Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
Well, it has been stated multiple times that it was a lawyer opinion that Francis Davey, who also claims to be a lawyer, gave an opposite opinion. CC-BY-SA didn't apply to our data, and factual databases aren't protected by Which is a false premise, map data isn't factual data and copyright on maps doesn't care if they are stored in a database or in print form, making maps takes creative effort, take 10 different mappers and give them the same sources and you will end up with different end results. CC-BY-SA be applicable to factual databases, but unfortunately also doesn't We're not dealing with a factual database, we're dealing with map data that just happens to be stored in DB form. I am also sure that map database is not a set of facts, it is much more a piece of art. However, it is not really relevant what me, you or some layers think about it. If legislation (or case law) in an important enough region (such as US) tells that map database is a database then we should be prepared and play their game. -- Jaak ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Julio Costa Zambelli julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote: On 23 June 2011 16:52, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: It's much closer to what's been happening in the Arab States this year: There are at least two big difference between revolutions in the Maghreb and Arab Countries, and the License discussion inside OSM. In this mailing lists it doesn't matter if a position is backed by one or ten thousand people, one persons email message weight the same as fifty thousand people shouting at Tahrir Square, even if that message has more in common with one crazy guy screaming about conspiracy theories outside ground zero. Basically all you are saying is that mailing lists are a bad way to measure support. And I agree 100%. Can you can prove that the average contributor thinks that the average contributor thinks that the benefits* of the ODbL exceeds the cost of implementing it** ? Then I will personally start telling people that they are in the minority and should go away. *: Looking at whitehouse.gov, the software on my phone etc, I can't see a single thing that will change (either positive or negative). **: To implement it, we will have to delete some data. We are bothering people by sending them email and if they do not respond, we use facebook etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 Jun 2011, at 06:32, Mike Dupont wrote: but being locked out of osm is also not pretty. No one is locked out of OSM. You are free to contribute under the CTs, as you always have been. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23/06/2011 17:35, John Smith wrote: On 24 June 2011 01:27, Robert Scottli...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: So - what, you're saying we should be doing the whole list-ten-thousand-names-in-the-corner thing? I don't understand - what's your point? My point is, why should other sites be forced into attribution even OSM-F isn't willing to give it's own contributors, nor make it easy for people to find it without it being pointed out. 4. At Your or the copyright owner’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.; Hope that helps. I am personally not going to put my name there, I have always felt that my contributions are more important then my name. Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
Nic wrote: Basically all you are saying is that mailing lists are a bad way to measure support. And I agree 100%. Can you prove that the average contributor thinks that the benefits* of the ODbL exceeds the cost of implementing it** ? Then I will personally start telling people that they are in the minority and should go away. *: Looking at whitehouse.gov, the software on my phone etc, I can't see a single thing that will change (either positive or negative). **: To implement it, we will have to delete some data. We are bothering people by sending them email and if they do not respond, we use facebook etc. I doubt there are any average contributors on this list. I won't be staying much longer since my return the other day because there has been very little worth reading (perhaps even including this message I'm sending), and too much that wasn't that I regret wasting my time reading. But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever they are - is there a fosmf?) seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org did with the original CTs; should they ever need to relicense (say move from cc-by-sa 2.0 to 3.0) the data, then as far as I can tell they will need to contact all the contributors or themselves risk data loss. It would perhaps be better to have their CTs now such that it is clear that only active contributors will be contacted if such a change is required and what majority will be required for a change to happen. Perhaps this should be discussed on talk-le...@fosm.org when they get as far as setting up email lists. I'm also curious who counts as the contributor for all the stuff imported from OSM; presumably it counts as a single contributor's imports. Anyway, as this process has taken about 5 years so far I am glad it is reaching the end at last, and a small loss of data which with the rapid growth in the number of contributors should take little time to replace. Almost all of us here joined the project after it was clear that an attribution sharealike licence applied to our contributions, and now there is such a licence that covers the data, and CTs that make any future move from say ODBL 1 to ODBL2 less painful, that can only be a good thing. Oh, and another added benefit is that once we reach phase 5 I can probably come back on various OSM related email lists without all threads degenerating into license debates. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 18:06, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: 4. At Your or the copyright owner’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.; Hope that helps. I am personally not going to put my name there, I have always felt that my contributions are more important then my name. Is that page even linked to from the map itself? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 18:10, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever they are - is there a fosmf?) seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org did with the original CTs; should they ever need to relicense (say move from cc-by-sa 2.0 to 3.0) the data, then as far as I can tell http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode Section 4 part b You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: But I had a look at fosm.org yesterday and they (whoever they are - is there a fosmf?) There is no fosmf, and I rather hope there never will be. seem to be making the same mistake that osm.org did with the original CTs; should they ever need to relicense (say move from cc-by-sa 2.0 to 3.0) the data, then as far as I can tell they will need to contact all the contributors or themselves risk data loss. CC-BY-SA 2.0 already has an upgrade clause and there's no intention of ever changing the license. If it was every necessary it would be done the right way, by forking the project. And anyone is free to do that at any time... It would perhaps be better to have their CTs now such that it is clear that only active contributors will be contacted if such a change is required and what majority will be required for a change to happen. Perhaps this should be discussed on talk-le...@fosm.org when they get as far as setting up email lists. Since fosm.org is not about forking the community, only the license, I very much doubt that we'll need one of those. And I very much doubt that we'll have anything to talk about that isn't also directly applicable to OSM (tagging, mapping parties, imagery etc). I'm also curious who counts as the contributor for all the stuff imported from OSM; presumably it counts as a single contributor's imports. No, the contributor is the person who owns the copyright. That's you for your contributions. Anyway, as this process has taken about 5 years so far I am glad it is reaching the end at last, and a small loss of data which with the rapid growth in the number of contributors should take little time to replace. If only... Almost all of us here joined the project after it was clear that an attribution sharealike licence applied to our contributions, and now there is such a licence that covers the data, and CTs that make any future move from say ODBL 1 to ODBL2 less painful, that can only be a good thing. Oh, and another added benefit is that once we reach phase 5 I can probably come back on various OSM related email lists without all threads degenerating into license debates. That would be something positive. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24/06/2011 10:21, John Smith wrote: On 24 June 2011 18:06, Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz wrote: 4. At Your or the copyright owner’s option, OSMF agrees to attribute You or the copyright owner. A mechanism will be provided, currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution.; Hope that helps. I am personally not going to put my name there, I have always felt that my contributions are more important then my name. Is that page even linked to from the map itself? We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each and every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is the important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate changes to the Copyright and License page. Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each and every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is the important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate changes to the Copyright and License page. But that still falls short of what OSM-F is telling everyone else, but failing to do itself on it's own map, it doesn't make it immediately obvious where attribution can be found to end users. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:35 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: n 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each and every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is the important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate changes to the Copyright and License page. fosm.org has a link, indirectly, to that page and all the appropriate copyright notices in it's API. Can anyone see any problems with how we are doing that? Incidentally I think the wording on that wiki page could do with some polishing It is impossible to adequately acknowledge the many individuals ... Of course it's not impossible, impractical might be closer to the truth, but I'm not even sure that conveys the right sentiment. 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 +100 Cheers colliar Am 23.06.2011 01:35, schrieb john whelan: I absolutely agree. Cheerio John On 22 June 2011 19:29, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au mailto:da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 13:49 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: Personally I hope as soon as possible. I suspect it will be nice to give you 'no' guys some time to reconsider, as some already have. Such a pity you dont extend the same feelings to those 'yes guys' who wish to change their acceptance. Except that changing from no to yes is generally upto the mapper, those who wish to change the other way are trying to protect themselves and the OSM project from liability. Surely with the whole purpose of the licence change being to purge any non-compatible data, these requests should be taken seriously, not in the way they generally have been, with refusal. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREIAAYFAk4Ecq8ACgkQalWTFLzqsCvXzQCglx0nD8cE25pfCU0MXpVJsPw+ 9o8AoJlkEXFntRUcxZg5reC1DMhJAWhj =FvCk -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:25 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: n 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each and every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is the important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate changes to the Copyright and License page. fosm.org has a link, indirectly, to that page and all the appropriate copyright notices in it's API. Can anyone see any problems with how we are doing that? I can see problems with fosm.org having the Attribution-link deeplinken to the Attribution page on the openstreetmap wiki. Just to name two: 1) It suggests that fosm and osm are one and the same. which they are not. 2) fosm will not / cannot attribute those who only work on fosm. Personally I don't care much about the second issue. That's with fosm and it's contributors. If their contributors don't want to be attributed, that's up to them. Cheers, Henk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:25 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: n 24 June 2011 19:31, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: We have almost completed work so that the page link goes out with each and every extraction of geodata ever made (planet dump, API, ...) which is the important thing. Good point though, and I have requested appropriate changes to the Copyright and License page. fosm.org has a link, indirectly, to that page and all the appropriate copyright notices in it's API. Can anyone see any problems with how we are doing that? Thanks, Henk this is useful feedback. I can see problems with fosm.org having the Attribution-link deeplinken to the Attribution page on the openstreetmap wiki. Just to name two: 1) It suggests that fosm and osm are one and the same. which they are not. I'd hate to imply that ;) I'll see if I can put some content on an intermediate page that clarifies. 2) fosm will not / cannot attribute those who only work on fosm. All content outputs from fosm.org attribute fosm, osm and contributors. Most of the website's html pages do not contain or publish maps or map content, only the api and diff files contain any content and those are attributed like this: osm version='0.6' generator='FOSM API 0.6' copyright='2011 FOSM contributors, OpenStreetMap contributors' attribution=' http://www.fosm.org/attribution' license='Creative commons CC-BY-SA 2.0' The one exception is currently Potlatch which is embedded and obviously displays map content. I guess ideally Potlatch itself should read the data source headers and display the copyright and attribution notices that are appropriate. Perhaps that would make sense once all OSM data sources provide such information. Personally I don't care much about the second issue. That's with fosm and it's contributors. If their contributors don't want to be attributed, that's up to them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
80n wrote: The one exception is currently Potlatch which is embedded and obviously displays map content. Because Potlatch is embedded, you are encouraged to put any copyright notices you wish in the embedding page. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6513157.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote: did you see this? http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution? -- Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote: did you see this? http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution? The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm looking into why that doesn't display. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm looking into why that doesn't display. I'm no expert, but see http://dev.openlayers.org/docs/files/OpenLayers/Control/Attribution- js.html your map seems to be lacking one in the var map declaration. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote: did you see this? http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution? I just noticed that osm.org is missing attribution. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, SomeoneElse wrote: Odd. zoom in to the dizzy heights of 16 (in Denmark WA FWIW) and you get picture coming soon. I picked Denmark because it's somewhere that I've been and added stuff (to OSM, but would also like to see the likes of FOSM using that same data too). Competion is good. It seems a bit of a shame that the forkers are being let down by a rather poor implementation (or so it seems) so far. Just be patient. The world on zoom level 18 has 100 billion tiles with an estimated data volume of 450 terabytes. It takes a while to upload them all to archive.org! There is no need to render oceans and deserts at high resolution, but cities and interesting places. We will be rendering and uploading as people are donating resources, if you want your stuff rendered, then you can also help find some computers to help do it. mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 12:50, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote: did you see this? http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution? I just noticed that osm.org is missing attribution. No it isn't. There's a 'Copyright License' link in the sidebar on the left. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
The license on archive.org and all metadata is in a standard place, http://www.archive.org/details/SharedMap2 It can be updated at any time, seems that the sources are not stated. mike On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.comwrote: On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote: did you see this? http://www.archive.org/**download/SharedMap2/index.htmlhttp://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution? -- Steve __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
John Smith wrote: The attribution was put into the JS file, but I'm looking into why that doesn't display. You probably need a DG file instead. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6507935.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
2011-06-23 John Smith: On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote: did you see this? http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution? I just noticed that osm.org is missing attribution. No, it isn't. It has the attribution right there on the Copyright License link. The Demo archive.org Tile Hosting map, on the other hand, fails to attribute OpenStreetMap. It just mentions fosm.org, and thus violates the license's requirement that the original creator's attribution needs to be displayed as least as prominently as that of later additions. -- Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 21:00, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: No it isn't. There's a 'Copyright License' link in the sidebar on the left. Nice and obscure... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 21:15, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: No, it isn't. It has the attribution right there on the Copyright License link. Unlike every other map site out there where the main attribution is at the bottom right side of the map. The Demo archive.org Tile Hosting map, on the other hand, fails to attribute OpenStreetMap. It just mentions fosm.org, and thus violates the license's requirement that the original creator's attribution needs to be displayed as least as prominently as that of later additions. The data is rendered from FOSM data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
