[Talk-GB] London development event, Aug 8-9
The OpenStreetMap London group would like to invite you to our next development event. If you'd be interested in a weekend of collaborative development of OpenStreetMap and open geodata technologies, please sign up at http://www.eventbrite.com/e/osm-london-hack-weekend-tickets-17511175397 Sadly, space is limited and signing up for a ticket is necessary. The theme for this event is mobile development and we would especially like to welcome anyone with an interest or experience in that area. If mobile isn't your thing, that's cool too; everyone's welcome to come and hack on OSM and open geodata projects! This isn't just an event for developers - we need designers, UX experts, testers, users, mappers and all kinds of people to help us make the best possible result! Over the course of the weekend, we'll figure out a plan and then try to implement it. Note that this isn't one of those competitive hacking competitions; there might be different teams working on different things, but we're all working together. The planning will take place on Saturday morning, so please take that into account in your plans. Our thanks to our hosts for the weekend, Geovation Hub, for letting us use their office, which is fully accessible. For more info and tickets, please see http://www.eventbrite.com/e/osm-london-hack-weekend-tickets-17511175397 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] No new information on the SOTM since January 2014
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: SOTM EU and US, combined with the OSMF focus on being more of a theoretical body have reduced the profit and motivation in doing a SOTM to approximately zero. I hope it still happens, but I'd be surprised. it wasn't so long ago [1] that people were writing they'd heard comments that OSM had been devised by Steve as a way to make a heap of money from other peoples' effort, and there was recurring criticism that he was behaving in some sort of sinister way. so it's saddening, and not a little hypocritical, for steve to come out with the same sorts of evil board conspiracy theories now. the truth, as always, is more prosaic: back in September 2013, the SOTM working group reported The time of one state of the map (and therefore all the sponsors) is over, so we need to think about the role in the conference(s) in funding the operations of the OSMF and server system. Previously it has been our main annual source of income. [2]. as a result, other funding options were explored, and the board minuted The OSMF funding model for 2014 and beyond is based on a combined model OSMF organised conferences (State Of The Map) should continue to be at least self-financing. [3] in response. the suggestion that the SOTM working group members are not motivated is a new one to me. the last report from SOTM working group itself [4] did not say anything of the sort. if any of them are reading this and are feeling unable to continue, then - please! - let us know. i'm sure alternative plans can be made, and i understand how hard it is to push through to finishing something which has sapped all of your energy (see the license change saga). so, did OSMF reduce the profitability of SOTM - no. did OSMF reduce the motivation of SOTM organisers - no. i, also, hope that SOTM happens, and i hope it is very successful. OSMF working groups are made up of members of the community - like yourself - and if you feel strongly about some issues then i urge you to offer your assistance to a working group, or join one. the OSMF board is democratically elected and, although it's a lot of work, you might consider running at the next AGM (iirc, at SOTM14). cheers, matt (opinions above are solely my own except for quotations drawn from the sources below) [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2007-March/000217.html [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EZHwUhWoRJ__DzmIW-FgzEKktji9AZQ1K_UDFx_PXrc/pub [3] http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_Minutes_2013-12-10 [4] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LVGogPGbFT88bfNY1MpK5PRZA9qi1Ys6QFz0Cl7OYcY/pub ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] No new information on the SOTM since January 2014
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Kathleen Danielson kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 5, 2014 9:15 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: SOTM EU and US, combined with the OSMF focus on being more of a theoretical body have reduced the profit and motivation in doing a SOTM to approximately zero. I hope it still happens, but I'd be surprised. it wasn't so long ago [1] that people were writing they'd heard comments that OSM had been devised by Steve as a way to make a heap of money from other peoples' effort, and there was recurring criticism that he was behaving in some sort of sinister way. so it's saddening, and not a little hypocritical, for steve to come out with the same sorts of evil board conspiracy theories now. Matt, Steve was merely expressing his doubt that the conference would come together. He cast no aspersions on the Board that I could see and just described the landscape of conferences as he sees it. okay. i read it very differently, where OSMF focus on being more of a theoretical body is very much an aspersion, although an oblique one. in follow-up emails, i definitely take the OSMF has decided to not do anything this year and ... while the OSMF board decides which open source telephony solution is ideal as aspersions, as in [1], where Steve seems to be trivialising the OSMF board, or falsely representing the views of its members. Suggesting that this is somehow a conspiracy theory is a stretch, and seems like you're just looking for an excuse to dump on Steve. i'm sorry it seems that way. perhaps a bit more background would have been in order, but i was trying to keep the length of the email under 'essay' length. i remember very well when Steve himself was the target of such aspersions, as i was trying to point out, and as in [2]. therefore it is saddening to me that the difficult experiences he had, both before the OSMF board and on it, don't appear to prevent him from creating difficult experiences for the current board. Feel free to respectfully disagree with Steve, me, or anyone on these threads, but calling someone hypocritical is unkind and unproductive. i apologise profoundly for any offence that i caused Steve. i was trying to find a word to adequately express the dichotomy between rightly criticising those who are seem to be negative towards the board while in office and seeming to be negative towards the board when not. in any case, it is the action, not the person, that i was trying to call out. as to being productive - i think is important to say that getting involved in OSMF is the most productive way to effect change. casting oblique aspersions is not only negative, but likely to attract more negative responses. perhaps i should have heeded Steve's advice to prospective board members: ... the main thing you should be prepared for isn't so much the time commitment but the fact that it's a thankless task. You will have to make choices between two equally bad options and take the flak for it. [3] i just didn't think, when i was discussing my candidacy with him before the 2011 AGM, that so much of the flak would be coming from him. cheers, matt [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2012-October/001858.html [2] NOTE: i include this because it emphatically demonstrates the level of frustration which can be experienced when one is confronted by people being negative, or downplaying one's efforts: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-July/015267.html [3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2011-August/001214.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] Final call for ideas!
hi everyone, the SOTM-EU call for presentations [1] closes on Monday (17th)! i'd like to encourage you to share an idea with the OSM community at the EU conferece - it's going to be a great time to start collaborations and discussions, and help make OSM better. so if there's anything you're working on, interested in or just want to talk about, then please have a think about it over the weekend and submit a talk, or two, or more :-) cheers, matt [1] http://sotm-eu.org/pages/cfp ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] London Hack Weekend - Mar 8 9
we're having a hack weekend on the 8th and 9th March, graciously hosted by AOL / MapQuest at their offices in central London. it would be great to see you there! full details are available on the wiki page [1], and there's also an event on Lanyrd [2]. please sign up to at least one of these if you are planning to attend, both so that we're able to judge the amount of power sockets we'll need, and for fire safety / security. in addition, we'll be socialising in the pub on the Friday and Saturday evenings - if hacking isn't your thing, we'd be very happy to see you there. venues TBA at the moment, and suggestions welcome. cheers, matt [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London/London_Hack_Weekend_Mar_2014 [2] http://lanyrd.com/2014/osmhack/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] London hack weekend
after the last hack weekend, i wanted to have another around the beginning of March, and that's rapidly approaching. here's a doodle poll for the weekends and if you're interested in coming, please indicate which weekends you'd be available. http://www.doodle.com/hh4vnx2p8kzrnypv#table thanks, matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] SOTM-EU Call for Presentations
hi everyone, the SOTM-EU call for presentations [1] has been announced. if you're working on a tool, some software, a research or community project or business - or anything related to OSM then it would be great to have a presentation sharing your ideas at SOTM-EU. we're looking forward to getting some very interesting submissions and, with your help, making SOTM-EU really exciting. cheers, matt [1] http://sotm-eu.org/pages/cfp ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] London Hack Weekend - 30 Nov / 1 Dec
we're having a hack weekend on the 30th November and 1st December, graciously hosted by AOL / MapQuest at their offices in central London. it would be great to see you there! full details are available on the wiki page [1], and there's also an event on Lanyrd [2]. please sign up to at least one of these if you are planning to attend, both so that we're able to judge the amount of power sockets we'll need, and for fire safety / security. in addition, we'll be socialising in the pub on the Friday and Saturday evenings - if hacking isn't your thing, we'd be very happy to see you there. venues TBA at the moment, and suggestions welcome. cheers, matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] London Hack Weekend - 30 Nov / 1 Dec
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: full details are available on the wiki page [1], and there's also an event on Lanyrd [2]. of course, it would have been more helpful if i'd actually put the links in... [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London/London_Hack_Weekend_Nov_2013 [2] http://lanyrd.com/crxqm ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: ## Proposal Inspired by successful campaigns like Intel Inside and Fair Trade, this RFC proposes an OpenStreetMap contributor mark for use on OpenStreetMap based maps. The goal of the OSM contributor mark is to be adopted by as many OSM data users as possible and on as many OSM based maps as possible, thus creating more awareness of the value of free and open geographic data. this sounds like an interesting idea. it's worth noting that the ODbL requires a textual attribution, and we suggest a link to the copyright page [1] where it is appropriate to the medium. are you suggesting that the OSM contributor mark would be an additional, voluntary, on-screen display? from your examples it seems that you'd consider this mark to be a replacement for the required textual attribution - is that right? also, i am confused by the contributor part of it - isn't this an OSM data user mark? With these goals in mind - the mark should be compelling and recognizable (i.e. not generic). i find this hammer-in-teardrop symbol to be very generic, and not very compelling. - it should work off maps in cases where thumbnail maps need to be attributed e.g. in mobile devices - the mark should be clearly distinct from common map user interface elements. - the mark should link to a page on openstreetmap.org that explains the openness of OSM data and its local, community driven nature. this sounds like a general about page to me. which is fine - we need a good about page, and the example you've given looks good. a few points i noticed: - its very graphically heavy - the explanation its trying to provide is mostly off-screen, and (at least on my display) initially occupies a tiny area in the lower left of the screen. if this is the important part of the page, rather than the picture, shouldn't it be more prominent? - as ppawel has already pointed out, it's pretty radically and confusingly differently styled to the rest of the OSM sites. - (minor) probably better to link to learnosm than the wiki? seems rather cruel to subject someone to the wiki when it might be only the second OSM page they see ;-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] RFC - OSM contributor mark
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: a link to the copyright page [1] oops, forgot to add the footnote last time [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Future Look
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr wrote: 2013/1/8 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: That is exactly the approach that I would recommend if someone were to ask me how to move forward - have a small discussion if you want but essentially, just build the damn thing, or at least a prototype for people to play with, and get people interested. +1 ! Less talks, more action ;) OSM like many opensource projects is a do-o-craty... But some talks are good too to coordinate actions and avoid overlapping work. +1, too! a diverse group of people trying new ideas, building cool new stuff and having fun would seem to be the ideal approach. i certainly think that such a thing is possible, and that we can build something awesome together. of course there's a place in this (as Clifford originally pointed out) for an equivalent to Red Hat to donate the time of their employees towards this diverse group, in a similar manner to how the Linux community works. the alternative (WMF) suggestion seems like very much a top-down, committee-oriented thing - i hope the irony of a five year plan wasn't lost on them*. personally, i think this would remove a lot of the diversity and creativity of the development community. cheers, matt *: Plan is law, fulfillment is duty, over-fulfillment is honor! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Future Look
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Paweł Paprota ppa...@fastmail.fm wrote: (...) What you describe sounds good in theory (ecosystem) but in practice it does not work that way. You can't just pick and choose some cool projects and integrate them into the main site. it's possible - and it's been done several times in the past. that's not to say it's easy, or that no code needs to be written for such integration, but it does work that way. Software (in particular, open source software) is not a puzzle that can be easily thrown together and create something bigger than one piece. i agree - it's not easy. not with any kind of software that hasn't been written with that specific purpose in mind. Look at distro packaging people - there is tremendous amount of work going into delivering upstream projects to actual users at the end. Look at all the glue between all components (like D-Bus, systemd etc) that is needed for a fully working system. Now take this Linux methaphor and apply it to OSM and its main website. In my time that I spent following Rails Port and in general main website development (about 6 months) I have seen 2 maybe 3 people writing major pieces of code for Rails Port, some of those pieces have been rejected from merging for various reasons. i, and i hope everyone else too, applaud those people for their efforts. however, as every maintainer learns, it's a difficult balancing act to merge new features while keeping quality high - which sometimes means that some things don't get merged first time. i'm certain that this happens in the linux kernel too, and it's happened to me in the rails_port: i took the feedback, improved my code and re-submitted. All I'm saying that it's not as easy as you make it sound and pursuing funding for improving the main website is a viable thing to do, hard to tell who made it sound easy, as the quoted post is missing, and i wouldn't say that anything involving production software is every truly easy. otherwise we will have to keep waiting X years or maybe forever for some of the more complex pieces to be fit into the puzzle. i think we can be more optimistic than that - we're all trying to improve OSM, so rather than endlessly discussing all the negative things, perhaps we could get back to doing what we enjoy: writing code / mapping / etc... cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Future Look
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Paweł Paprota ppa...@fastmail.fm wrote: Ideally people from the ecosystem would be willing to write some code to integrate their cool projects into the main site. That is clearly not happening. sure, ideally. it doesn't happen often and there are a wide range of reasons for it, often simply that integration into the site requires completely different skills from implementing the original cool project, or that it seems too complex or time-consuming to do so. finding out why and trying to improve the situation are parts of why EWG was set up. but, as you said before, sometimes it's not the greatest way to discuss major features. but surely better than not discussing them at all? i think we can be more optimistic than that - we're all trying to improve OSM, so rather than endlessly discussing all the negative things, perhaps we could get back to doing what we enjoy: writing code / mapping / etc... Sure, that's always good but note that another thread about OSM's future ends in basically no conclusion. Or rather the conclusion seems to be that all is fine and the future is secured with the current approach. in any large project and whenever a group of people get together there will be differences in view, and it is often difficult to get consensus (sometimes even more difficult than integrating software). but just because it is difficult doesn't mean that the result isn't worth trying to achieve: these threads (and WG discussions) are part of the process of approaching the future - one can't expect a single meeting or discussion thread to satisfy everyone, or necessarily come to any solid conclusion at all. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Future Look
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de wrote: Dear Matt, Ideally people from the ecosystem would be willing to write some code to integrate their cool projects into the main site. That is clearly not happening. sure, ideally. it doesn't happen often and there are a wide range of reasons for it, often simply that integration into the site requires completely different skills from implementing the original cool project, or that it seems too complex or time-consuming to do so. finding out why and trying to improve the situation are parts of why EWG was set up. but, as you said before, sometimes it's not the greatest way to discuss major features. but surely better than not discussing them at all? Thank you. For me it is new insight that writing more code for the Rails Port is an issue. I've just added a clarifying remark to the wiki, please feel free to clarify it further. oh dear... strike another one for Getting The Message Out... :-( In particular, would you appreciate a rails branch with the POI layer to faciliate a later integration? yes, please! :-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Multiple Layers for OSM
