ke...@cordina.org.uk wrote: However, I believe the license is different. Contributors give OSMF a licence to use their data in a particular way. That licence is to their personal rights. I think it is wrong that this licence can be changed in the future without the consent of all contributors whose data will be affected. Maybe it is just a problem with concepts and wording. Where you say license, I think CT: The contributors grant OSMF the right to use their data under specific rules. These rules can never be changed without their consent, and it would be wrong (like you say above) to try and retroactively change these rules. These rules include the right for OSMF to redistribute the data under certain licenses, the choice of which must conform to a set of criteria which are defined *in advance* by the contributor and are *not modifiable*. So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on the level on which you are lookign for it. Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the license under which everyone elses content is published. Actual active contributors are already a small minority of all contributors, and will inevitably become a smaller and smaller minority as time goes on. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: 80n, On 12/07/10 10:08, 80n wrote: So, the const-ness you're looking for is in fact there - just not on the level on which you are lookign for it. Not at all. A 2/3rds majority of *active* contributors can change the license under which everyone elses content is published. Yes. But no majority in the world can change the rules under which you will have contributed your data (the contributor terms), even if you're long dead. Your data will always be under these terms, which allow OSMF to choose the license for redistribution providing they meet certain criteria that you have agreed to. There is *no* way for OSMF to, for example, * license the data under a non-free or non-open license * license the data under a license not agreed to by 2/3 of active contributors * change the definition of active contributor without asking you. These parameters of your agreement with OSMF are fixed and cannot be changed without renegotiation with you personally. You would agree, however, that OSMF could change the license to one that is not share-alike? If you read the link I referenced about carpetbagging of UK mutual building societies, then you'll appreciate that the criteria for an active contributor is way to weak to be much of an impediment. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, pec...@gmail.com wrote: License is fine. It is CT which in fact still allows OSMF to change data license to any other free license (which could be strip share alike and attribution requirements) what blocks usage. In fact, there is NO license which allows such CT to coexist. Only PD, and that's even not working in all countries. I'm sure that if, at any time in the future, the OSM license needs to be changed, it will be into something that works in all countries. We don't know if it will ever be necessary; we don't know what that license might be; we don't even know which countries will be around then and what their legal systems will look like. Think long-term! This is not a clause aimed at next year. I know that ODbL team talked about changing description of free license, but I don't see any official statements about that. I'm afraid that PDists got their way all over again. ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. As for the distant future - we don't know who will be in OSM then, what their preferences will be, and wheter you and I will be alive then. I think it is ok to let those who *then* run OSM decide, instead of trying to force onto them what we today think is right. I think the problem with this idea is that it opens the door for carpetbaggers[1]. The purpose of share-alike licenses is to prevent the freeness of people's contributions from *ever* being hijacked. I, for one, certainly want to ensure that whoever runs OSM at some indeterminate point in the future can not pervert the principle on which I made my contributions. Anything less is unacceptable and is disrespectful to those who built OSM in the first place. 80n [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger#United_Kingdom And legal-talk is that way --- Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] Unsetting CT flag
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, pec...@gmail.com wrote: License is fine. It is CT which in fact still allows OSMF to change data license to any other free license (which could be strip share alike and attribution requirements) what blocks usage. In fact, there is NO license which allows such CT to coexist. Only PD, and that's even not working in all countries. I'm sure that if, at any time in the future, the OSM license needs to be changed, it will be into something that works in all countries. We don't know if it will ever be necessary; we don't know what that license might be; we don't even know which countries will be around then and what their legal systems will look like. Think long-term! This is not a clause aimed at next year. I know that ODbL team talked about changing description of free license, but I don't see any official statements about that. I'm afraid that PDists got their way all over again. ODbL is not a PD license, so you do not have to be afraid. As for the distant future - we don't know who will be in OSM then, what their preferences will be, and wheter you and I will be alive then. I think it is ok to let those who *then* run OSM decide, instead of trying to force onto them what we today think is right. I think the problem with this idea is that it opens the door for carpetbaggers[1]. The purpose of share-alike licenses is to prevent the freeness of people's contributions from *ever* being hijacked. I, for one, certainly want to ensure that whoever runs OSM at some indeterminate point in the future can not pervert the principle on which I made my contributions. Anything less is unacceptable and is disrespectful to those who built OSM in the first place. 80n [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger#United_Kingdom And legal-talk is that way --- Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Bing - Terms of Use