2011-06-23 John Smith: On 23 June 2011 21:15, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: No, it isn't. It has the attribution right there on the Copyright License link. Unlike every other map site out there where the main attribution is at the bottom right side of the map. Maybe you just don't know enough maps - there are plenty that list attribution elsewhere. This includes lots of maps for mobile devices (because these happen to have limited screen space), but also maps that use multiple sources (because in these cases, even a large screen would get cluttered with legalese). Static maps (e.g. map images in Wikipedia) also frequently use different attribution mechanisms. The Demo archive.org Tile Hosting map, on the other hand, fails to attribute OpenStreetMap. It just mentions fosm.org, and thus violates the license's requirement that the original creator's attribution needs to be displayed as least as prominently as that of later additions. The data is rendered from FOSM data. Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0: If you distribute [...] any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means [...]. Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit. -- Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
Steve Coast wrote: 80n wrote: A: We will definitely stop using OSM as soon as OSM switches to ODbL for it's output. Q: Now when will that be? Personally I hope as soon as possible. I suspect it will be nice to give you 'no' guys some time to reconsider, as some already have. As I understand it, you can now only contribute to OSM if you have accepted the new CTs? Thus all edits from this point onwards are made by people happy to have their work under ODbL? So in theory, while in this interim stage, we could stop providing any new data as CC-by-SA and instead offer a frozen CC-by-SA planet dump, with all work since that freeze available as an additional ODbL diff? -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6508023.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 21:47, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Maybe you just don't know enough maps - there are plenty that list attribution elsewhere. This includes lots of maps for mobile devices (because these happen to have limited screen space), but also maps that use multiple sources (because in these cases, even a large screen would get cluttered with legalese). Static maps (e.g. map images in Wikipedia) also frequently use different attribution mechanisms. Thanks for the tip, I'm sure someone else is bound to put an obscure link on their website and you'll probably hound them about it as well. Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0: As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy attribution, especially when dealing with small screens, such as those on mobile phones. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote: The data is rendered from FOSM data. Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data. robert. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote: The data is rendered from FOSM data. Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data. I'm told there is at least 500 changesets not from OSM... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
Hi, On 06/23/2011 01:51 PM, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote: So in theory, while in this interim stage, we could stop providing any new data as CC-by-SA and instead offer a frozen CC-by-SA planet dump, with all work since that freeze available as an additional ODbL diff? Legal subtleties are best discussed on legal-talk. If you care to make your suggestion there, I'd be willing to point out why it doesn't work ;) Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
Hi, On 06/23/2011 01:53 PM, Robert Scott wrote: Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data. I understand that it is also possible to upload original content to fosm.org, so you're probalby talking about less than 100%. 99.999% or so ;) Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote: The data is rendered from FOSM data. Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data. I find this ironic, if not out right amusing, OSM-F tries to hide any kind of attribution, yet you expect others to more prominently attribute OSM-F, which only a very small percentage if that, of the content can be contributed from OSM-F members. So one rule for OSM-F, and another for everyone else, in other words either eat your own dog food, otherwise why should anyone else? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
Frederik Ramm wrote: Legal subtleties are best discussed on legal-talk. If you care to make your suggestion there, I'd be willing to point out why it doesn't work ;) Fair enough Frederik, if it's a legal subtlety then I probably don't want to know! :) But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community. 80n is correct when he said: 80n wrote: From here on in, OSM loses ground against fosm.org. The mass deletions in OSM (if they ever happen) will put OSM further behind. But only because fosm can currently stay in sync with OSM and still claim CC-by-SA on updates that are made under the new CTs by contributors that agree with the move to ODbL. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6508098.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 22:20, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community. Erm how is this any better than companies sharing ODBL data and contributions either being exempt from sharing back or not being accepted because it isn't allowed by the CTs? Or how many people want OSM-F to run a PD project. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community. The community has always been clear that the continuation of OSM with with a new ODBL is a legal way of forking the project. Just as legal as continuing OSM with CC-BY-SA. After all planet dumps have been made available for that, as well as diffs. That is also a majority decision. The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and servers, because of mainly because a majority let them do it. So I feel it very unfair to call the continuation of OSM under CC-BY_SA, in additon of being obliged to seek new resources (servers ,domain name and community) are called a competitor with the aim of dividing the community. That is an odd way of saying the the majority is always right, and if wrong they are right anyway ! And history has shown us and shows us every day again where that opinon can lead to. Regards, Ing. Gert Gremmen, BSc g.grem...@cetest.nl www.cetest.nl Kiotoweg 363 3047 BG Rotterdam T 31(0)104152426 F 31(0)104154953 Before printing, think about the environment. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Graham Stewart (GrahamS) [mailto:gra...@dalmuti.net] Verzonden: Thursday, June 23, 2011 2:20 PM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls. Frederik Ramm wrote: Legal subtleties are best discussed on legal-talk. If you care to make your suggestion there, I'd be willing to point out why it doesn't work ;) Fair enough Frederik, if it's a legal subtlety then I probably don't want to know! :) But I do feel slightly uncomfortable that my edits, which I've now agreed should be licensed under ODbL, can currently be used by fosm to build a CC-by-SA competitor project which aims to divide our community. 80n is correct when he said: 80n wrote: From here on in, OSM loses ground against fosm.org. The mass deletions in OSM (if they ever happen) will put OSM further behind. But only because fosm can currently stay in sync with OSM and still claim CC-by-SA on updates that are made under the new CTs by contributors that agree with the move to ODbL. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6508098.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and servers, because of mainly because a majority let them do it. That is an odd way of saying the the majority is always right, and if wrong they are right anyway ! And history has shown us and shows us every day again where that opinon can lead to. To quote a wiser man than me: Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6508198.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