On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 09:36 +0200, Jochen Topf wrote: It turns out there are many other interesting uses of multiple layers but also many technical and social questions around them. I have written down my thoughts on this subject in a (rather lengthy) blog post: http://blog.jochentopf.com/2012-09-23-multiple-layers-for-osm.html what do you think of the Potlatch 2 vector backgrounds [1] and snapshot server [2] as steps in the direction of fixing this? cheers, matt [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potlatch_2_merging_tool [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Snapshot_Server ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OWL down
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:17 PM, John Goodman j...@qlam.com wrote: I sent a message to User Matt (who supposedly maintains OWL) last Friday, but never got a reply. deepest apologies for not getting back to you. unfortunately the ongoing license change is absorbing all of my free time at the moment. Even when the maps were working, its RSS feed was something like 40 days behind. I posted about that two weeks ago here and no one seems to know what is going on. the situation is: OWL was running on the development machine, but the load it was causing on that (shared) machine was so high that it generally wasn't able to keep up with the main database. to free up that machine so that others can actually use it, another machine was allocated and partially set up (called 'zark'). we hit the license change at around the same time, which is going to mean changes in the history, and OWL must be updated to be aware of those. in summary, OWL on the dev machine is probably not coming back. OWL on zark will be coming online after the license change, or sooner if someone wants to volunteer to do the rest of the development / set-up to get it working. *but* even if it comes back sooner, it's likely there will be some pretty significant re-loading to do after the license change is finished. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:36 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: There are tons of things. People drive in the US so pubs are difficult to arrange things around. Mapping in the US is boring because of the big gridded cities. I map much less in the US than the UK. It's not just that there are roads there already, which by the way is a good thing because I have sat for hours correcting them against aerial. It's just not that simple to say imports killed it. some interesting facts: http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/editors_urban_per_month.png http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/editor_growth_comparison.png when the AND import ran (around sep '07), it seems the NL community was already about an order of magnitude larger than the US community when the TIGER import ran (roughly sep '07 - feb '08). in the comparison, with fewer countries but the time base adjusted so that they all hit 1 user per month per million urban population at the same time, it's pretty clear to see that the UK, NL and RU communities seem to be carving roughly the same path. the germans grew much faster over their first 3 years than other communities. the US is difficult to interpret. one view is that it grew at approximately the same rate as UK, NL and RU until about 1.5 years in, where it plateaus. that's late 2009, when there was lots of TIGER fixup activity and some big mapping parties (e.g: Atlanta). the alternative view is that the growth rate is actually smaller, but that there's a temporary peak mid-late 2009 which masks that. given that these numbers are normalised to the *urban* population, population density issues don't come into it - we're basically looking at cities. and given that AT and RU have a much lower proportion of their populations in urban areas than the US. Canada has about the same urbanisation as the US, and similar gridded cities, and similar attitudes to driving [1], but a growth curve the same as France or Spain. this doesn't tell us what the cause of slow community growth in the US is, but it does tell us that it isn't population density, it isn't driving attitudes and it isn't the interestingness (or not) of the road layout. cheers, matt [1] 77% of Canadians use public transport a few times a year or less, compared with 88% of those in the US, 48% in the UK and 13% in Russia, according to http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/natgeo_surveys_countries_trans.html ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Grant Slater openstreetmap@... writes: - block anyone who says no from contributing and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors. Reality check... So to steal all our precious data and kick the majority of the contributors the stupid evil OSMF you propose would have to shut down people contributing and joining OSM for 9 MONTHS before they could run such a rigged system. You're right, it is a fanciful and unrealistic example, at least from the point of view of keeping a running OSM project with contributors. It would be a way to get a static copy of the map under any terms wanted. However, what I hope people realize is that these 'evil conspiracy theory' arguments are the same ones used to assert that CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data, any company could just copy it, and so on, despite not a shred of evidence that this has happened. funny thing is, i don't see these 'evil conspiracy theory' arguments coming from lawyers, whereas i've heard the 'CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the data' argument coming not only from lawyers, but also from Creative Commons itself! I wish people would apply a more realistic perspective and 'assume good faith' a little bit more in these matters too. as do i. everyone serving on OSMF working groups, including LWG, cares deeply about the state and future of OSM, and they spend a great deal of their time trying to ensure that future. (small plug for the OSMF workshop, Sunday 12th - come along and chat with the board members and other interested OSMF members [1]) All I intended to demonstrate is that no amount of legalese and boilerplate in the licence or contributor terms will block out all possible abuses, so we should lighten up a bit. you're absolutely right. no matter what the license we have, or the terms that are offered to contributors, there will always be people and companies using the data without complying with the license, or contributors (possibly companies) uploading data which can't be safely used as part of OSM. i do believe that the new license and contributor terms better define what is acceptable, and that if/when it becomes necessary to take action in the future, we'll be in a better place. cheers, matt [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Board_Meeting_June_2011 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] User diary enhancements, subscriptions, Facebook/Twitter integration
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Samat K Jain li...@samat.org wrote: On Saturday, May 07, 2011 08:26:28 AM Kai Krueger wrote: Yes, there is a fully functional OpenID implementation. http://openid.dev.openstreetmap.org/ However, it currently doesn't seem to have the political support necessary to get it merged. But perhaps if enough people express their interest this might change. What exactly do OpenID supporters need to do to express the requisite political support? The last thread on OpenID was one I started back in February: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenID-for-OpenStreetMap-td6010177.html This thread is repeating arguments already made… as in the thread that you refer to: On Feb 10, 2011; 9:15am, TomH wrote: Because there are a few outstanding issues with the implementation (yes, we have an implementation) that we need to resolve first. Actually, they're mostly not with the implementation but with the fact that the unit tests are currently broken on that branch. I know how to fix that now, but I haven't had time to do it. this is not a matter of political support, but a matter of fixing the broken unit tests for OpenID support. however, it seems that no-one really wants OpenID support enough to spend the time to fix them. i'm sure if you asked TomH nicely, he'll explain in more detail what needs to be done, if anyone feels like getting their hands dirty. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] Fwd: [OSM-legal-talk] per changeset relicensing
i know being able to agree to the new CTs is a concern for some people, especially with sources which may have been used in only a small number of edits. one potential solution could be allowing each changeset to carry some relicensability information, as richard sets out below. there's a survey at the end so that we (LWG) can determine if this would be a useful feature or not, and i encourage everyone to have a think about it and have a go at the survey. cheers, matt -- Forwarded message -- From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com Date: Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:38 PM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] per changeset relicensing To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org There have been previous discussions regarding per changeset relicensing. I'd like to know if developing the tools to allow per changeset relicensing is worthwhile. There will be some effort involved in the coding, so it would be good to know in advance if this option will be used by many or few mappers. The intent of per changeset relicensing is to permit those with a general agreement to the terms and license, but with a specific concern about a source for a particular changeset to relicense their data, but not relicense that data about which they are concerned. Example: Prof. Mapper maps by GPS and survey as she travels. She also helped a friend map in Erehwon, and added street names from Erehwon Council data. Erehwon council have given permission for derivation to OSM under CC-By-SA, but discussion is continuing re: CT/ODbL, Prof. Mapper agrees with CT/ODbL but recognizes that She doesn't have permission yet to relicense the Erehwon street names. Prof. Mapper could accept CT/ODbL for the bulk of her mapping, and mark the seven Erehwon changesets a with a checkbox for Do Not Relicense and with a note, Pending Erehwon Council permission. This allows several options in the future. It points out datasets and mappers with interest in discussing relicensing with a specific data provider. Should Erehwon Council agree to ODbL prior to any change over date, the data can be included. If not, Prof. Mapper may continue with their unencumbered data. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WFVK6XS ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding a further 250, 000 UK roads quickly using a Bot?
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: OS OpenData is out-of-date. The April 2010 StreetView tiles are at least 2 years old, and where I've checked VDM is similarly dated. I have not failed to find a significant change between OS OpenData (and Bing imagery) in detailed surveys I've done this year. Chris Hill has a similar experience. +1. i've had to remove several things which were traced and tagged from OS which are no longer present. for example; [1], which was demolished in 2007 (and deconsecrated some time previously). it's not the use of OS data which is the problem, it's using it in areas of which there's no recent local knowledge and, pretty much by definition, any bot would have no local knowledge ;-) cheers, matt [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6152842 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding a further 250, 000 UK roads quickly using a Bot?
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 3 February 2011 11:32, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: OS OpenData is out-of-date. The April 2010 StreetView tiles are at least 2 years old, and where I've checked VDM is similarly dated. I have not failed to find a significant change between OS OpenData (and Bing imagery) in detailed surveys I've done this year. Chris Hill has a similar experience. +1. i've had to remove several things which were traced and tagged from OS which are no longer present. for example; [1], which was demolished in 2007 (and deconsecrated some time previously). it's not the use of OS data which is the problem, it's using it in areas of which there's no recent local knowledge and, pretty much by definition, any bot would have no local knowledge ;-) Would it be useful to be able to add annotations to base layers to indicate where they are wrong. For example to add a polygon to a Bing or Yahoo aerial or OS Streetview layer that partly obsures the image and says 'this area has changed' or something similar. This would need to be flagged for re-checking when the source material is updated. it seems to me that this would simply add another place for stuff to be wrong, whether out of date or simply mis-entered or misunderstood. all data is out-of-date the moment it's been surveyed, so while other data sources are useful, i prefer to base my own efforts on knowledge of the area or real surveying. Another approach would be for the submit process to put up an alert 'you are adding a feature which has previously been deleted - the deletion included the following comment in the changeset'. with fuzzy matching of the features to prevent against misspelling, differences in tagging, etc... this sounds very cool, but my SMOP-sense is tingling. ;-) as andy pointed out, i think we're addressing the wrong problem and trying to fix it technically. maybe the best way forward is to address the social problem: what can we do to grow the community? is it just me, or did we used to have more mapping parties? (maybe it's just the winter) do we need to try and reach out to cycling / youth / technology SIGs and hope that some of them find this as addictive as we do? OSM is a wiki, which means it's only mildly annoying when people trace OS / Yahoo / Bing data into my local area (or import a bunch of massively positionally inaccurate bus stops). i can watch the area using the tools available and correct it. but my local area is quite small - how can we get more people to monitor and garden their own local area? finally, if it's a rich, accurate and detailed data set you want then importing OS data isn't going to help. someone will need to put in the extra stuff that's not on OS / Yahoo / Bing. so we're going to need people on the ground surveying or living there anyway... cheers, matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding a further 250, 000 UK roads quickly using a Bot?
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Dair Grant dair@... writes: There is suggestion raised by a number of people, but refuted by others that imports reduce the number of contributors. It has been denied, not refuted. I think the closest there is to real data on the effect is: http://www.asklater.com/matt/wordpress/2009/09/imports-and-the-community-ii We do also have real data on the effect of not doing imports - the towns which are almost completely unmapped. While importing data from OS may not be ideal, doing nothing and waiting for somebody to go and map it doesn't seem like a successful strategy either, if the past five years are a guide. For prosperous city areas there is no difficulty finding a local mapper who will take on a new hobby to get away from the computer screen for a few hours. But OSM has a real coverage gap in socially disadvantaged areas (Fake SteveC has a pithier name for them). But we want a complete map and not just a map of where the typical OSM contributor lives. If using some of the work already done by the Ordnance Survey helps us get there, that has to be a good thing. my experience of the OS data traced into my local area is that it's been almost entirely inaccurate. if this is the case where a typical OSM contributor lives then i'd assume that people tracing over OS have introduced several hundred inaccurate features in London alone. perhaps if the people enamoured of tracing OS would organise a mapping party, or reach out to local community groups (people still live in socially disadvantaged areas, right?) then we could create a complete, living map, rather than a road-network-complete, dead one. cheers, matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Postmortem analysys
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: The original decision that there should be no duplicate nodes simply ignored many of the arguments that there are very good reasons for needing them, then tools like the duplicate nodes map ASSUME that the decision takes priority rather than allowing 'duplicates' which are distinguished due to their elevation? the duplicate nodes map doesn't assume that all duplicates are errors (http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/dupe_nodes/about.html#errors). it's simply a tool for finding them - because most of them are errors, - and it's nice to have tools which help in fixing them. as Tom points out, it seems that some are simply a little too zealous in fixing them, maybe relying too heavily on the auto-fix feature in JOSM's validator, and should be looking at the data more thoroughly. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] To those who remove dupe nodes
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Oscar Orbe oskaro...@yahoo.com wrote: Dear list I am uploading some landuse polygons and sometimes I get the error that says something like that node does not exist. I think there are people removing unused nodes too fast. Perhaps those people can change their algorithms so that they only remove unused nodes whose age is at least 24 hours for example??? so they wont interrupt uploading processes... hi oscar. are you using diff uploads to create the polygons? if so, it would be a good idea to group the uploaded ways and relations for the polygon along with the nodes it needs. this would mean that such an error wouldn't occur. i seem to remember that this was done for the french corrine import and maybe it would be a good idea to talk to them about good techniques for doing this before going any further? cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] To those who remove dupe nodes
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: Your original complaint was about people removing *duplicate* nodes though, not people removing fresh, unused nodes. That's another situation; if your upload creates duplicate nodes then your upload is buggy and should be stopped. Not always - an import of TIGER county lines will create dupes with TIGER roads, and these should not be joined. in this case Oscar's import consists of landuse areas, which should be joined. otherwise, what's in the gap? ;-) with the admin boundaries and physical features it's more of a matter of opinion; there are good reasons to join them, and good reasons to have them separate. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Call for Papers for SotM-EU is OPEN
for those of us who can't make it across the pond for sotm this year (or even for those who fancy going to both), and who might have missed this on talk@, there's an european sotm going on and the call for papers just opened up. i'm sure everyone has something interesting they've seen, done or are working on, and great talks are the heart of a great conference, so i hope you'll consider sharing something cool with the community at sotm-eu. cheers, matt -- Forwarded message -- From: Andreas Labres l...@lab.at Date: Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:08 PM Subject: [OSM-talk] Call for Papers for SotM-EU is OPEN To: t...@openstreetmap.org Hello, As some of you might have already noticed, we (OpenStreetMap Austria) are organizing next year's European OSM conference SotM-EU. It will be held July 15-17, 2011 at Vienna University of Technology. The focus will be on OSM community themes. As the conference takes place at the university, we will also put some small focus on research. Here you can find the Call for Papers: https://www.sotm-eu.org/cfp If you have developed some great tool, if you have done some difficult import or any other aspect that you want to share with the OSM community - please sign up! Please submit your papers/talks by the end of February 2011. We are looking forward to your proposals! Please forward this to other lists or forums. Also, see twitter under @sotmeu #sotmeu. Many thanks - Manuela Schmidt - Andreas Labres ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] API also down?