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org wrote: On 01/12/10 08:52, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Andrew Harvey wrote: Just to clarify is this http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html the document which contains the license grant? No; the document is the one embedded in the OpenGeoData posting (http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details). Like I say I'd envisage it might be firmed up a little in the coming weeks. It's worth noting that this is more than we've had for the Yahoo imagery More what? More restrictions or more freedoms? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [talk-au] OSMF elections
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:48 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 15:12 -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote: OSMF is a democratically elected body. Candidates welcome. I guess 2011's elections will take place at the start of July as usual. (Last year's election: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM10/Election_to_Board ) Out of interest, how come only 3 names are shown as 'elected' on that page, but the foundation page lists 7 members? Is the entire board required to stand down every year, before elections are held? In 2010, OSMF transitioned from chair serves two year term and others serve one-year terms, to 1/3 of board stands for election each year. Ulf, Mike and Andy chose to step down and not to run again. Six new candidates stood and three were elected to the three vacancies. Hmmm, according to the articles of association The members of the Board to retire shall be those who have been longest in office since their last election or appointment. So if I'm reading your table correctly then SteveC, Mikel and Andy should have retired and, if they wished, stood for re-election. The fact that other board members wished to retire does not appear to be relevant. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM09 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM08 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM07 FYI, and because I love ASCII-(ch)art, here is the history of the OSMF board elections. (monospace font required.) 07|08|09|10| Y |- | Y |- | Steve Coast Y | Y | Y | - | Andy Robinson Y | Y | N | - | George James (Etienne) Y | Y | Y | - | Michael Collinson Y | Y | Y |- | Mikel Maron Y | - | - | - | Richard Fairhurst Y | - | - | - | Corey Burger - | Y | N | - | Nick Black - | Y | Y |- | Henk Hoff - | N | - | - | Grant Slater - | N | Y |- | Simone Cortesi - | N | - | - | Richard Weait - | - | Y | - | Ulf Möller - | - | N | - | Peter Miller - | - | N | - | Hurricane Coast (nee McEwen) - | - | - | Y | Emilie Laffray - | - | - | Y | Iván Sánchez Ortega - | - | - | Y | Oliver Kühn - | - | - | N | Lars Franke - | - | - | N | Thea Clay - | - | - | N | Kate Chapman [ ... ] Interestingly, I notice the number of foundation members is dropping over previous years, 2009 numbers were over 250, where 2010 numbers were only 130. Has any effort been made to find out why so many former members decided not to rejoin? Those numbers surprise me. Where did you get them? 145 valid votes were cast for the most recent election, so your 130 does not match the election results found here. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2010-August/000975.html I do remember the AGM10 report from the membership secretary mentioning the number of paid members (but I don't recall the number). Perhaps I can find that report. [ ... ] Do the various working groups publish their own minutes or decisions, [ ... ] Steve Bennett showed us the location of the minutes. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes There is also an unofficial summary of Board and Working Group activities that is published periodically at http://blog.osmfoundation.org/ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Rob Myers r...@... writes: I work with databases every day and I don't understand how the 'database' versus 'contents' distinction is meant to apply to maps and to OSM in particular. Imagine a database of names, song titles, photographs, recipes, poems or credit card numbers. Yes, this makes perfect sense. What seems nonsensical is taking that and trying to apply it to the quite different world of geodata, maps and OSM. What seems to throw people when we are talking about geodata in a database rather than a collection of poems/photos/songs is the granularity of the contents. But it doesn't really matter whether we regard points, ways, uploads or any other unit as the content of the database. The content of the database is any pieces of data smaller than the entire database. Anything - so a planet dump of Germany is the 'content'? Or if that is too much, what about a smaller extract the size of your neighbourhood? I don't want to say that just because the boundary is fuzzy the concept must be unworkable. Real life and the law deal with fuzzy boundaries all the time. But to me it seems not merely fuzzy, but nonexistent. The thing is that an individual piece of data is entirely meaningless by itself - whereas you can take a photograph out of Wikipedia and use just that photo, it makes no sense to extract 'a point', 'a way' or even 'a tag' from OSM. The only unit that makes sense to use is a partial extract of the whole thing - complete with ways, points and tags - which then is clearly a 'database' and not mere 'contents'. Or if it is 'contents' then equally the entirety of OSM taken as a whole must be considered 'contents'. If we wanted to, we could produce an explanatory text which would accompany the licence terms and explain with examples what the OSM project considers to be its database and what we think of as contents. But that doesn't mean the distinction exists in law or would be understood by a court. It would just be on the level of social convention and a request for people to follow the spirit of the licence as well as the letter. Which is fine - I'm all in favour of that - but it makes all the elaborate legal gymnastics seem a bit pointless. Any complexity in this is a product of the law not the licence... I don't think it is a case of the law being complex, but rather of trying to invent new constructs that don't correspond to the law at all, or indeed to common sense. (The example of a collection of recordings or photographs is fine, but that's not what we are dealing with.) That is why things become foggy. Indeed, using something that is so novel and untested as ODbL to license OSM's work is foolish. Especially given that copyright as applied to maps is well established and have been in use for a couple of hundred years. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