Hi, On 06/23/2011 02:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and servers, because of mainly because a majority let them do it. That's half as bad. Imagine that happening after country-wide elections... some fork taking away the name and all the resources. Rotten! Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and servers, because of mainly because a majority let them do it. So I feel it very unfair to call the continuation of OSM under CC-BY_SA, in additon of being obliged to seek new resources (servers ,domain name and community) are called a competitor with the aim of dividing the community. Uh huh. So I suppose if there were a successful plebiscite in a country wanting to change their form of government from presidential to parliamentary (or vice versa) then that's a rotten thing unless the winning side leaves the territory to the losing side and create a new country with a new name? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: Regards, Ing. Gert Gremmen, BSc Hey, cool. This is fun. Can we all join in? cheers Richard Fairhurst, MA (Cantab) -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6508428.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote: On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote: The data is rendered from FOSM data. Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data. I'm told there is at least 500 changesets not from OSM... Sorry, my bad, 99.99%. robert. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote: On 23 June 2011 21:53, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote: The data is rendered from FOSM data. Which is 100% sourced from OpenStreetMap data. I find this ironic, if not out right amusing, OSM-F tries to hide any kind of attribution, yet you expect others to more prominently attribute OSM-F, which only a very small percentage if that, of the content can be contributed from OSM-F members. _What_? I can't find a single shred of logic here. Nearly all of the data was generated by OpenStreetMap contributors under the OpenStreetMap flag, so I think the attribution should be mostly to OpenStreetMap. I'm usually the first person to laugh at something, but I'm finding it hard to find anything amusing there. Only perhaps that we're all wasting time dealing with someone who is clearly out of touch with reality. robert. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 01:02, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: Nearly all of the data was generated by OpenStreetMap contributors under the OpenStreetMap flag, so I think the attribution should be mostly to OpenStreetMap. For starters you are confusing OSM contributors with OSM-F who operates the website and what not, as for flags how about pitching a couple for companies either giving away data or giving away aerial imagery that can be derived from. None of which, not even contributors, get a mention where most maps attribute the companies that supplied data etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
@Eugene Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples. My example fits exactly the description of what is called forking: Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29 http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToFork @Graham, My reaction was just against the accusation of dividing the community and create a competitor. Forking is a fundamental right in Open Stuff, and therefore not te be criticized in the way you do. The fact is that FOSM.ORG look more like OSM then OSM , as the latter excluded communitymembers that won't accept a majority choice. OSM voluntarily and willfully took the risk that some of us might start a fork. One of the founding piles under Open Software and Open Data. OSM has the right to change their license, especially when based on a majority acceptance (not to be called a vote) but the *changing party* is the fork, not the continuing half. End the fork took the assets boooh Gert On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and servers, because of mainly because a majority let them do it. So I feel it very unfair to call the continuation of OSM under CC-BY_SA, in additon of being obliged to seek new resources (servers ,domain name and community) are called a competitor with the aim of dividing the community. Uh huh. So I suppose if there were a successful plebiscite in a country wanting to change their form of government from presidential to parliamentary (or vice versa) then that's a rotten thing unless the winning side leaves the territory to the losing side and create a new country with a new name? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote: On 24 June 2011 01:02, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: Nearly all of the data was generated by OpenStreetMap contributors under the OpenStreetMap flag, so I think the attribution should be mostly to OpenStreetMap. For starters you are confusing OSM contributors with OSM-F who operates the website and what not, as for flags how about pitching a couple for companies either giving away data or giving away aerial imagery that can be derived from. None of which, not even contributors, get a mention where most maps attribute the companies that supplied data etc. So - what, you're saying we should be doing the whole list-ten-thousand-names-in-the-corner thing? I don't understand - what's your point? That not all people who contributed that data agree to the odbl? No, but the vast majority of active mappers did. But they _all_ submitted it to a site under the understanding of a license that would attribute that work to OpenStreetMap. I didn't think that was even being called into question. Or will you just call anything into question to keep the disruption going? More importantly, if fosm is so much more legitimate and important than OpenStreetMap, why are you still over here taking a dump on our list? robert. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 01:27, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: So - what, you're saying we should be doing the whole list-ten-thousand-names-in-the-corner thing? I don't understand - what's your point? My point is, why should other sites be forced into attribution even OSM-F isn't willing to give it's own contributors, nor make it easy for people to find it without it being pointed out. That not all people who contributed that data agree to the odbl? No, but the vast majority of active mappers did. But they _all_ submitted it to a site under the understanding of a license that would attribute that work to OpenStreetMap. I didn't think that was even being called into question. Or will you just call anything into question to keep the disruption going? You seem to be the one disrupting things, as far as I'm concerned I attributed to FOSM who in turn attributes their sources. More importantly, if fosm is so much more legitimate and important than OpenStreetMap, why are you still over here taking a dump on our list? You're the one making a big song and dance about things. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thursday 23 June 2011, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: @Eugene Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples. My example fits exactly the description of what is called forking: Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29 http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToFork Funny you should bring this up - I was going to talk about software forks, but thought better of it. By your definition, Linux gets forked thousands of times a day, so surely must be a project in dire straits. Yet people somehow still know what Linux is and where to get it, because it tends to center itself around where all the competent people are. @Graham, My reaction was just against the accusation of dividing the community and create a competitor. Forking is a fundamental right in Open Stuff, and therefore not te be criticized in the way you do. The fact is that FOSM.ORG look more like OSM then OSM , as the latter excluded communitymembers that won't accept a majority choice. OSM voluntarily and willfully took the risk that some of us might start a fork. One of the founding piles under Open Software and Open Data. OSM has the right to change their license, especially when based on a majority acceptance (not to be called a vote) but the *changing party* is the fork, not the continuing half. End the fork took the assets boooh So because people have decided to start a voluntary project, they have to be answerable to absolutely everybody... everywhere... ever? No matter how unreasonable or logically warped they are (no names mentioned)? Everyone gets a veto on everything. Right? robert. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
2011-06-23 John Smith: Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0: As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy attribution, especially when dealing with small screens, such as those on mobile phones. Don't play dumb. Putting *all* attribution elsewhere is legal. Putting only that part of the attribution elsewhere that you want to sweep under the rug is not legal. -- Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 01:41, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: So because people have decided to start a voluntary project, they have to be answerable to absolutely everybody... everywhere... ever? No matter how unreasonable or logically warped they are (no names mentioned)? Everyone gets a veto on everything. Right? Every open source project I can think of has a fixed set of principals by which the code will be licensed under, and the license defines the sort of people that will join and help out, those requiring you to sign your rights away are usually typical of commercial projects, not open source ones. It's rare for projects to switch licenses once they've become established, otherwise you risk a fork splitting what community there is up. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 01:49, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: 2011-06-23 John Smith: Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0: As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy attribution, especially when dealing with small screens, such as those on mobile phones. Don't play dumb. Putting *all* attribution elsewhere is legal. Putting only that part of the attribution elsewhere that you want to sweep under the rug is not legal. OSM-F doesn't put *ALL* attribution elsewhere. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