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: Following the rest of the current problems, is the API now also down? JOSM hangs on creating a new changeset and then after a while says communication timed out. should be back now. problem seems to have been an obscure kernel problem on the machine which hosts GPX traces. much christmas cheer to Grant for fixing it! :-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] tracking deletions
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 November 2010 09:00, Mikel Maron mikel_ma...@yahoo.com wrote: Is there an easy way to track deletions only in a particular area? I've noticed a couple features missing in Kibera, and paging through changesets for a while didn't turn up anything. Looking at ItoMapper, deleted features aren't being visualized. Any ideas? OWL has some functionality to track history. That's how I tracked some deletion in my area (Thanks Matt). thanks for the plug, emily. ;-) mikel, if you want to track changes occurring in Kibera, including deletions, here's an RSS feed of the changesets in that approximate area: http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/owl_viewer/feed/2541202888-2541202879.rss if you prefer to inspect the data, you can see the most recent changes here: http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/owl_viewer/weeklymap?zoom=16lon=36.78725lat=-1.31272layers=BT or changes since OWL started running here: http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/owl_viewer/map?zoom=16lon=36.78725lat=-1.31272layers=BT hope that's helpful, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How can we make this list better?
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:02 AM, john whelan jwhelan0...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps recognise that OSM is changing and developing in ways it's creators never intended? i think this and previous threads on this list show that this is being recognised. we're now looking at the next step, which is the question in the title: how can we make it better? I'm currently looking at a project that uses data that is not cc-by-ca by any means however it can be imported into an OSM file format and use the OSM tool set to basically create a stand alone DVD that is a searchable map visible on a lap top. It isn't OSM but does use the tool set. that's great. it's always nice when people are able to re-use the OSM software. it reminds us we're not just a data project ;-) Applications such as routers need the roads, footpaths etc. joined together, this a different standard of quality than was expected in the beginning. I think we need to concede that parts of the world with lower population densities need different approaches than just a cyclist making multiple GPS passes and noting the street names down can provide. no, topological connectivity was fully anticipated. this is why OSM has a topological node/way model rather than the linestring-based model that's more common in GIS systems. i'm sure that different approaches are necessary in different parts of the world where there are different constraints. and i'm sure that germany didn't get so well mapped by cyclists alone. some places will be easier mapped by car or on foot ;-) cheers, matt Cheerio John On 20 October 2010 20:13, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: this list has come in for some criticism recently, and there are many people who have, publicly or otherwise, decided not to read it or contribute to it any more. i've set up a wiki page to help us gather suggestions and ideas for improving this list, or maybe even trying something new in its place. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Talk_discussion this list has been a core part of the OSM community since the beginning of the project, but things change and it seems to have lost some of that importance. maybe this is a natural part of a project becoming the size that OSM is today, and we should embrace the diversity of our communications channels. alternatively, it could be a sign that there are things we can do to improve the quality and atmosphere on this list. if you can think of a way in which to make this list better, please add your thoughts to the wiki page. cheers, matt ___ 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
[OSM-talk] How can we make this list better?
this list has come in for some criticism recently, and there are many people who have, publicly or otherwise, decided not to read it or contribute to it any more. i've set up a wiki page to help us gather suggestions and ideas for improving this list, or maybe even trying something new in its place. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Talk_discussion this list has been a core part of the OSM community since the beginning of the project, but things change and it seems to have lost some of that importance. maybe this is a natural part of a project becoming the size that OSM is today, and we should embrace the diversity of our communications channels. alternatively, it could be a sign that there are things we can do to improve the quality and atmosphere on this list. if you can think of a way in which to make this list better, please add your thoughts to the wiki page. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-legal-talk] list of user IDs having accepted the contributor terms
as part of the voluntary relicensing phase of the move to ODbL, existing contributors have had the ability to voluntarily accept the contributor terms. to help the community assess the impact of the relicensing it was planned to make the information about which accounts have agreed available. this will help with the evaluation of the process and analysis of any consequent data loss, should the switch be made. at the last LWG meeting, having been put to the board for approval, it was decided to make this available [1], and i'm pleased to announce that this list is now up [2] and being regularly refreshed from the database every hour. i look forward to seeing the new analyses, visualisations and tools that can be built using this data. cheers, matt [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 [2] http://planet.openstreetmap.org/users_agreed/users_agreed.txt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote: We will have to ask the agencies to agree with the Contributor Terms but if we are changing to a PD license disguised as BY-SA (via the CT) they probably will not cooperate. OSMF is not moving to a PD license disguised as BY-SA, OSMF would like to move to ODbL. however, it has to be pointed out that CC BY-SA might be described as a PD license disguised as BY-SA, since many lawyers (including those at Creative Commons) think that CC BY-SA is unsuitable for factual data (such as geodata) and may not be enforceable in many jurisdictions (such as the USA). Even if the point four of the CT works as enough attribution (who knows). whether section 4 is enough to allow CC BY compatibility is something that OSMF is currently seeking legal advice on. As I said most of the agencies just asked us to attribute the source and we told them the way that we will do it. The ODbL (and for this matter any BY-SA License) does not seem to pose a problem to that, but that point three of the CT certainly may provoke a _huge_ mess. if (as i hope) the lawyers say that section 4 of the CT ensures compatibility with CC BY, why would section 3 pose a problem? if section 4 requires that OSMF provide a method of attribution then that couldn't be taken away by changes under section 3 unless a new version of the CT were released - which would require asking every single contributor and re-raising the problem of data loss: the very problem that section 3 is supposed to alleviate. What is the idea of putting that condition there? If some people wants to migrate to Public Domain (and I have read many of them in this list), why not ask directly for a PD migration acceptance instead of asking people to accept this kind of CT as part of a BY-SA license change? migration to PD is not part of the plan. the motivation for that section is simply that needs and requirements change over time. when the project was started CC BY-SA seemed like a perfectly valid license. we're now 6 years on, and 2 years into trying to change the license, because we were wrong about CC BY-SA. while we think ODbL is far, far better - do we want to have the spectre of data loss again in another 6 years if we prove to be wrong again? If this is voted as a package I will obviously have to vote against the change (I do not want to see 7/8 of the Chilean highways disappearing from the map in one day, not to say many POIs that we were about to import right now [hospitals, schools, etc.]). no-one wants to see any data loss. that's one of the many reasons we're moving from a BY-SA license to another BY-SA license. while there is an option to declare your preference with regard to PD, this is for information only. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: they do. and it's in the contributor terms: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database. the database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold no copyright - so copyright law can't be used to enforce attribution But the contents aren't just facts, especially when it comes to subjective tags like smoothness... it's great that you think that, but many lawyers think otherwise. in any case, they'll be just facts if someone strips the smoothness tags out. wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database? i'm not saying this for your benefit, by the way. it seems pretty obvious you've made up your mind and aren't going to change it in the face of reasoned argument or factual counterpoint. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Julio Costa Zambelli julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: OSMF is not moving to a PD license disguised as BY-SA, OSMF would like to move to ODbL. however, it has to be pointed out that CC BY-SA might be described as a PD license disguised as BY-SA, since many lawyers (including those at Creative Commons) think that CC BY-SA is unsuitable for factual data (such as geodata) and may not be enforceable in many jurisdictions (such as the USA). I know about the problems with (CC)BY-SA, and I also know that ODbL is supposed to solve those. And unless I am getting lost in translation I do not have any problem with ODbL, but with the point made by John Smith about the third condition on the CT (OSMF agrees to use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only under the terms of one of the following licenses: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or another free and open license). In the process of approving the change to ODbL the Foundation is asking us to let it change the license to something that may be PD in the future. That said the imports that we have made here in Chile are probably compatible with ODbL but not with letting the foundation change the license to something more open than BY-SA. Again, risking some misunderstanding with my far from perfect English, I understand from what you are saying that two problems are trying to be solved, the unfitness of the (CC)BY-SA license for our kind of data, and the risk of loosing data in future changes of license. The thing is that I am all about solving the first but not about lossing lots of data today speculating about that first solution failing in the future, risking lots of data then. unfortunately, we will lose data this time around - it's unavoidable because it's extremely unlikely that all contributors will be reachable and, as many here have pointed out, be willing to agree to the new CTs. if the data you're worried about is governmental attribution datasets (such as OS opendata, LINZ, NRC, etc...) then, pending legal advice, they could be fine. The only reason that I see to put that condition there is thinking about changing the license to PD in the future without asking all the contributors again. or to change the license to something else which is also BY and SA, if it turns out that's necessary. or to move to a BY-only license, if that's necessary. is the possibility of needing to change the license again in the future not worthwhile, given the problems it's causing right now? whether section 4 is enough to allow CC BY compatibility is something that OSMF is currently seeking legal advice on. I guess this will help, but if the license can be changed in the future to PD without asking the Gov agency, I am almost sure that they will not comply with this. i think that's a question for a real lawyer. ;-) if (as i hope) the lawyers say that section 4 of the CT ensures compatibility with CC BY, why would section 3 pose a problem? if section 4 requires that OSMF provide a method of attribution then that couldn't be taken away by changes under section 3 unless a new version of the CT were released - which would require asking every single contributor and re-raising the problem of data loss: the very problem that section 3 is supposed to alleviate. I think this time I actually got lost in translation but as far as I understand it, the point 4 is useless if it can be discarded without asking the contributors. Am I getting something wrong? point 4 cannot be discarded without asking all the contributors who've agreed to the contributor terms. so it's far from useless in guaranteeing attribution. migration to PD is not part of the plan. the motivation for that section is simply that needs and requirements change over time. when the project was started CC BY-SA seemed like a perfectly valid license. we're now 6 years on, and 2 years into trying to change the license, because we were wrong about CC BY-SA. while we think ODbL is far, far better - do we want to have the spectre of data loss again in another 6 years if we prove to be wrong again? I think it is a perfectly reasonable risk in front of a sure damage. and what might the damage be in the future if we need to change in the future? no-one wants to see any data loss. that's one of the many reasons we're moving from a BY-SA license to another BY-SA license. while there is an option to declare your preference with regard to PD, this is for information only. It is a BY-SA to BY-SA moving as long as you do not give the OSMF the right to move to PD (or anything different from BY-SA for this matter) without asking again. At this point I do not see any good reason to prefer PD and accept to consecuences of moving to it. that's great - so you don't have to tick
Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 August 2010 07:43, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database? That isn't the point, the point was about it *explicitly* removing any claim of copyright, which then makes it incompatible with BY and SA data sources. that's currently awaiting legal advice. but if you can save us, and the lawyers, the trouble of giving advice, thanks! cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: they do. and it's in the contributor terms: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database. the database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold no copyright - so copyright law can't be used to enforce attribution But the contents aren't just facts, especially when it comes to subjective tags like smoothness... it's great that you think that, but many lawyers think otherwise. in any case, they'll be just facts if someone strips the smoothness tags out. wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database? Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say think otherwise? Exact quotes of what they said? unfortunately not. apparently legal advice can't be publicly shared without making the lawyers in question liable for it. given that our legal advisors are acting for us pro-bono and have asked that we don't quote them publicly, i don't think it would be nice to do that. Also an example of licenses which distinguish the whole database from the individual contents of the database would be helpful. How does that make any more sense than releasing a book under CC-BY-SA, for the book, and CC0 for the individual words of the book. the ODbL is the only example i know of. and your example is good: it's not possible to copyright individual dictionary words, as far as i know, but the collection of them is protectable. releasing the words as CC0 is simply a tautology in this case, as the DbCL is in many jurisdictions by waiving copyright in individual data. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say think otherwise? Exact quotes of what they said? unfortunately not. apparently legal advice can't be publicly shared without making the lawyers in question liable for it. given that our legal advisors are acting for us pro-bono and have asked that we don't quote them publicly, i don't think it would be nice to do that. Then can you at least stop referring to what they said, especially referring to it as though it's in any way authoritative. Without the ability to see the exact quote, let alone ask questions, many lawyers said you're wrong is useless. i'm simply saying that there are people out there who know what they're talking about. some lawyers have gone on the record about ODbL. see http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-August/000181.html and http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-December/045170.html and http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabanklicentie-versie-10 and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License#ODbL_reviews_from_lawyers Also an example of licenses which distinguish the whole database from the individual contents of the database would be helpful. How does that make any more sense than releasing a book under CC-BY-SA, for the book, and CC0 for the individual words of the book. the ODbL is the only example i know of. That's certainly a reason to be wary of it. not really. it's on the cutting edge, but that's because we're trying to do something that no-one else has done before: an attribution, share-alike license for factual data. and your example is good: it's not possible to copyright individual dictionary words, as far as i know, but the collection of them is protectable. releasing the words as CC0 is simply a tautology in this case, as the DbCL is in many jurisdictions by waiving copyright in individual data. If that's really all this is, it's awfully confusing and unnecessary. As I say in my other post, it's not even clear what the individual contents means. If it means a single changeset, that's one thing, and something I would *not* like to release under DbCL. If on the other hand it means just an individual node... Who's going to copy just a single node? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline we've been discussing this for a long time. Is there any way in which releasing the individual contents under DbCL is *not* redundant? If it *is* redundant, is there any way to have it removed? it makes it legally explicit what's going on. although it might seem redundant, or confusing, it adds legal clarity. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:05 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 August 2010 08:02, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: that's currently awaiting legal advice. but if you can save us, and the lawyers, the trouble of giving advice, thanks! How many different lawyers have been asked, and do they all share the same opinions that we've been hearing? of course, any lawyer is free to look at it. the lawyers that have been asked to look at it are, as far as i know, the guys acting pro-bono for us at WSGR and ITO world's lawyer. independently, the lawyers at CC and axel metzger, andrea rossati and arnoud engelfriet have given opinions. see http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2009-August/000181.html and http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-December/045170.html and http://blog.iusmentis.com/2009/07/15/open-source-databanken-de-opendatabanklicentie-versie-10 and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License#ODbL_reviews_from_lawyers cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Matt, you really do need to read up on case law about the minimum threshold for copyrightability. i have. but perhaps you could point out the judgements you're referring to, because i've not seen them. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL
I agree with Andy. This is what I understand the ODbL to be saying. Unfortunately, as with any legal text, its difficult to read and this is an unavoidable consequence of the legal system. If you need interpretation of the license, new or old, the best route may be to consult a lawyer. Cheers, Matt On Jul 8, 2010 10:18 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Oliver (skobbler) osm.oliver.ku...@gmx.de wrote: Hi Frederick,... Either you mis-spoke in this sentence, or you are wrong with this assertion. If you have a derived database, and make a produced work, you are required to make the derived database available under the ODbL. That's practically the whole point of the ODbL! Section 4.5b, which amongst other things is a classic could do with some scoping parenthesis piece of legalese, is only clarifying that if the produced work is made up from a collective database, e.g. (derived + some other db) =produced work then the collective db is not considered derived - i.e. the some-other-db can stay non-ODbL licensed. But if you make a produced work (actually, if you publicly use said produced work), then the derived database must be shared in any case (4.4a and 4.4c). As for Frederik's initial question, part 1. is unavoidably share-alike as soon as the produced work is publicly used. Part 2 I'll leave for others. Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.or... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?, (Kai Krueger)
+1... or -1 as well? not sure how the arithmetic of these is supposed to work. anyway, i agree with phil. cheers, matt On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Phil James peerja...@googlemail.com wrote: At risk of being a fly in the ointment, judging by the largely favourable responses to this idea, I for one would like to register myself as -1. Rant Please don't map an area if you are not familiar with it. I have done some armchair mapping, but only where I am familiar with the area, and feel I can add value to the data I am entering. If you are that desperate for a 'complete' map, go out and do more surveying, or just use OS or other commercially available products. I just feel that blatant, blind copying of OS data is prostituting what I thought Open Street Map was meant to be about./Rant OK, I've got my tin hat on: standing by for incoming... ;-) Phil. talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 12:07:33 +0100 From: Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV? To: 'talk-gb' talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: 4c0b8175.30...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Hello everyone, I would like to suggest as a sort of Project of the week for the UK for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView. Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be road complete by the end of the year, the UK is still a far distance off of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be. So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other commercial map provider. (If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email) I know that many people are opposed to armchair mapping or imports (and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing instead) and so I'd like to counter some of the arguments most likely going to be brought up against this sort of non local tracing: 1) OS data might have mistakes, be outdated and generally not as good as what OSM aims for: Yes, no doubt OS has errors and can be outdated in many places by a couple of years ( I have found more than enough of those myself). Furthermore, all of the OS products released lack many of the properties we are interested in like one way roads, turn and other restrictions, POIs, foot and cycle ways and all the other things that make OSM data such a rich and valuable dataset. So yes, the OS data will clearly not replace any of the traditional OSM surveying techniques or be the end of things. But it can be a great basis to build upon. As a comparison, have a look (assuming you have a timecapsal ;-)) at what the data of e.g. central London looked like in 2007. It already had surprisingly many roads, but hardly any POIs or other properties that we aim for now. Most of that came later in many iterations of improvement. A single pass of OSM surveying is not any better than the OS data per se. Also given that the errors introduced by tracing OS data are exactly the same type of errors introduced by manual OSM surveying, i.e. misspellings in roads, missing roads, outdated roads, ... We need to have the tools to deal with this kind of maintenance anyway. It is the iterations that make OSM data what it is, not the first pass ground survey. Creating a blanket base layer from OS data allows us to much better focus on the aspects that do distinguish us from every other map data provider with having to waste as little as possible resources on the stuff everyone else has too. 2) large scale imports and tracing hinders community growth: This perhaps is the more important of the two arguments, as indeed what distinguishes us from everyone else is the community and without the community and its constant iterations and improvements, OSM data will bit rot just as much as all other data. However I don't think there is any clear evidence either way of what non local mapping does to communities and it remains hotly debated. The negative effects claimed are usually of the form a) The area looks complete, there is nothing more
Re: [OSM-talk] Villain?
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: My suggestions: 1) Please reword the list to not have judgemental label on it. just the facts i've removed the list. it was intended as a bit of fun, certainly not to offend anyone and i honestly didn't expect anyone who wasn't doing bulk imports to end up on the villains list. by way of explanation, villain is a kind of old-fashioned word in modern british usage - i definitely didn't mean criminal. apologies to anyone who was offended. 2) Explain the algorithm. Are you looking for duplicated nodes litterally by nodes which are on top of one another or something more loose? it's as simple as two nodes having exactly the same lat/lon, as explained on these pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duplicate_nodes_map http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/dupe_nodes/about.html#wtf 3) For those of us who have duplicated nodes still around, make it easy to download the list and examine it. You're already compiling the data- just make it available as an OSM file for us to look at in our favorite OSM editor, please. the whole thing is offline right now anyway, but when i get it back online i'll add your suggestion to the TODO list. it's unlikely to be a downloadable file (kinda the whole point was that it should be minutely-up-to-date), but something like a map call should be possible. or to hook it into a larger OSM bug-tracking system like OSB if it's able to handle the millions of points... cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: The upgrade clause in the ODbL should be sufficient for any future licensing, and if the change is away from that, I expect as a contributor to be consulted about it. any change away from that must be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a majority vote of active contributors. if you want to be consulted about any future licensing change, just join OSMF or continue to actively contribute to OSM. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:21:41AM +, Matt Amos wrote: It may suit you, as a consumer of OSM data, to not give a damn about contributing back to the project, but that's not what OSM is about. i'm both a producer and a consumer of OSM data. and i do care about contributing back, which is why i'm volunteering my time to help replace the broken license we currently have with one which works, rather than behaving in a derogatory and uncivil manner on the mailing lists. I didn’t detect any uncivility on the part of 80n, and comments like yours would just worsen any impression of the situation, so please refrain. i thought the implication that i don't contribute to OSM, and don't give a damn about contributing back to the project was extremely derogatory. maybe i need to go re-order some thicker skin, because mine is clearly wearing thin. My view on the ODbL is it’s a much better fit. It’s the contributor terms that are currently broken and need fixing, otherwise we move from one broken situation to another just as broken situation. great! LWG is working on it, and your concerns have been noted. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:04 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: The purpose of the share-alike principle is to enable derived work to be fed back into the main body. that's your opinion. my opinion is that the purpose of share alike is to allow data to be remixed, mashed-up or otherwise modified as long as it's available under the original license. feeding back is a side effect which many projects (e.g: FSF) do perfectly well without. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: What would be acceptable? The current situation is acceptable. We all grant a license to everyone under CC-BY-SA. which ranges from being basically PD in some jurisdictions to being a BY-SA license in others. so what would be acceptable *and* internationally applicable? cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Why doesn't OSM ?
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Aun Johnsen li...@gimnechiske.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: 1. What do we want to protect? The data is fully open, but some people want to reduce their fingerprint on the data to protect themselves, for example they submit their GPX tracks privately so it will not be possible to derive from them where he lives or works. This doesn't mean he is holding back data, he only chooses to give it without his fingerprints. this isn't quite the case. even if tracks are submitted privately it may be possible to find common locations such as home and work from the anonymous points. then it also might to possible to find corresponding local editing to get the user. for example, some of the calculated home locations from http://stat.latlon.org/ are quite accurate - mine is only about 200m from cloudmade's offices, where i used to work. if you are really very concerned with your privacy: don't upload tracks which include your home or office locations at all. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why doesn't OSM implement a simple measure to protect it's users and passwords?
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 9:38 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think OAuth is a valid security method. why not? cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why doesn't OSM implement a simple measure to protect it's users and passwords?
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 12:30 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/26 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: 2009/12/26 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com: On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 9:38 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think OAuth is a valid security method. why not? If you hadn't snipped my email you would have read the answer. i didn't see anything in the rest of your email(s) germane to OAuth, which is why i snipped that bit. Unless cryptography is involved how do you know your packets aren't being intercepted and proxied and altered in transit? because OAuth does cryptographic signing of the requests. Sure OSM isn't much of a target at present, however the more popular that something becomes the more likely it is to be attacked as well. OSM is already being attacked by some vandals and some spam bots. but none of these attacks have been against the authentication parts of OSM. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why doesn't OSM implement a simple measure to protect it's users and passwords?
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 1:46 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/26 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com: because OAuth does cryptographic signing of the requests. Via a clear channel, which can be proxied and mangled and so on. proxied yes, mangled no. the cryptographic signature which OAuth performs allows the server to detect if the request was modified en-route and it will reject it if so. OAuth isn't a substitute for SSL, but it is a substitute for passwords which means that requests are secure and your password doesn't go in the clear. to securely create an OAuth token we need SSL, but Tom has already said that's on his todo list. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why doesn't OSM implement a simple measure to protect it's users and passwords?
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 2:25 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/26 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com: On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 1:46 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/26 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com: because OAuth does cryptographic signing of the requests. Via a clear channel, which can be proxied and mangled and so on. proxied yes, mangled no. the cryptographic signature which OAuth performs allows the server to detect if the request was modified en-route and it will reject it if so. I should have been clear, I didn't mean it would be accepted I meant it might get mangled and be unusable: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/23/vodafone_christmas/ while that's really sad, and a complete FAIL for vodafone, this site claims that: Secure HTTPS sites are transcoded, except for banking sites. Users are warned that their security may be compromised when visiting a non-banking secure site through the transcoder. http://wapreview.com/blog/?p=1837 which means there's no argument here for using SSL on vodafone. OAuth isn't a substitute for SSL, but it is a substitute for passwords Nuff said. indeed. OSM doesn't need SSL for API traffic, it just needs a system for secure authentication. and it has one in OAuth. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why doesn't OSM implement a simple measure to protect it's users and passwords?
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 3:05 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/26 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com: which means there's no argument here for using SSL on vodafone. I have no idea what Voda is up to, because they would throw up all sorts of warning messages from browsers, even on phones, and users would complain endlessly. SSL is usually left alone if for no other reason to prevent custom complaints, but no such browser errors/warnings occur if html has been messed with. it seems that SSL isn't being left alone. indeed. OSM doesn't need SSL for API traffic, it just needs a system for secure authentication. and it has one in OAuth. So people can brute force OAuth credentials? given sufficiently many signatures, it's possible to brute force a single token with a very large amount of effort. however, this token doesn't give sufficient access to either create further tokens or change users credentials and can be easily revoked. it's also worth noting that it's possible to brute force SSL certificates, but again, with a very large amount of effort. in general, it's possible to brute force everything except one-time pads. as with any security measure, to minimise your risk you need to be aware of the security horizon (which will depend on what your attack profile is) and change your authentication details regularly. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Answer the questions!
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Lulu-Ann lulu-...@gmx.de wrote: the end of voting comes closer and nobody has answered the questions on the license use cases page yet. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases i think i got them all. and the answers mainly came from reading things which had been discussed elsewhere, and weren't based on any new input from counsel, so don't take them as legal advice ;-) cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Why doesn't OSM implement a simple measure to protect it's users and passwords?