John Smith: On 24 June 2011 01:49, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: 2011-06-23 John Smith: Which is derived from OpenStreetMap data. Therefore, the tiles are ultimately derived from OpenStreetMap data, too. Quoting CC BY-SA 2.0: As you said yourself above it's not reasonable to expect a lengthy attribution, especially when dealing with small screens, such as those on mobile phones. Don't play dumb. Putting *all* attribution elsewhere is legal. Putting only that part of the attribution elsewhere that you want to sweep under the rug is not legal. OSM-F doesn't put *ALL* attribution elsewhere. There are two plausible legal interpretations: - the original author is OpenStreetMap - the original author are a lot of individuals No matter which interpretation you choose, your website does not provide the legally required attribution for either interpretation. I'm not interested in talking about OSMF's legal choices with you. -- Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 02:00, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: There are two plausible legal interpretations: - the original author is OpenStreetMap - the original author are a lot of individuals You left off companies that have donated data. No matter which interpretation you choose, your website does not provide the legally required attribution for either interpretation. Well, OSM-F may facilitate, but they didn't create the data, and I don't plan to bother listing 1,000s of individual authors either. I'm not interested in talking about OSMF's legal choices with you. Oh so it's a case of do as I say, not as I do... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Op 23-06-11 17:41, Robert Scott schreef: Yet people somehow still know what Linux is and where to get it, because it tends to center itself around where all the competent people are. Now think this in BSD perspective. And ask yourself how your above statement applies. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAk4DaDYACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn3OzgCeNe+RjJK1SzONfnzLGggK4wlf w1oAn13oVIMufmXH2O6o8Z06Rs1cIDTT =AMFB -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
2011-06-23 John Smith: I'm not interested in talking about OSMF's legal choices with you. Oh so it's a case of do as I say, not as I do... No, it's a case of don't feed the troll. If someone else still reads this thread and is honestly interested in related legal matters, I suggest to open a thread on legal-talk for this purpose. I'll happily discuss the topic with anyone who is genuinely curious about it. -- Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:22 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: @Eugene Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples. My example fits exactly the description of what is called forking: Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29 http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToFork OK, let's look for a software example. The lead developers of the Amarok audio player software decided to rewrite the software for version 2.0 going from version 1.4. This was criticized by some other developers so they took the code base from 1.4 and created a status quo fork of Amarok (such as Pana and Clementine). The status quo fork does not always have the right to the servers or domain name or trademark/brand name simply because they want to continue with the original code (or original license, or original whatever). If the majority of supporters of a project agree with the change then the project goes with the majority. This is not a rotten thing, unlike what you declare. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:49 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Every open source project I can think of has a fixed set of principals by which the code will be licensed under, and the license defines the sort of people that will join and help out, those requiring you to sign your rights away are usually typical of commercial projects, not open source ones. 1. Signing your rights away is not necessarily a bad thing. (The FSF asks you to do exactly that when contributing to GNU software projects, for good reasons, though others may rightfully disagree.) 2. Anyway, the OSM CT does not require you to sign away your rights. You just give OSMF a very broad license grant, just like what the Apache Software Foundation asks of its contributors. 3. Commercial projects are not necessarily bad things either. Comparing OSMF to a commercial entity (but the comparison is not correct, see #2 above) like it's a bad thing doesn't make sense. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 02:36, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Signing your rights away is not necessarily a bad thing. (The FSF asks you to do exactly that when contributing to GNU software projects, for good reasons, though others may rightfully disagree.) 2. Anyway, the OSM CT does not require you to sign away your rights. You just give OSMF a very broad license grant, just like what the Apache Software Foundation asks of its contributors. Those points aside, the license is usually fixed, some people who volunteer their free time, only do so based on a specific license, or similar. Some people prefer GPL some prefer BSD, but the 2 usually don't mix well because they have different ideals or goals. 3. Commercial projects are not necessarily bad things either. Comparing OSMF to a commercial entity (but the comparison is not correct, see #2 above) like it's a bad thing doesn't make sense. I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with them, however I don't usually like volunteering for large multinationals. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 20:50 +1000, John Smith wrote: On 23 June 2011 18:41, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/06/2011 21:22, Mike Dupont wrote: did you see this? http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html That's nice. Just a thought: shouldn't there be some sort of attribution? I just noticed that osm.org is missing attribution. I pointed this out once and the response was that osm.org doesnt need attribution because there is a logo in the top-left corner. I guess the same logic could be applied here, since the name 'OpenStreetMap' is on the fosm.org page. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
2011/6/23 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: If you distribute [...] any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means [...]. -- Tobias Knerr I understand from this that the individual contributor could ask to be mentioned, but OSM is not the Original Author, it is no author at all, osm/osmf is the publisher. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 04:14, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: I pointed this out once and the response was that osm.org doesnt need attribution because there is a logo in the top-left corner. I guess the same logic could be applied here, since the name 'OpenStreetMap' is on the fosm.org page. As I pointed out before, OSM-F isn't the content creator, they merely facilitate, so the attribution should be for OSM Contributors, not OSM-F... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 17:22 +0200, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: @Eugene Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples. My example fits exactly the description of what is called forking: Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29 http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToFork Software forks are generally a bit different. Imagine if Linus proposed to change the Linux kernel licence to BSD-style (but with a caveat that he could change it again to anything he personally decides at any time in the future), then emailing all contributors and asking them to accept the new licence or their work will be reverted. Also requiring all patches to be submitted through a website which only allows submissions once you accept the new terms. Say he then tells people all non-compliant code will be removed in 4-8 weeks unless they agree to the new licence, but says anyone is welcome to continue using the existing code under the existing licence, Say if it gets to the 8 week mark and he decides 'well 90% of people have clicked the agree button, therefore Ill just assume the other 10% no longer have email and would have said yes'. Now, say half a dozen developers decided to take the GPL codebase, call it FreeLinux and continue development, while encouraging anyone who ever contributed to the project under GPL and wants to continue using that licence, to come over to their project. That situation is far more compatible with whats currently happening. Im sure in that instance, you would support the continued codebase under the licence youve used for many years, that is compatible with other licences you use, and which wont have big chunks removed from it sometime indefinitely in the near future. Or would you blindly follow the 'official' codebase accepting the decisions of the leaders without thinking for yourself? David On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and servers, because of mainly because a majority let them do it. So I feel it very unfair to call the continuation of OSM under CC-BY_SA, in additon of being obliged to seek new resources (servers ,domain name and community) are called a competitor with the aim of dividing the community. Uh huh. So I suppose if there were a successful plebiscite in a country wanting to change their form of government from presidential to parliamentary (or vice versa) then that's a rotten thing unless the winning side leaves the territory to the losing side and create a new country with a new name? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
David Murn schrieb: Now, say half a dozen developers decided to take the GPL codebase, call it FreeLinux and continue development, while encouraging anyone who ever contributed to the project under GPL and wants to continue using that licence, to come over to their project. If they wouldn't have an agreement with the Linux Foundation, they might not be able to use the Linux trademark for it. That said, I'm happy about FOSM, if I ever become a resident of the US and that legal opinion on this matter still holds up, I might pull its data and provide it under PD myself. Robert Kaiser ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 04:43, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: That said, I'm happy about FOSM, if I ever become a resident of the US and that legal opinion on this matter still holds up, I might pull its data and provide it under PD myself. Unlikely, maps were the first thing to be protected under copyright, and copyright law doesn't stipulate what form the maps have to be stored under, and maps are deemed a creative enterprise. If anything ODBL offers the easiest path way to PD data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 6/22/2011 5:16 PM, David Murn wrote: On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 16:25 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: Well there's one other aspect which is there are chunks of data only available to OpenStreetMap and nobody else. Does the data exclusively available under the ODbL outweigh the data exclusively available under CC? Since not even OSM uses the ODbL yet, I find it totally amazing that any other entity would be. I think you need to think about the data that OSM derives from, like aerial imagery. Also.. On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 16:35 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: Why do you feel you have a liability? Because I have used data from a source which cannot be relicenced. Id feel the same way if Id taken OSM data and put it into another external project, which was then planning to change its licence and take the OSM data along with it. Personally, I dont have a liability as I was aware early enough that my contributions couldnt be relicenced. Unfortunately some people have accepted the CTS without fully understanding that they didnt have the rights to relicence the data. The fact of having each individual user accept contributor terms, means that effectively you have passed the liability directly onto the user who contributed the 'offending' data rather than the foundation who refuse to remove the data in the first place. Do you have any legal opinion to support this? Steve David On 6/22/2011 4:22 PM, David Murn wrote: On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 21:17 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: I wonder what would happen if someone involved in running Google Map Maker were to post a similar message. Hey, don't like how things go in OSM? Why not come to Google Map Maker where all license issues are solved! Except that a) Map Maker never had any compatability with any version of OSM b) Users who used OSM for the past few years dont necessarily want licence issues 'solved' (especially if the only difference they see is a degraded map) c) fosm isnt a wholey different project in the same way MapMaker is. fosm is a copy of OSM, and the two will parallel each other until the time that OSM splits off with a new licence change. If you think of fosm as the continuation and OSM as the fork with 'all licence issues solved', youre more on-track to the situation The day after the changeover occurs, the world will look at OSM and fosm and theyll see one is a small subset of the other, until the time that the main OSM project can come close to making up for the data that has had to be removed. Joe user (especially Joe user who might use map maker) doesnt give a rats about licence terms, all they care about is seeing complete maps. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:35 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: You seem to be the one disrupting things, as far as I'm concerned I attributed to FOSM who in turn attributes their sources. +1 there is a chain of attribution. All the data is available, fosm includes osm data so it should be possible for people to find it. -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Uh huh. So I suppose if there were a successful plebiscite in a country wanting to change their form of government from presidential to parliamentary (or vice versa) then that's a rotten thing unless the winning side leaves the territory to the losing side and create a new country with a new name? I don't think Gert should have used the word 'hijack'. But I also don't know why you three compare the license change to ordinary democratic processes. It's much closer to what's been happening in the Arab States this year: People opposed to the license change have been voicing their discontent for 2 years now. And Steve and some other directors keep responding to it. So the basis for the discontent must have merit. And it's clogging up our main communications channel (talk). A modern democratic government would have found a way to defuse the situation long ago. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
Nic Roets wrote: But I also don't know why you three compare the license change to ordinary democratic processes. It's much closer to what's been happening in the Arab States this year. ticks off 'Godwin' on the Hyperbole Bingo card cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6510026.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
Nic, Nic Roets wrote: A modern democratic government would have found a way to defuse the situation long ago. I've actually thought about that for quite a while and came to the conclusion that the problems we're seeing are probably due to OSM being such an unstructured, little-governed project. If this project were one with a strong leadership and a more rigid structure - so, skip the whole OMSF doesn't want to rule the project stuff and so on -, then that leadership could probably have pulled through the license change in a more organised fashion, and even one that is - or at least looks! - more democratic. (I say at least looks because I have seen the inside of some such organisations and generally you have a situation where the board decides what info goes into the glossy membership magazine and what doesn't, so they usually get whatever they want rubber-stamped by a majority.) But even if we had such a more strictly organised project with a strong leadership - something that I would oppose -, I don't really think that this situation could be defused in any way. I mean, look at it - how many people are making a fuss here? I think I count 6 or 7. Let's be generous and say there are 20. Could even the best, brightest, and most professional OSMF board ever implement a license change process where we would *not* have 20 people arguing bitterly and spreading/believing all sorts of FUD? Considering human nature, would it really be possible? Could one implement a process so even, so fair, so smooth, that you would *not* have 20 people who claim that their voice hasn't been heard, that everyone is making a big mistake, and that we're all doomed? I'm not saying that perfection shouldn't be strived for, but in the end you have to break some eggs to make an omelette, and I think on the whole we're not doing too bad. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
This discussion makes me sad. My personal motivation in life is : everybody should live in freedom . Derived from this: alternatives are good, monopoly is bad fosm; I embrace the initiative, but you have a lot of marketing to do if you want people to come to FOSM. A website with broken links, no information about who initiated the fork or any insight about the who, why and what looks to me like communicating with my bank over a http-connection. It feels unsecure. Open some communication channels and please grow to maturity. osm; Keep up what your doing, but work on a open, clear and respectfull approach towards individuals, community-members and businesses. Stay away from the trolls I am in no camp. I am me. I love the good openstreetmap brought to the world, I love the HOT initiative and derivated humanitarian projects. I feel blessed to be involved with a mapping project that gives people everywhere, all over the world access to map data without discrimination and with respect to their individuality. And now I get the hell out of this discussion that is in my opinion leading nowhere. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