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Florian Lohoff wrote: Um, if you are nervous about others knowing that you participate in this project, then why do you do it? Is there an establishment out there that has an interest in preventing you from doing this? Would Teleatlas, Navteq, Google, AND, Ordnance Survey like their employees participate in Open Mapping projects? I would not want these employees to participate in OpenStreetMap during their working hours and from their office computers because more likely than not this would make the respective company a copyright/license holder in the data they produce, and thus render any license granted to OSM by the individual worthless. in the UK, its not such a great idea for TA/NT employees to contribute outside of work either... Even if the work is created by the employee in their own time and using their own resources, the employee will not necessarily be able to claim any rights in that work, if the employer shows that the nature of the work created was that which could be reasonably contemplated as part of the employee’s duties. This is demonstrated by the case of Missing Link Software v Magee [1989]. [1,2] cheers, matt [1] http://www.unitetheunion.com/member_services/legal_help/employment_issues/intellectual_property_works.aspx [2] http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/13-APR-%283%29-CR-EMPS-.htm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] List of changes from API only gives target tile of moved node
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Andre Hinrichs wrote: Anyway, if not many services use it (except t...@h) it would not create a high load on the server, so why drop it? I think it is certainly an odd one out among the API calls; no other API call concerns itself with tile numbers of a spherical Mercator projection. it seems like something that trapi [1] could calculate more effectively than the main API, given that trapi must know which data tiles have been updated with each diff. cheers, matt [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trapi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] last london pub meetup of the year
the wiki currently has the meetup set for the john snow on tuesday[1]. how do people feel about moving that to wednesday? cheers, matt [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London/Winter_2009-2010_Pub_Meetup ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.au wrote: Maybe I missed something in the discussion but... Why must there be migration to the new licence? mainly because the current license doesn't work. that is; in some jurisdictions it isn't able to enforce the attribution and share-alike features that most people expect. that's not the only reason, and you can find more information here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/File:License_Proposal.pdf http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License Why can't we run both indefinitely? for the same reason that, if your front door is broken and won't lock, you don't just double-lock your back door ;-) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dual/Multiple licencing
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org wrote: CCbySA says you must attribute where it came from, ODbl make no such demand. ODbL does make such a demand, see: http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ (sections 4.2 and 4.3) cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:37 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: It's clearly not the same difficulty. And the point of this is that it's going to be almost impossible to detect a derived database in use. You said yourself that you'd just assume that anyone processing OSM data would be presumed to be using a derived database. it is the same difficulty. it can be almost impossible to detect whether someone is using OSM data or not, especially if the output isn't tiles or extra data has been mixed in. The example I described above clearly demonstrates that you can't differentiate between company A who doesn't use a derived database and company B who does. You counter example, that maps are just as difficult is hardly relevant, and incorrect anyway. In most cases you can detect the infringment because you would have the evidence in front of you. my counter example is relevant, as it shows that the situation isn't really changing; only the terminology is changing. clearly we aren't going to be able to agree on this, but for the benefit of anyone else with the stamina to have reached this far down the thread: 1) if a company is publishing produced works, and isn't making an offer of a database available, you can contact them and ask them (politely of course) whether they have forgotten to make an offer of their derived database available. 2) if a company is publishing maps, and you suspect they're derived from OSM but aren't appropriately attributed or licensed, you can contact them and ask them (politely of course) whether they have forgotten to put the appropriate attribution and license on their maps. the situation we have at the moment is that most of these situations are clearly evidenced. with the ODbL i expect that to remain true, since it's going to be pretty obvious that company X's routing/geocoding/tiles aren't rendered directly from planet and will involve a derivative database. furthermore, i expect that in the future, as currently, most license violations will stem from an incomplete understanding of the license, or forgetfulness, more than maliciousness. The reality is that the derived database rule is almost unenforceable in the way that you describe it. It would be a massive drain on OSMF resources to try enforcing such a policy and would certainly be a very strong case for many commercial companies to avoid OSM data like the plague. i don't believe so. have you talked to any commercial companies who would be more put off by the new license than the old? cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:37 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: The example I described above clearly demonstrates that you can't differentiate between company A who doesn't use a derived database and company B who does. What if company C makes a derived database and gives it to company D? Does company D have to release the derived database? no. if company D is a subcontractor to company C and no produced works are published. if either company C or D publish produced works from the database, they must make an offer of it. if company D isn't a subcontractor then company C must make an offer of the database. Okay, so if company C makes derived database and gives it to company D, then company D creates tiles with that database, company D has to offer the database to anyone who receives the tiles, right? yes, if D is a subcontractor of C. otherwise both C and D must offer it. However, if company D downloads the original database from OSM, then company D creates tiles with that database, company D doesn't have to offer the database to anyone who receives the tiles, right? they've almost certainly created a derivative database, for example if they're using postgis+mapnik, so i'd say they would have to offer that database. Rereading the ODbL, this seems like the most natural way to read it. Assuming these two points are true, what is considered the original database? Anything on the official (planet.openstreetmap.org) download site? Only databases which were created by OSMF employees? Only the raw on-disk PostgreSQL datastores? Something else? technically, it's the on-disk postgresql datastore, plus the server implementation. the planet is a database dump, and loading that into a database is creating a derivative. If I distribute a tile on March 31, 2010, what exactly do I need to offer? The exact portion of the database which is used to create this tile? If the data later changes, I still need to keep the old version in case someone takes me up on my offer, right? Is it enough to keep the full history and expect people to look at the timestamps to figure out the state of the database at the time of their download? no. LWG took legal advice on this and it's sufficient to provide the latest version of the database, or whatever you have which is as close to the version the user used as possible. Can users decline the offer, in which case I can delete the database? Can I give users the option to download the database immediately or to decline the offer, so I don't have to keep historical data around indefinitely? it's not necessary to keep historical data. and you don't have to keep dumps around either. the offer is pretty much if you contact me, i'll give you my database as close as i can to the version you used. if you practically can't keep the dumps, then that's not a problem. if you delete all records of the database, then your only options are to recreate it, or reveal the method used to create it. Do they have to mention company C? if D produces works, or further distributes the database or a derivative of it then yes. What if company C gives them permission not to, or if company C asks them not to reveal who they are? attribution is at the company's option, so if company C doesn't want to be attributed then D can't mention them. the reverse is also true, if company C wants to be attributed then D can't remove that attribution notice. of course, neither C or D can remove the attribution to OSM, as OSM wants to be attributed. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Okay, so if company C makes derived database and gives it to company D, then company D creates tiles with that database, company D has to offer the database to anyone who receives the tiles, right? yes, if D is a subcontractor of C. otherwise both C and D must offer it. What constitutes being a subcontractor? Subcontractor as in work for hire? C has to offer it to whom? I thought C only has to offer the database to D. the wording used in ODbL is Persons other than You or under Your control by either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct their activities (such as contracting with an independent consultant). oops, what i wrote earlier wasn't quite right: C only has to offer the database to D, and D has to offer it to recipients of tiles. (unless, of course, C is publicly using the database as well.) You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work... So, if Company C makes a derived database, and gives it to Company D, and Company D makes a Produced Work, and gives it to Company E, Company C has to offer Company E the Derivative Database? i think at that point company D has to offer the derived database to company E. Can users decline the offer, in which case I can delete the database? Can I give users the option to download the database immediately or to decline the offer, so I don't have to keep historical data around indefinitely? it's not necessary to keep historical data. and you don't have to keep dumps around either. the offer is pretty much if you contact me, i'll give you my database as close as i can to the version you used. if you practically can't keep the dumps, then that's not a problem. if you delete all records of the database, then your only options are to recreate it, or reveal the method used to create it. So, you kind of didn't answer my question. If I distribute a produced work, can I ask the recipient Do you want the data?, and if they say no, then I never have to worry about them coming back and saying okay, now I want the data? sorry, i must have misunderstood the question. i think that would be between you and the recipient. I guess if I have to offer even downstream recipients the database, it doesn't much matter. That person might say they don't want the data, and then give the produced work to a friend, who then calls me on the phone and demands the data. yeah, the following passage might apply: if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License. which seems to imply that the offer extends to anyone who sees your produced work. i'm not sure how it extends to derivatives (where permitted) of your produced work, though... cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, OdbL has this requirement where, if you publish a produced work based on a derived database, you also have to publish either (a) the derived database or (b) a diff allowing someone to arrive at the derived database if he has the original, publicly available database or (c) an algorithm that does the same. Is that correct so far? you don't have to publish any of these. the language used is that you have to offer these things, which means you don't have to be able to host these things. for example, sending a DVD through the post is in compliance with the license. also, these things have to be in a machine readable form. I guess it would probably permitted to specify a number of PostGIS commands that achieve the changes. - Let us assume for a moment that applying these PostGIS commands would require a machine with 192 GB of RAM and Quad Quadcore processors and still take two weeks to complete, putting it out of reach of many users. Would it still be permitted to do that? yes. Or, would it be allowable to say: For simplification, a Douglas-Peucker algorithm link to DP wikipedia entry is used. (leaving open the exact implementation and parametrisation of DP - bear in mind that with some algorithms, how they work is easily explained but implementing them in a way that runs on standard hardware may be a hard task). no, i don't believe this would constitute machine readable form. Or, would it be allowed to say: For simplification, just load the data set into name of horribly expensive proprietary ESRI program and hit Ctrl-S X Y, then choose Export to PostGIS? i think this would constitute technological measures of restriction, so i think you'd need to provide a parallel distribution of the full unrestricted output. What about: For simplification, we did the following steps: detailed instructions that are easy to follow. These steps in this sequence are patented by us, so if you want to follow them, please apply to us for a license to use our patent. again, i think this would constitute technological measures, and would require a parallel unrestricted distribution. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On what basis can you demand from company B that they release their intermediate database? You don't know (for sure) that they have an intermediate database. The ODbL doesn't give you any rights to ask company A to warrant that they are not using an intermediate database. company B is required, under the ODbL, to provide an offer of their derived database (or a diff, etc...). What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database is involved in the process? if you suspect that someone is using a derived database, and isn't making an offer of it, you are suspecting that they are in breach of the ODbL. this can be tested by asking the company and, if they don't provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow. this is similar to the AGPL. if you suspected that someone was distributing or allowing users [to] interact[...] remotely through a computer network with a derivative version of AGPL'd code, you could ask them where the corresponding offer is and, if they don't provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:20 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:30 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database is involved in the process? if you suspect that someone is using a derived database, and isn't making an offer of it, you are suspecting that they are in breach of the ODbL. this can be tested by asking the company and, if they don't provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow. Exactly. On what grounds would you suspect that either company was using a derived database? by whatever grounds you'd suspect that a company was providing services based on AGPL software, or distributing a binary incorporating GPL software - gut instinct ;-) In the scenario I described you'd have no grounds for suspicion. yes. and you'd have no grounds for suspicion if a company were using modified AGPL software, so you have to rely on gut instinct. let's assume it's known that this company is definitely using OSM data - determining that can be difficult, depending on exactly what it is they're doing with the data. in general, it's very difficult to do anything directly from the planet file alone, so i'd suspect that any company doing anything with OSM data has a derived database of some kind and, if there's no offer evident on their site, i'd contact them about it. You're going to do that for every single organisation that publishes some kind of OSM data?!! Good luck. no, i'm going to assume that most organisations and are going to read the license and abide by it, the same way they'd read and abide by any other open source/content license. it's a similar situation to looking at a site and thinking they're using OSM data to render a map, without respecting the license. it's entirely possible that they have some other data source, or have collected the data themselves. so it's a gut instinct whether or not you think any of the data has come from OSM and should be followed up. Not at all. The lack of attribution is self evident. A derived database is not at all evident. company A: publishing a map with no attribution, but it's at least partly derived from OSM. company B: publishing a map with no attribution and it's all their own data. a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data isn't. you have no grounds for suspicion, but you might have a gut instinct. what do you do? cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:03 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: a lack of attribution is evident, but whether they're using OSM data isn't. you have no grounds for suspicion, but you might have a gut instinct. what do you do? If you have no grounds for suspicion then you do nothing. But checking the Easter Eggs is a pretty good method of establishing grounds in your example. That doesn't hold true for the derived databases in my scenario. are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the on the ground rule? ;-) it isn't a good method of establishing grounds if the data may have been modified by the inclusion of 3rd party data, or processed in a way which would change the visual texture of the data. basically, while sometimes you can be sure there's a derivative database or that data is from OSM, a lot of times you can't be. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:45 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: are there easter eggs in OSM? i thought we followed the on the ground rule? ;-) The two are not mutually exclusive. Ordnance Survey are well known for having very accurate maps, they are also known to have easter eggs. sure. but each easter egg is a deliberate inaccuracy. it isn't a good method of establishing grounds if the data may have been modified by the inclusion of 3rd party data, or processed in a way which would change the visual texture of the data. basically, while sometimes you can be sure there's a derivative database or that data is from OSM, a lot of times you can't be. I think you've lost the thread. Now, you are arguing that you can't spot a derivative database. i've been arguing that from the start. not only have i been saying it's difficult to tell if there's a derivative database, i've been saying it's the same difficulty as telling if a map is derived from OSM, or if a binary contains modified GPL code, or if a service is using modified AGPL code. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:52 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Hi, A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to be forked? Why not? The code is in svn and has been for ages, ready for forking. Of course, you can't change the license on the GPL code that you fork without re-writing it. The OSM data can be forked now as cc-by-sa as the data is right there in planet, ready for forking. You could fork data from an ODbL project the same way. Of course the same requirements for relicensing would exist. You'd have to essentially replace all of the data to relicense the data. Could a fork relicense the Content in a different way? As I understand it the Content is unrestricted by any license or copyright claim. there's nothing in the ODbL or contributor terms i can see that would forbid it, but part of the reason for that is the lack of basis in law for protecting individual (or non-Substantial amounts of) Content elements in most jurisdictions. it might work if copyright were asserted in the UK based on the sweat of the brow doctrine, but then you'd have to be very careful about not distributing it to the US and other jurisdictions where they follow a creativity doctrine. Obviously any collection of the Content that forms a substantial amount would have to be wrapped in ODbL, so I'm not sure what it would mean in practice, but it seems that someone could re-publish an ODbL licensed database that contained Content that was restricted by a no-modifications clause or a non-commercial clause. section 4.8 says, You may not sublicense the Database. Each time You communicate the Database, the whole or Substantial part of the Contents, or any Derivative Database to anyone else in any way, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Database on the same terms and conditions as this License. [...] You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. however, as you point out, this doesn't cover the Contents. i guess it's possible take the stance that there are no rights inherent in individual Contents (as in the US) and therefore any attempt to impose an ND/NC clause on the Contents isn't valid. I may not have understood the meaning of the Contributor Terms properly, but clause 2 seems to waive any rights in the Content from the contributors and I haven't seen anywhere that asserts any additional rights, so am I right to infer that the Content is not constrained in any way? yes, in non-Substantial amounts i believe so. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:21 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't asking for copyright assignment or any other rights assignment. that's a subtle, but often important difference. Matt, could you explain why it's an important difference please? because, when this issue has come up before, several people expressed concern about assigning copyright (or any other right) to the OSMF. there's a liberal license grant, but no assignment of rights. since people think it's an important issue, to avoid further confusion i thought it was important to point out that difference. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OBbL and forks
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/12/8 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com:
On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM,
mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk'); wrote:
A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to
be forked?
Technically, it does. But remember that the OSMF is granted a special
license in addition to the ODbL. Any fork would be at a major disadvantage
as it wouldn't have that special license.
Yes, because the osmf has a direct relationship with the contributors,
and any fork wouldn't. This is similar to the fsf, which asks its
contributors to assign copyright, giving it rights that any fork
purely under the GPL doesn't have.