2011-06-23 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: 2011/6/23 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: If you distribute [...] any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means [...]. I understand from this that the individual contributor could ask to be mentioned, but OSM is not the Original Author, it is no author at all, osm/osmf is the publisher. If you want to be precise, you would of course provide attribution to the OpenStreetMap contributors, as recommended by the Copyright License section on osm.org. In my opinion, however, it's clear that OpenStreetMap refers collectively to the OpenStreetMap community. Until now, OSMF relied on the assumption that the contributors implicitly agree with this style of giving credit to them. For those who have already signed the CT, attribution has now been explicitly regulated. -- Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
John Smith schrieb: On 24 June 2011 04:43, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote: That said, I'm happy about FOSM, if I ever become a resident of the US and that legal opinion on this matter still holds up, I might pull its data and provide it under PD myself. Unlikely, maps were the first thing to be protected under copyright, and copyright law doesn't stipulate what form the maps have to be stored under, and maps are deemed a creative enterprise. Well, it has been stated multiple times that it was a lawyer opinion that CC-BY-SA didn't apply to our data, and factual databases aren't protected by US law. But right now, I'm bound by the rules of where I live in anyhow, and here we have explicit database protection laws - which still doesn't make CC-BY-SA be applicable to factual databases, but unfortunately also doesn't make them just usable under PD. And, of course, I'd need to let this prove by yet another lawyer, as IANAL and those in reign around here (if there are any) seem to disagree. Robert Kaiser ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
Frederik Ramm schrieb: I've actually thought about that for quite a while and came to the conclusion that the problems we're seeing are probably due to OSM being such an unstructured, little-governed project. Hey, I've been saying this for weeks! (Not in here, though...) ;-) I indeed believe that all this chaotic divergence, bickering and bashing of each other is mostly cause because nobody really dares to take a lead in this project. And there are a lot of comments that accuse someone of taking the lead (as it's natural within humans to search guidance from a leader - as well as to oppose it), while everybody denies he leads anything. It's a really strange dance, actually, but fun to view. :) Robert Kaiser ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
John Smith wrote: Unlikely, maps were the first thing to be protected under copyright Um, no. The first thing to be protected by copyright was an Old Irish psalter. Is and gabais Fergus dóib daur mór ro-boí for lár ind liss assa frénaib, etc. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6510149.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thursday 23 June 2011, John Smith wrote: More importantly, if fosm is so much more legitimate and important than OpenStreetMap, why are you still over here taking a dump on our list? You're the one making a big song and dance about things. I wouldn't say I'm making a song and dance about anything - I've managed to totally ignore all your licensing nonsense for a couple of years now, and I think my only replies on the subject have been in the last ten (?) hours. I personally don't give a hoot what your fork does. I don't think many people do. People here tend to be more interested in, you know, making maps. I just find it hard to see some of the absolute falsisms that have been brought up go by unchallenged. No actually I think I may have replied to some of your stuff a while ago when you were supposedly initiating your fork. But that must have been over a year ago now, and instead you decided to hang around and hijack discussions for another year. A year from now, will we still be having the same discussion do you think? I'm betting so. robert. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 16:52, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: It's much closer to what's been happening in the Arab States this year: There are at least two big difference between revolutions in the Maghreb and Arab Countries, and the License discussion inside OSM. In this mailing lists it doesn't matter if a position is backed by one or ten thousand people, one persons email message weight the same as fifty thousand people shouting at Tahrir Square, even if that message has more in common with one crazy guy screaming about conspiracy theories outside ground zero. We are all going to receive it, the same for all of his/her following messages, at least till we run tired and unsubscribe from the list. And most importantly, there is zero intention of repression/censorship (I guess some of you will try to argue about this, but you all know that if some censorship had been applied when it could have been done, this discussion wouldn't be happening), so that one person can shout as much as he/she wants to, for as long as he/she wants to (probably till the License change is completed, so be prepared for many more messages). Now, taking it back to the mailing list and people responding, I think that many of us let Steve, Frederik, Richard and others do the job of answering John, 80n, etc. because we don't have the time and energy to do it. Luckily there is always people willing to do the hard work of pushing things forward. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 07:39, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Well, it has been stated multiple times that it was a lawyer opinion that Francis Davey, who also claims to be a lawyer, gave an opposite opinion. CC-BY-SA didn't apply to our data, and factual databases aren't protected by Which is a false premise, map data isn't factual data and copyright on maps doesn't care if they are stored in a database or in print form, making maps takes creative effort, take 10 different mappers and give them the same sources and you will end up with different end results. CC-BY-SA be applicable to factual databases, but unfortunately also doesn't We're not dealing with a factual database, we're dealing with map data that just happens to be stored in DB form. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 08:49, Julio Costa Zambelli julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote: On 23 June 2011 16:52, Nic Roets nro...@gmail.com wrote: It's much closer to what's been happening in the Arab States this year: There are at least two big difference between revolutions in the Maghreb and Arab Countries, and the License discussion inside OSM. In this mailing lists it doesn't matter if a position is backed by one or ten thousand people, one persons email message weight the same as fifty thousand people shouting at Tahrir Square, even if that message has more in common with one crazy guy screaming about conspiracy theories outside ground zero. We are all going to receive it, the same for all of his/her following messages, at least till we run tired and unsubscribe from the list. And most importantly, there is zero intention of repression/censorship (I guess some of you will try to argue about this, but you all know that if some censorship had been applied when it could have been done, this discussion wouldn't be happening), so that one person can shout as much as he/she wants to, for as long as he/she wants to (probably till the License change is completed, so be prepared for many more messages). Now, taking it back to the mailing list and people responding, I think that many of us let Steve, Frederik, Richard and others do the job of answering John, 80n, etc. because we don't have the time and energy to do it. Luckily there is always people willing to do the hard work of pushing things So you quote one line and fail to point out what falsities I'm making. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 23:58, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: So you quote one line and fail to point out what falsities I'm making. So that is what my message was all about? Thanks for clarifying it to me... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 24 June 2011 14:32, Julio Costa Zambelli julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl wrote: On 23 June 2011 23:58, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: So you quote one line and fail to point out what falsities I'm making. So that is what my message was all about? Thanks for clarifying it to me... You claimed I was making false claims without actually mentioning one of them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Milo van der Linden m...