Right, so this is one thing that isn't being made so clear. It's been
said multiple times that the ODbL transition in summary is the spirit
of CC-By-SA taken and made into a proper license for a database. But
actually it's the spirit of CC-By-SA + copyright assignment, like that
of Mozilla and others, which makes a difference.
it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't
asking for copyright assignment or any other rights assignment. that's
a subtle, but often important difference.
cheers,
matt
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are closed issues really closed post ODbL data removal plan
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com wrote: So my question is: 1. The closed issue I referred to contains the text OSMF counsel does not believe on something that seems to have fundamental significance to how the transition will be performed. Specifically the question of (addressed in my December 2008 mail) how we determine whether ODbL licensed works are derived from things still under the CC-BY-SA in February. The OSMF counsel seems to suggest that we only have to worry about this on a per-object basis, i.e. if there are some CC-BY-SA-only edits in the history of a given node/way/relation but I'd have thought we'd also have to worry about the case where someone has traced hundreds of amenity=* nodes from the layout of what's now a CC-BY-SA-only road network. But OSMF counsel thinks it's not necessary to remove nearby or adjoining elements. I know the OSMF contacted outside legal counsel to comment on the ODbL itself but has it solicited a second pair of eyes on these open/closed issues? It would be interesting to know whether other lawyers take such a narrow view of what constitutes a derived work. it would be interesting, and OSMF have contacted other lawyers for their opinion on other matters, but we only had one response. this doesn't fill me with confidence that if we asked for legal advice we would have many responses. on the other hand, OSMF counsel is a good lawyer, and i would expect him to know what he's talking about. if you know any lawyers who would be willing to give legal advice pro-bono, LWG would be very happy to hear about it. 2. Is anyone working on the technical side of the CC-BY-SA-only data removal, e.g. filtering the planet to throw out objects which have CC-BY-SA-only data in their history? I haven't seen anything on dev@ about this or on the wiki. What's the plan? yes. the plan (subject to change based on technical feasibility, of course) is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan#Marking_elements_.22OK.22 the key is that there must be an uninterrupted chain of ODbL-licensed elements from the first version of the element, followed by a referential integrity cleanup. at this point it's not clear that the relicensing will go ahead, but if it does you'll see more discussion of this on d...@. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] Are closed issues really closed post ODbL data removal plan
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com wrote: So my question is: 1. The closed issue I referred to contains the text OSMF counsel does not believe on something that seems to have fundamental significance to how the transition will be performed. Specifically the question of (addressed in my December 2008 mail) how we determine whether ODbL licensed works are derived from things still under the CC-BY-SA in February. The OSMF counsel seems to suggest that we only have to worry about this on a per-object basis, i.e. if there are some CC-BY-SA-only edits in the history of a given node/way/relation but I'd have thought we'd also have to worry about the case where someone has traced hundreds of amenity=* nodes from the layout of what's now a CC-BY-SA-only road network. But OSMF counsel thinks it's not necessary to remove nearby or adjoining elements. I know the OSMF contacted outside legal counsel to comment on the ODbL itself but has it solicited a second pair of eyes on these open/closed issues? It would be interesting to know whether other lawyers take such a narrow view of what constitutes a derived work. it would be interesting, and OSMF have contacted other lawyers for their opinion on other matters, but we only had one response. this doesn't fill me with confidence that if we asked for legal advice we would have many responses. on the other hand, OSMF counsel is a good lawyer, and i would expect him to know what he's talking about. if you know any lawyers who would be willing to give legal advice pro-bono, LWG would be very happy to hear about it. 2. Is anyone working on the technical side of the CC-BY-SA-only data removal, e.g. filtering the planet to throw out objects which have CC-BY-SA-only data in their history? I haven't seen anything on dev@ about this or on the wiki. What's the plan? yes. the plan (subject to change based on technical feasibility, of course) is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan#Marking_elements_.22OK.22 the key is that there must be an uninterrupted chain of ODbL-licensed elements from the first version of the element, followed by a referential integrity cleanup. at this point it's not clear that the relicensing will go ahead, but if it does you'll see more discussion of this on d...@. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned by companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting target. The safeguards that have been put in place (a vote of the OSMF membership and recent contributors) would be very easy to circumvent. they would have to first gain a majority of the OSMF members, which would take a lot of resources but i guess it's doable. but then they'd *further* need to gain a majority of active contributors, which would mean they'd need to find a majority of contributors editing in three out of the last six months. given that this number appears to be in the region of 70,000 mappers at the moment, and will presumably grow over time, i think this is too much effort even for a large mapping company. but, let's be constructive instead; what do you think would be an adequate safeguard while still allowing the license to change in response to community needs? There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing the Contributor Terms. They can do that at any point in the future without any kind of vote or other formality. That's a pretty big hole in itself the funny thing is, OSMF can't change the contributor terms once you've signed it. it's a contract between you and OSMF which follows the usual rule - it can only be amended by a further agreement in writing signed by both parties. so, no. OSMF can't change the contributor terms for existing contributors. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:03 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: You can't continue to claim that CC BY-SA is broken without some evidence of our data being abused. Put up or shut up, please. Show us the evidence of license abuse please. http://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg24536.html cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: If the value of OSM data ever gets very near the value of map data owned by companies like Navteq and Teleatlas then OSMF becomes a very tempting target. The safeguards that have been put in place (a vote of the OSMF membership and recent contributors) would be very easy to circumvent. they would have to first gain a majority of the OSMF members, which would take a lot of resources but i guess it's doable. but then they'd *further* need to gain a majority of active contributors, which would mean they'd need to find a majority of contributors editing in three out of the last six months. given that this number appears to be in the region of 70,000 mappers at the moment, and will presumably grow over time, i think this is too much effort even for a large mapping company. Easy enough to create fake accounts and bots to provide contributions. The contributor terms do not define the term contributor and it would be very onerous to sift through 70,000 accounts to try to differentiate between real and fake accounts. Not something that you'd be able to enforce very practically. but, let's be constructive instead; what do you think would be an adequate safeguard while still allowing the license to change in response to community needs? You could get the contributor terms reviewed by a decent lawyer for a start, with a brief to look at the terms with a view to protecting the rights of the contributors. If you've had any legal review what brief did you give them? as you well know, we've had the contributor terms reviewed by Clark, with the brief to look at if from OSMF's point of view and the contributor's point of view. so, having done that, what else do you think would be an adequate safeguard while still allowing the license to change in response to community needs? There's no safeguard, for example, that prevents the OSMF from changing the Contributor Terms. They can do that at any point in the future without any kind of vote or other formality. That's a pretty big hole in itself the funny thing is, OSMF can't change the contributor terms once you've signed it. it's a contract between you and OSMF which follows the usual rule - it can only be amended by a further agreement in writing signed by both parties. so, no. OSMF can't change the contributor terms for existing contributors. So existing contributors would be denied access until they assent to the new Contributor Terms. This is pretty common practice and most contributors would be inclined to click through without giving it much thought. Indeed it's how the OSMF propose to implement these terms in the first place. ok, let's try and be constructive about this... what would you suggest? given that this tactic would work with any service - the only thing i can think of is to have an organisation governed by its members; OSMF. this introduces other problems, which we've tried to work around, but i'd be thrilled to hear if there are better options. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors). Cheers As far as I understood (but some experts might rectify if I'm wrong), only the last contributor of an element will have to accept the new licence. this isn't correct. to recover the full history of an element all authors who have contributed to it will have to agree. for more details, please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan#Marking_elements_.22OK.22 So if your uploads are based on other authors who will reject the new licence, the data will remain anyway if you, the last contributor in the history of this element accepts the new licence. If you think that you could accept the new licence but not in these conditions, you might select the option no, I will not accept the new license Odbl but I will if the license is reworked and add some comments below. if you're in the US you could also accept the new license on Anthony's (as far as i can tell, correct) interpretation, which is that factual data doesn't gather copyright protection. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I'm not sure if it's enforceable or not. And I've asked on the legal list (so far without an answer) whether or not agreeing to the Contributor Terms requires also agreeing to the ODbL in ways that purport to reach beyond copyright law (which, here in Florida, is not very far). it's my understanding that agreeing to the contributor terms doesn't require agreeing to anything that purports to reach beyond copyright law. the license was written by a lawyer well-versed in US IP law and reviewed by another working (pro bono) on behalf of the OSMF who is also well-versed in US IP law. there are contractual components to the ODbL, but these are necessary as several lawyers have expressed doubt that copyright law alone can protect OSM data, especially in the US. for more information, please read the proposal document: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/File:License_Proposal.pdf I'd be willing to release my contributions into the public domain. But I won't agree to further restrictions on the OSM database which go beyond copyright law. Someone else pointed out that that's what Google does. Yeah, I thought OSM was supposed to be better than that. well, that's unfortunate. it would really help if we could understand why you don't feel you could agree to the contractual parts of the ODbL. they are there for a good reason and weren't included frivolously. In any case, I see little chance of the switch being made under the terms outlined. Between people who refuse the Contributor Terms and people who just never respond, there's likely going to be *way* too much to delete. we would obviously like to minimise the number of people who don't want to agree. we would like to be as inclusive as possible, but as several people have said already, we've been through a number of consultation periods, so we thought we'd ironed out most of the major objections. please remember, we've been working for a while to find a license for OSM which works, and protects the data we've all worked on. ODbL does this much better than CC BY-SA, which likely doesn't work at all in some jurisdictions. ODbL has very much the same license elements as CC BY-SA - it's an attribution and share-alike license. there are some differences, mostly in the underlying law used to enforce it and the way it concentrates on share-alike for the data, not the produced works. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF: The people you are going to hand over your OSM data ...
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:25 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF Chairman's position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own opinion. I'm not allowed to have opinions? Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM data? The OSMF wont own the data and you know it. The Contributor Terms contains the following clause: You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. That's pretty much as close as you can get to owning a piece of data. out of interest, would you prefer that it were worded like CC BY-SA? [you] hereby grant[s] [OSMF] a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below: [list of rights covered by the Berne convention.] The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and formats. as far as i can see the contributor terms definition says the same thing, except it's more concise. we strived for readability and brevity in the contributor terms, given that it will be read by so many people. do you think it would have been better to go for the longer version as CC BY-SA does? just as CC BY-SA contains limitations on the exercise of those rights (BY and SA), so does the contributor terms - initially only a release under CC BY-SA and ODbL, subject to a vote of the OSMF membership and active contributors if the need arises to change that to a different free and open license. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Now, when I download the OSM database from that mirror site, what binds me to the ODbL? Absolutely nothing. your email here proves you are aware of the terms of such a download. :-) for people who haven't so publicly demonstrated their awareness of the license, we will be showing (or linking to) the license wherever ODbL data can be downloaded and placing license metadata into the data downloaded from the OSM site, using dublin core definitions or similar. to use the file, one must be aware of the format, which implies familiarity with the site and documentation, therefore the license. either that, or the format can be figured out from looking at the file, which implies ample opportunity to notice the license metadata. several courts have upheld such browser wrap licenses. please see richard's wonderfully complete email here http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000479.html cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: Shaun McDonald schrieb: The License Working Group has spent months, well probably nearer years, on the license change. They know one heck of a lot more about legal systems than myself. They are people that I trust. Therefore I'm going to listen to them, and let them just get on with it. I really just wan this license change sorted out and completed as there are other more important things to be done. That probably reflects the problem best. I do *not* know the people from the License Working Group (as I guess most mappers won't do) - therefore I have no reasons to trust them or not. i guess introductions are in order - hi! my name is matt and i've been a contributor to OSM for over 4 years according to the website. if you've been to any of the SotM conferences we may have met, if not you can find me at most of the OSM meetups in London. it's entirely possible that, although we may not have met, you know someone who knows me. may i suggest that, if you trust them, you ask them whether they trust me? I do *not* see it as my personal duty to build trust in a license change that some people (I do not know) are trying to do. i absolutely understand your position. keeping up with the legal and licensing discussions is extremely time-consuming - it has consumed about 2 hours of my life per week directly in LWG meetings, and probably several times more in doing work for LWG and reading, researching and responding to legal-talk emails. it's onerous. on the other hand, the issues at stake are very important, as you say here: I can't see (by far) *any* more important thing in OSM than what will happen to my data in the future. the intent of CC BY-SA, as i see it, is to ensure that OSM data remains free in the same way that GPL ensures that source code remains free. a few years ago concerns were raised about whether copyright (the basis of CC BY-SA) applies to OSM's data. over the course of the intervening time several lawyers have been consulted, including Clark Asay who was able to act (pro-bono, thanks!) as counsel for OSMF. to my knowledge, every single one of these lawyers expressed grave doubts about CC BY-SA's ability to protect OSM data and ensure it remains free. but wasn't the point of CC BY-SA to protect our data and ensure it remains free? so the LWG was set up so that members of the OSM community could work together to find and refine a license which OSM could use to ensure those goals. we, like you, think that the future of the data, and it's enduring freedom, is of utmost importance. in collaboration with ODC, another organisation including an IP lawyer working pro-bono, we've developed the ODbL - an attribution and share-alike license developed specifically for databases like OSM. we believe that ODbL is better than CC BY-SA at protecting our data, and that we should move to it to ensure the future of our unique free and open geodata. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Now, when I download the OSM database from that mirror site, what binds me to the ODbL? Absolutely nothing. your email here proves you are aware of the terms of such a download. :-) The terms are not yet in place, and should they be put into place, I don't plan on using the website. i'm sorry you feel that way. for people who haven't so publicly demonstrated their awareness of the license, we will be showing (or linking to) the license wherever ODbL data can be downloaded and placing license metadata into the data downloaded from the OSM site, using dublin core definitions or similar. The fact that someone is shown a license doesn't mean that they agree to it. C'mon, I can add a license to the bottom of this email, does that mean that anyone who reads it thereby agrees to it? the agreement doesn't kick in from the reading of the license, it kicks in when you do something that only the license would permit you to do. in the case of a browser wrap, that is downloading the data. in the case that you already have the file, it's continuing to use it after you become aware of the terms. remember, rights are default: deny. the fact that you have access to the data at all implies that there is a license which you should be aware of. several courts have upheld such browser wrap licenses. please see richard's wonderfully complete email here http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000479.html I already explained the difference between them and OSM. If I download the OSM database from the OSM website, that's one thing. But how can I be bound by the terms of the OSM website if I download the database from some other website? the data would contain a link to and notice about the license. if someone obtains the database from OSM they must maintain the license notice, as required by ODbL. therefore, if someone downloads if from them, the license notice is intact and they implicitly agree to it as soon as they are simultaneously aware of it and performing acts governed by it. this is very similar to how copyright licenses (e.g: GPL) work - you don't have to click-though a license to get the source code. a notice about the license is included in the source code. you implicitly agree to the license as soon as you are simultaneously aware of it and perform acts governed by it (redistribution of modified source code or binaries). it's perfectly possible to obtain, modify, compile and distribute a GPL'ed application without seeing the GPL itself once, yet it still applies. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: I don't know, I find it somewhat mind-boggling that a site like OSM would even consider resorting to browse-through license agreements in order to impose terms which go beyond that of copyright. It's the exact oppose of what I'd expect from a site which calls itself open and free. i'm not sure i understand your point. OSM has a license which (tries to) impose requirements on the re-use of the data, but that's still open and free, right? CC-BY-SA doesn't try to impose any requirements which go beyond copyright law. you keep saying this, but i still don't understand. CC BY-SA imposes requirements *using* copyright law. ODbL imposes requirements *using* database law and contract law. Agreeing to CC-BY-SA can only give me, as the licensee, *more* rights, not take any away. Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws. CC-BY-SA is a unilateral conditional waiver of rights. ODbL, on the other hand, is a standard bilateral contract. which still gives you *more* rights. we're talking about moving to another license with very similar requirements, but a different implementation, and that's not open and free anymore? it would really help me if i could understand your position. Creative Commons said it better than I can: from my reading of creative commons comments they're saying something very different from what you seem to be saying. but maybe i'm just misunderstanding you. [ note: i've excerpted those sections which i thought were relevant] The result is that the ODbL can in certain circumstances impose obligations and restrictions on users under a contract theory, rather than based on a protection afforded by statute, common law, or other recognized right. indeed. this is kind of the point: the US and some other jurisdictions don't yet have a database rights law, so to enforce similar restrictions to CC BY-SA it's necessary to use some other method. Thus, it is not clear under the ODbL whether providers would have an independent breach of contract claim, in addition to an infringement claim, or even in the absence of an infringement claim, for any violations of the “license” (or alternatively, contract). This is important for several reasons. First, as discussed above, due to legal variations in copyright doctrines among different countries, as well as the availability of sui generis protection in some countries but not in others, there may be cases where an infringement claim is not available to a provider because no underlying property right exists. However, in such cases, could the provider seek to enforce a provision of the ODbL, such as the share-alike provision, under a contract theory instead? i think that's the idea, yes. And if it could do so, would that constitute an extension of protection beyond the scope intended by existing statutory schemes? For example, could data or databases that fail to qualify for copyright protection under U.S. law due to lack of the requisite level of creativity nevertheless be made subject to the share-alike provision in the U.S. under a contract theory? that's part of the point of ODbL, yes. Could this be applied to individual data elements that are not themselves copyrightable—such as sensor readings or basic facts and ideas? no, the ODbL explicitly doesn't cover individual elements of the database, covering the database as a whole (or substantial part) instead. Could European sui generis database rights be enforced against a U.S. user on the basis of the existence of a contractual relationship created by the ODbL? i don't really understand this question - the requirements of the ODbL can be enforced against a US user on the basis of a contractual relationship, but i don't think that equates to EU database rights. the ODbL is the ODbL, not an extension of EU law. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote: Matt Amos schreef: we're talking about moving to another license with very similar requirements, but a different implementation, and that's not open and free anymore? it would really help me if i could understand your position. Its honestly terribly simple. We get into a discussion over moving from a widely used `GPL2.0' like license that works for everyone, and best of all is compatible with everyone. it does neither of the above. imagine a situation in which source code were considered not to generate copyrights. any project licensed under GPL2.0 would lose protection. this is the situation we're in: copyright very probably doesn't apply to our database, yet the license we're using is based entirely on copyright. also, CC BY-SA isn't compatible with everyone. it's compatible with PD, attribution-only and itself. the exact same is true of ODbL. Some folks here think that BSD style should be our target. indeed. but wouldn't it be better to find a license which works first, then discuss what an even better license might be? Now the stearing committee thinks that for better protection we should go for OSI-APPROVED-LICENSE-X; that nobody is compatible with yet and worse. If we were Linux, we would have to remove our cool exotic network card drivers just to facilitate this move. And worst of all, all the nice vendors we were just talking with that were moved to going open are now bound to a contract... that sounds so... formal? well, such is the nature of legal documents :-( although, maybe it's familiarity talking, but i find ODbL less formal and easier to read than CC BY-SA's legal code. Until anyone can guarantee that every bit of CC-BY-SA could be used without problems in the new framework; I'm a skeptic. And basically think about the deletionism in Wikipedia. Or wasting capital in real life. i'm afraid i can't dispel your skepticism, then. it's possible we could just keep all the old CC BY-SA data, since the license governing it doesn't work, but i think this would be too radical a step for the OSMF board ;-) our choices are basically the following: 1) continue to use a license which legal experts seem to agree doesn't work for us. 2) move to a new license. option (2) will likely mean that some data is lost and i don't think option (1) is what people really want. which do you prefer? cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: therefore, if someone downloads if from them, the license notice is intact and they implicitly agree to it as soon as they are simultaneously aware of it and performing acts governed by it. By continuing to read this email, you agree to the following terms and conditions. If you disagree, you must delete this email immediately. Your continued reading indicates your acceptance Kind of like that? except that by continuing to read i wasn't exercising any rights governed by your license. ;-) this is very similar to how copyright licenses (e.g: GPL) work - you don't have to click-though a license to get the source code. a notice about the license is included in the source code. you implicitly agree to the license as soon as you are simultaneously aware of it and perform acts governed by it (redistribution of modified source code or binaries). it's perfectly possible to obtain, modify, compile and distribute a GPL'ed application without seeing the GPL itself once, yet it still applies. The GPL, like CC-BY-SA, is based on copyright law. The GPL, like CC-BY-SA, is a unilateral conditional waiver of rights (you may do X, provided that you do Y). The ODbL, on the other hand, is set up as a bilateral exchange of covenants (we promise X, you promise Y). That is, in fact, the whole point of the ODbL. It attempts to reach, through contract law, into jurisdictions where copyright law does not apply. yes, that is the point of ODbL. but it attempts to reach where database law doesn't apply. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: CC BY-SA imposes requirements *using* copyright law. No it doesn't. Copyright law imposes requirements. CC-BY-SA provides a waiver to some of those requirements. a conditional waiver - the conditions of which aren't imposed by copyright law. ODbL, on the other hand, is a standard bilateral contract. which still gives you *more* rights. What right does it give me which I didn't already have? under the current license, in your jurisdiction, apparently none. from my reading of creative commons comments they're saying something very different from what you seem to be saying. but maybe i'm just misunderstanding you. I guess so, which is why I quoted them. The result is that the ODbL can in certain circumstances impose obligations and restrictions on users under a contract theory, rather than based on a protection afforded by statute, common law, or other recognized right. indeed. this is kind of the point: the US and some other jurisdictions don't yet have a database rights law, so to enforce similar restrictions to CC BY-SA it's necessary to use some other method. Okay, well, that's my point. I don't want to have those restrictions imposed. they're intended to be imposed. CC BY-SA doesn't work, but the intention of the licensing is clear. did you look at the CC BY-SA license and say, hey, these guys want me to share-alike, but i'm in a jurisdiction where that's unenforceable, so i'll just take the data, not attribute and give nothing back? Although, I don't see how they're similar restrictions to CC-BY-SA, since you agree that CC-BY-SA doesn't enforce those restrictions. yes, i should have said similar restrictions to those that intended by a choice of CC BY-SA, but sometimes i get bored of typing so much ;-) I live in the United States. I can do whatever the heck I want with the OSM database. Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those rights. So I'll ask again: What's in it for me? nothing directly. but maybe you'd like to respect the intentions of those other contributors who agreed to a license that they thought would ensure that you can't do whatever the heck you want without attributing and sharing-alike? cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: question about commercial use. import of data in OSM format
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fi wrote: Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@... writes: From: paul everett tap...@... What happens if the user imports an OSM file and I convert it to a virtual city model ? Then the city model has to be licensed the same way as the OSM data. At least, that is the current interpretation of the license. But if the data will be moved under ODbL next spring then the city model will perhaps be interpreted to be a Produced work and it could be licensed in any way you want. In that case you will need to make the database you have used for producing city models available under ODbl. It may mean that you must publish the procedure you are using for converting data from OSM format to some interim format that your city modeler component is using. If that is the piece of intelligence you are using for earning your living, be careful. i don't think anywhere in the ODbL it says that. if you distribute a produced work based on a derived database then you have to distribute the derived database. it was suggested that, in addition to the named methods of a) distributing a full dump or b) distributing a diff between the derived and original, a third method be added which is publishing the procedure. this *doesn't* mean that anyone has to open their source code or their secret procedures, just that they're limiting their options for distributing derived databases to either full dumps or diffs. ODbL might be a viral license, but it's only viral to data, never software. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] cloudmade maps copyright terms and conditions
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: If I have data derived from OSM data, do I have to distribute it? The licence does not force you to distribute or make any data available. But if you do choose to distribute it, or anything derived from it, it must be under the same licence terms as the OSM data. I read this like cloudmade could use their maps for their own purposes without redistributing it, or they have to put their maps under cc-by-sa 2.0 as well. Or did I misunderstand something? Well...does showing a map on a website mean you are distributing it? That's somewhat disputed in the US. If you're not distributing it, then you're publicly displaying it. But most courts have said it's distribution, despite the fact that people arguing for public display have a better legal argument :). CC-BY-SA doesn't seem to have any provision for public display of modified versions. Which I suppose technically means you're not allowed to do it at all. doesn't it? section 4b: You may distribute, **publicly display**, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, ... (emphasis mine) i don't see what the fuss is about - cloudmade's tiles are CC BY-SA, cloudmade's site isn't. you can redistribute a screenshot containing only tiles under CC BY-SA. you can't distribute a screenshot of the whole site, as that would contain non-CC BY-SA stuff. although i'm sure if you asked nicely, cloudmade wouldn't mind. as richardf pointed out, the legalese could be clearer. but to me it's already clear enough. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Extent of share alike?
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 5:48 AM, David Vaarwerk da...@mineraldata.com.au wrote: Thanks for your all the responses, they do help. I think keeping the map and the business data separate with a double license is the best solution as suggested. So I will have a map with only OSM data, obviously anything I put in will become CC. I am happy to share the geographic location (lat. long.) of all businesses if OSM wants or can take this info (the obvious problem is space on the map and that businesses are constantly moving - updating becomes an issue). To keep things separate on another web page within the site I will serve from a separate database business information (phone number, website, service etc) that will have no geographic location information in it. The only overlap will be a business name. As far as I can see OSM doesn't record the street address of cafe's etc only their location. street addresses of any feature can be recorded in OSM. see the karlsruhe schema [1] for more information and [2] for an example of it in use. cheers, matt [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/Karlsruhe_Schema [2] http://osm.org/go/euutR1zjR-- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Extent of share alike?
On 11/2/09, David Vaarwerk da...@mineraldata.com.au wrote: I have made a map and business guide from scratch that you can see here http://www.mineraldata.com.au/wp/index.html [1]. I would like to share the map data with OSM and use OSM as a base map for this and other maps/ business guides - I assume there is no problem with this as long as I attribute the work. wow. that looks awesome! However, my question is, how far does the share alike section of the Creative Commons licence go. I want to share the map data with OSM but not the other sections of the work. this lack of clarity is one of the problems with the CC BY-SA license. the short answer is: i'm not sure. the longer answer is: the image you render to the screen must be CC BY-SA licensed, and therefore allow people to do all the things they can do with a CC BY-SA work. but you may have other rights in your data depending on your jurisdiction. whether you can use these to prevent sharing of the business directory is a question for a Real Lawyer. Is someone able to clarify this? Can I just share the map data? actually, you don't have to share the map data. CC BY-SA considers only the published work, which in your case is the image that the flash app renders to the screen. only that work needs to be CC BY-SA, although we obviously welcome sharing more! for a (maybe) definitive answer, you might want to contact a lawyer. it's a hassle, but they're the only people who can give you real legal advice. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Illegal activity
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk wrote: On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Valent Turkovic valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:29:37 -0500, Ian Dees wrote: Although it may/may not be illegal, it is definitely a breach of contract. Sorry for misleading title, but I still don't understand how this can be permitted. It isn't permitted. Don't let the posts here arguing the details of whether it should be permitted confuse anything. OSM has one simple rule: if in doubt, don't. A lot of people think it's probably OK, but but Google aren't exactly unambiguous on the issue and there are certainly enough people around claiming rights that it leaves reasonable doubt unless the provider tells you explicitly that it's OK. Or in brief: don't use Google for OSM. +1 let's keep talking to Google (Ed/Leslie/whoever). but until we get something explicit and public and non-fuzzy (and preferably in writing) then it's still in doubt - please don't use Google for OSM. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL enforcement: contract law and remedies
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: you'd happily support distributing the data under a license which is not likely to protect it? I happily support the status quo, where map data is freely available under CC share-alike terms, and I see no evidence of evil mapmakers copying it with impunity. absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and so forth ;-) I think he's asking for evidence of not likely. that can be found in the why cc by-sa is unsuitable document. i went into the first point at length, referencing some legal precedents (mostly in the US). i've had several people look over and check the document, including lawyers, so i'm fairly sure that the reasoning isn't wrong. The legal theory sounds reasonable as far as it goes, but there is little evidence that there is any problem in practice. so it makes sense to move to ODbL - then there's a sound theory as well as no problems in practice. Has any lawyer in fact said to you: as things stand, it is quite possible to copy OSM data in the United States, redistribute it under any restrictive licence you want, with nothing that the OSM contributors can do about it; and I would give this legal advice to my clients. In my view this is very far from being the case. of course not - lawyers don't talk like that. lawyers have actually said to me; CC BY-SA isn't a strong license for factual data. it would be difficult to defend in the US and other jurisdictions where copyright doesn't cover factual data. from looking at the case law, both RichardF and i have come to the conclusion that CC BY-SA just doesn't work for OSM, and that ODbL is better (fsvo better). the science commons people also looked at CC licenses for non-creative data [1] and came to the conclusion that: Many databases, however, contain factual information that may have taken a great deal of effort to gather, such as the results of a series of complicated and creative experiments. Nonetheless, that information is not protected by copyright and cannot be licensed under the terms of a Creative Commons license. so, no - no lawyer has ever given me a statement as strongly-worded as i'd advise my clients to take OSM data and re-license it, presumably because there is some risk that we could sue in NL or BE or something like that. on the other hand, from a defensibility point-of-view, OSMF can't possibly enforce all its rights in dutch and belgian courts - many license violators will have no assets or presence in the EU. if we carry on licensing CC BY-SA we may get to the state where CC BY-SA is challenged. if the challenge is in the US, i think there's a good chance of OSMF losing, in which case we would have to scramble to get a new license in place. the way i see it, there are two options: 1) decide that licensing is more trouble than it's worth and PD the lot (since that would be more-or-less the effect of losing a challenge in the US anyway), 2) move to a more defensible license before CC BY-SA is challenged. cheers, matt [1] http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/databases/#canicc ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL enforcement: contract law and remedies
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: Dr Evil doesn't need an unlimited legal budget - he just needs to live in a country where non-creative data isn't copyrightable. ...and in a country where it is crystal clear that the OSM data is 'non-creative'. That point is far from obvious to me. it's crystal clear to me: OSM data represents what exists on the ground - it represents facts. the US definition of creativity is (paraphrasing) that two independent people doing the same thing come up with different outputs, each expressing individual creativity. i'd argue that if two OSM mappers mapped the same features over the same area then the output wouldn't differ significantly (i.e: by more than the tolerance of the GPS/aerial imagery/etc...). therefore OSM data is unlikely to be considered creative. Even in the USA there is certainly enough meat in OSM for a straightforward copyright infringement case, IMHO. If it were a collection of pure facts with no expressive content and no scope for imagination or judgement then I would agree that trying to enforce share-alike with CC-BY-SA is problematic. i don't agree. if we just wanted to give maps away for free then we'd PD it. if we want stronger copyleft than that, then we have to start thinking about enforcing those copylefts. Yes. But if enforcement comes at a cost, you must trade off how much legal weaponry you want against the disadvantages of a more complex or (in some ways) more restrictive licence. I lock the door of my house, but it is not a worthwhile tradeoff for me to install barbed wire fencing, searchlights or a moat. Even though there is a theoretical possibility someone could break in, the deterrent of a locked door is sufficient in practice. Even though the fact that something hasn't happened in the past does not guarantee it won't happen, I can use the past few years of experience as some justification for saying the current deterrent is enough. from discussions with lawyers and reading background case law, i'd say that CC BY-SA for OSM data is like leaving your front door wide open and a sign saying there may or may not be a vicious dog, no-one has found out yet. The question to ask is not 'is our legal framework absolutely watertight in smacking down anyone, anywhere in the world, who violates the licence' but rather 'is it a strong enough deterrent in practice to make sure that share-alike principles are followed and promote free map data'? no legal framework is ever absolutely watertight. ODbL isn't watertight. CC BY-SA is a sieve. if we carry on licensing CC BY-SA we may get to the state where CC BY-SA is challenged. if the challenge is in the US, i think there's a good chance of OSMF losing, Would that be such a disaster? If such a precedent were set, then any factual data derived from OSM would also be in the public domain in that country, PD isn't viral - any factual data derived from OSM might well be protected by other IP rights (e.g: database rights) reserved by the deriver. In the particular case of the US, there is no database right. fine, then privacy or publicity rights, trademark rights, patent rights, or any other IP. the rights aren't important - what's important is that a failure of CC BY-SA is a failure of share-alike. additionally, there's the difference between what CC BY-SA requires you to share and what ODbL requires you to share. sure, CC BY-SA might keep the tiles in the free domain, but it doesn't keep the data in the free domain. This depends on what exclusionary rights OSMF and the contributors have over the data, which is what we are discussing. If the data is subject to copyright then yes, CC-BY-SA does keep it free. If copyright does not apply and there is no database right to consider, then CC-BY-SA does not work, but I doubt that any other licence would. You can try making a contract or EULA as the ODBL does, but that is flaky; if the data is truly in the public domain, then courts are unlikely to accept that adding any amount of legal boilerplate will change that. flaky is better than nothing. CC BY-SA doesn't work and database rights aren't widespread. that doesn't leave much to work with. If you take a very sceptical, pessimistic view of CC-BY-SA's effectiveness and enforceability, you should do the same for ODBL. I don't think that is always the case here. yes, let's do the analysis: CC BY-SA in NL, BE: databases are copyrightable, making the ported license strong. the non-ported less so, but the fundamental protections are still there. ODbL in NL, BE: EU database directive makes the license strong. CC BY-SA in wider EU: copyright provisions vary - some countries would follow the creativity model, others would respect the sweat of the brow and give some protection. ODbL in wider EU: database directive makes the license strong. CC BY-SA in other countries: copyright provisions vary - some
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL enforcement: contract law and remedies
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Remember, though, that there are huge transaction costs associated with any licence switch. Even if you agree that CC-BY-SA is less than ideal, it might be better than deleting big chunks out of the database and alienating parts of the contributor base. It might also undermine expectations of the project's stability. After all if we go through one big data deletion and relicensing, what's to stop it happening again later? CC BY-SA is certainly less than ideal - it doesn't protect those copyleft principles in large parts of the world. there has been some FUD about these deletions of data. let me say it here: no data will be deleted. if the re-licensing goes ahead then all of the data that everyone has contributed would be made available through dumps. we could not retrospectively re-license old planet files and dumps, so these would continue to be available. the CC-licensed data would not be deleted. but, of course, it couldn't appear in the ODbL-licensed dumps. PD is easy to understand, provides maximum usefulness of our data in all possible circumstances, and requires absolutely zero man-hours of work tracking down violators; creates no community friction because over-eager license vigilantes have to be reined in; poses no risk of seducing OSMF to spend lots of money on lawyers; allows us to concentrate on or core competencies. Agreed. There is certainly a risk of the project being captured by lawyers or, worse, overenthusiastic amateurs, and getting sidetracked into enforcing rights rather than forwarding its goal of free map data. That is one reason why I think a simpler, less armed-to-the-teeth licence may in the end be a good thing. agreed. we at the LWG have been working very hard to produce the license that we think the majority of OSM contributors want. a large amount of previous discussion on this and the talk MLs has suggested that share-alike is a much-requested feature*, so we've been working to that goal as best we can. your suggestion that we're overenthusiastic amateurs, sidetracking the project is deeply insulting. let's say, for a moment, that CC BY-SA definitely doesn't work and isn't an option. what would you do? if you'd move to a new license, which license? cheers, matt *: it may be that it's only requested by the vociferous minority, but until someone does a rigorous poll of a significant portion of the OSM contributors, it's the only evidence we have. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL enforcement: contract law and remedies
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: we at the LWG have been working very hard to produce the license that we think the majority of OSM contributors want. a large amount of previous discussion on this and the talk MLs has suggested that share-alike is a much-requested feature*, so we've been working to that goal as best we can. your suggestion that we're overenthusiastic amateurs, sidetracking the project is deeply insulting. Sorry. I would like to withdraw that remark. It is clear that everyone working on licence issues has the best interests of the project at heart. thank you. we all want a license which is clear, elegant, understandable and bulletproof. of course, this isn't possible, but we want to get as close as we can to that ideal. let's say, for a moment, that CC BY-SA definitely doesn't work and isn't an option. what would you do? if you'd move to a new license, which license? Assuming, then, that a licence change is required (along with 'deleting' data from people who don't agree, etc). I would prefer one which is CC-compatible, so public domain would work, or some permissive licence such as CC0. which bits need to be CC-compatible? any produced work, i.e: tiles, can be released under CC BY-SA with the ODbL, allowing maps to be included in any CC-licensed work or site. does the database itself need to be CC-compatible? However, if it is not possible to have both CC-compatible and share-alike properties at the same time, which is what you are suggesting, and if share-alike is considered the more important of the two, then I would choose a licence which tries to enforce share-alike through copyright and database right. the ODbL does this. In a country where neither copyright nor database right exists for map data, good luck to them - obviously they've realized the value of free map data, which is what OSM has been promoting all along. I would not choose a licence which purports to make a contract, or which would require click-through agreement before downloading planet files. actually, there's no reason for a click-through to download data. we've discussed this with lawyers and, although it further reduces the enforceability of the license, we don't want to put barriers in the way of people using the data. the current suggestion is to put the license as a link in the header of the file and display the license prominently anywhere that data can be downloaded, just as is the case with CC BY-SA. anyone reading the file, or writing software to manipulate it, would have to be aware of the existence of this link (and of the format of the file) and therefore be aware of the license and their obligations with respect to it. i totally agree it's weaker than a click-through, but it's more practical and better than not having anything. In general, the ideal licence would not need to be fully watertight in all jurisdictions, but only strong enough to provide a good deterrent in practice for most individuals and companies. indeed. but until there's a near-global consensus on database rights (as the Berne convention does for copyrights) we don't have that option. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL enforcement: contract law and remedies
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes:
let's say, for a moment, that CC BY-SA definitely doesn't work and
isn't an option. what would you do? if you'd move to a new license,
which license?
I would prefer one which is CC-compatible,
which bits need to be CC-compatible? any produced work, i.e: tiles,
can be released under CC BY-SA with the ODbL, allowing maps to be
included in any CC-licensed work or site. does the database itself
need to be CC-compatible?
In my ideal ponies world the database itself would be CC-compatible, so
people could generate excerpts ('list of all pubs in Swindon') and include
that in CC works.
would the list of all pubs in Swindon be a database, or a produced
work? if it's included, formatted as a table perhaps, in a web page it
might be more appropriate to consider it a produced work. although, if
alphabetically ordered, it might meet the definition of a database...
for reference, the definition of a database in ODbL is:
A collection of material (the Contents) arranged in a systematic or
methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other
means offered under the terms of this License.
That is good. To return to ponies for a moment, my licence would also
be quite clear that 'You do not have to accept this licence, since you
have not signed it.' So if there is no underlying legal reason why you
can't distribute the data, you are not required to accept any contract.
that would basically mean the license would be equivalent to PD/CC0 in
the US (where there are no database rights or copyrights on factual
data), wouldn't it? which would mean the share-alike parts only apply
in the EU?
cheers,
matt
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL enforcement: contract law and remedies
On 10/28/09, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: let's assume some data are taken and modified and used to generate tiles. the ODbL would require that the modified data are made available, regardless of the license of the tiles. if the data were effectively-PD then there would be no requirement to make the modified data available (although i guess it would be allowable to trace the tiles, subject to the ToS of the site). likewise, CC BY-SA requires that the tiles are CC BY-SA, but requires nothing regarding the redistribution of the data. You're right. In a way this is like the source code requirement of copyleft licences for computer software. So it's one case where the ODBL gives a stronger share-alike than CC-BY-SA. (I would check, however, that this isn't going to slow the uptake of OSM by sites which want to draw their own maps showing houses for sale, etc. They would not be happy having to publish that additional data because it could be considered a Derived Database under the ODBL.) we had a long thread on this a couple of weeks ago (ODbL virality questions) from which i think the consensus was that linking OSM data with data from independent sources creates a collective database, rather than a single derivative database. this is permissive enough to allow 3rd parties to use OSM data in their sites whilst still protecting the OSM data. in this respect it's like the LGPL more than the GPL. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL enforcement: contract law and remedies
On 10/28/09, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: these sites are in non-compliance with the license http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution Would switching to ODBL (or any licence) solve this particular problem? quite possibly, since ODbL or PD would allow the tiles to be licensed in whichever way the renderer / cartographer sees fit. but certainly the ODbL makes the discussions of data licensing and produced work licensing orthogonal. as a thought experiment, what would happen if i took the latest planet and put it up on my server (let's assume that both i and my server are in the US) with a PD license? So what then? One of the copyright holders would have to sue. [...] Even if the case is not cut and dried, there is certainly enough here to keep the lawyers busy for a while. Which, IMHO, is a strong enough deterrent for anyone thinking of misusing the data. Consider how much time and money the SCO - Linux case has taken up so far, on a far flimsier basis. One thing which weakens the case is that there is not a single copyright holder. Certainly copyright assignment to a single entity such as the OSMF would make it easier to sue. which of the contributors out there has the funds to hire a lawyer in the US? copyright assignment has been discussed before, but i remember there were a lot of objections. it seems that copyright assignment wasn't very popular, despite that being the solution that the FSF have chosen for their software. (As discussed earlier, even if the USA declines to recognize any copyright interest in OSM data, there are other jurisdictions, and few US companies would want to use data they had to keep strictly within the USA's borders or risk a lawsuit. I just don't believe it would happen.) if you're suing an individual then you pretty much have to sue in the jurisdiction where that individual lives. large companies are easier, because they operate in several jurisdictions. i agree it's unlikely to happen, but it's better to have a more defensible legal position in case it does. i think we're agreed that all licenses have flaws. the sticking point seems to be that i'm of the opinion that CC's flaws are so great that the hassle of moving to a better license is the lesser evil. you appear to be of the opinion that the hassle is greater than any potential benefits. is that an accurate statement? That is fair; I might even go so far to say that with 50k contributors, a licence change is 'totally unworkable' and 'not an option', to borrow some of the phrases used earlier. However I would like to be pleasantly surprised about this. yep. i'd say that a license change is difficult, but that the alternative is worse; continuing with a license which can be described using those same phrases ;-) cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL enforcement: contract law and remedies
On 10/28/09, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: we had a long thread on this a couple of weeks ago (ODbL virality questions) from which i think the consensus was that linking OSM data with data from independent sources creates a collective database, rather than a single derivative database. No that was what The PD/Fairhurst Doctrine states. ODBL seems to mean that we loose almost everything that is share-alike with the current license if we don't interpret the collective database loop hole a lot harder than what The PD Doctrine does. the Fairhurst doctrine was an interpretation of the ODbL - in my opinion it's the best interpretation and doesn't create any loopholes. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question regarding commercial use
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Sven Benhaupt sven.benha...@googlemail.com wrote: 2009/10/26 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org Thanks a lot for your quick answer, this was very helpful for me. If so - would it also be legally ok if I would create a print map Yes, but the printed map is not a collective work any more; at least under CC-BY-SA the printed map would have to be licensed CC-BY-SA, *including* the depicted vehicle routes/positions. OSM has no problem with that, and your delivery company probably hasn't either (remember, CC-BY-SA does not mean you have to put it up on a web site or something, just that anyone who legally gets hold of such a printout may do whatever he or she likes with it). Ok, this is also what I understood. But as far as I'm informed the OSM project will change it's licensing soon (ODbl) - will it then still be legal to use the OSM data the way we want to use it? yes. if the change to ODbL goes through it is likely that the OSM tiles will remain CC BY-SA, or possibly move to a less restrictive license. in either case, what you are proposing will still be legal - and i think we want it to always stay that way. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