@dogodigi.netwrote: fosm; I embrace the initiative, but you have a lot of marketing to do if you want people to come to FOSM. A website with broken links, no information about who initiated the fork or any insight about the who, why and what looks to me like communicating with my bank over a http-connection. It feels unsecure. Open some communication channels and please grow to maturity. I agree that it is not pretty, that there is a lot of work to do, and not enough people to do it, but being locked out of osm is also not pretty. Back to the topic of lost data, at least we have the data and are trying to build the tools to preserve it. I hope that once the bridge is rebuilt between cc-by-sa 4.0 and osm they will accept our contributions back in. We will see, but I am not in a rush to make pretty webpages, I am spending my little free time on building tools and code to allow people to map easier and publish the maps on their own. That is my personal goal, to increase peoples personal freedom and to provide alternatives. It will take a while, be patient. The only reason why we are giving you an unfinished product now is for the simple reason that it is on topic of data loss in the third world. many people in the third world dont have time or resources to debate licenses in English and read emails all day, they also gave us their data and I intend on not deleting it. I see this as a long term project, to be able to publish my own OSM maps or edit a subset of the map without a central server, I have been working on learning the technology and thinking about how to do this for a long time, even before the license change I saw a problem in the monolithic architecture of osm. But it will take a while to solve these perceived problems. mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 02:30, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: I appreciate your appeal. In looking through the data it appears a lot of it has sense been field server. Since the original mapper traced the data from imagery. It seems kind of silly for that to cause the data to be deleted. OSM-F went down this path by their own choosing, how they handle data they haven't gained express permission from will indicate how far down the moral ladder things have sunk. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: In looking through the data it appears a lot of it has sense been field server. Since the original mapper traced the data from imagery. It seems kind of silly for that to cause the data to be deleted. I couldn't have said it better (and didn't want to even try add length to my post). This issue will most probably apply to especially other crisis areas (and especially where there's been further development after the tracing). But Kate's point is very right: It surely would be silly if we'd end up deleting data that has been merely traced (which is very easy to do again, albeit takes some time) but it would be especially annoying if roads that someone has surveyed properly afterwards the tracing (or have checked the road geometry from better imagery, for that matter -- something that I have done a good chunk here!) would have to be deleted (even though there might really well be much nothing original left in the current version). In any case the more I think of the idea of allowing users to license some areas differently the more I like it (even though this would most probably not be a desired option for those who are actually trying to figure out how to handle everything during the transition). Cheers from Haiti, -Jaakko http://osm.org/user/jaakkoh -- jaa...@helleranta.com * Skype: jhelleranta * Mobile: +509-37-269154 * http://go.hel.cc/MyProfile ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 02:30, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: I appreciate your appeal. In looking through the data it appears a lot of it has sense been field server. Since the original mapper traced the data from imagery. It seems kind of silly for that to cause the data to be deleted. To put this another way, what would happen if someone traced google imagery and it wasn't till after the street names had been applied that someone found about the tracing, because that's where things are at, since you have no more permission to keep data contributed than if it was contributed from a tainted source. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:13 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: To put this another way, what would happen if someone traced google Well, in the case of Haiti this is exactly what happened a lot -- with Google's permission, though. And so, the question is actually pretty darned good: Why would OSM users not allow their contributions to help alleviate humanitarian crisis if even the big G did? And having said that I want to point to my original post where I tried to emphasize that I respect the choices of the mappers. It's just that I'm guessing that not many who have declined or haven't decided but are leaning towards declining have thought of the humanitarian / global development / even poverty reduction side of their hobby. ... And if asked, not many of them would want to make life even more difficult to the world's underprivileged. Cheers from Haiti, -Jaakko -- http://osm.org/user/jaakkoh ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 23 June 2011 03:37, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com wrote: Well, in the case of Haiti this is exactly what happened a lot -- with Google's permission, though. Haiti is one small area, most of the time people that copy from google don't have permission. And having said that I want to point to my original post where I tried to emphasize that I respect the choices of the mappers. It's just that I'm guessing that not many who have declined or haven't decided but are leaning towards declining have thought of the humanitarian / global development / even poverty reduction side of their hobby. ... And if asked, not many of them would want to make life even more difficult to the world's underprivileged. Why don't you urge OSM-F to stick with the current license, after all it's the OSM-F pushing for a license change that will end up causing data loss. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
- Original Message - From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls. On 23 June 2011 02:30, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote: I appreciate your appeal. In looking through the data it appears a lot of it has sense been field server. Since the original mapper traced the data from imagery. It seems kind of silly for that to cause the data to be deleted. OSM-F went down this path by their own choosing, how they handle data they haven't gained express permission from will indicate how far down the moral ladder things have sunk. In this particular instance it may be unfair to blame OSMF, see my next reply to Jaakko David ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
- Original Message - From: Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com To: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com Cc: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls. On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:13 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: To put this another way, what would happen if someone traced google Well, in the case of Haiti this is exactly what happened a lot -- with Google's permission, though. And so, the question is actually pretty darned good: Why would OSM users not allow their contributions to help alleviate humanitarian crisis if even the big G did? I'm sure there are a number of people who have not agreed to the CT's who would be very happy to see their edits in Haiti retained in the OSM database, but for whatever reason are unable to agree to the CT's. The LWG to their credit asked earlier this year if the OSM community favoured per changeset relicencing, which might have helped in this instance. The answer of the OSM community was a resounding NO. So don't blame OSMF, don't blame LWG, don't blame individual contributors who have not agreed to the CT's. Its the fault of community ! Now I'm off out to do some mapping! Regards David And having said that I want to point to my original post where I tried to emphasize that I respect the choices of the mappers. It's just that I'm guessing that not many who have declined or haven't decided but are leaning towards declining have thought of the humanitarian / global development / even poverty reduction side of their hobby. ... And if asked, not many of them would want to make life even more difficult to the world's underprivileged. Cheers from Haiti, -Jaakko -- http://osm.org/user/jaakkoh ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
Hi all, This may well be my first post to the talk list so let me very briefly introduce myself. I started mapping with OSM beginning of 2008 as what I'd say mostly a vacation/travel mapper + mapping some home corners -- that is, until the earth quake in Haiti last year. The quake spiked my interest to OSM and was part of the reason why I ended up moving here last September (working on something else but using a good chunk of my time on OSM). But to go to the point: Browsing a little with the new license status option of Potlatch 2.2 I'm seeing unfortunately lot of red on the map (and some orange, too). So what? As I suggest in the subject line: I'd really love us not to punish the world's disadvantaged with our license/CT disagreements. The thing is that what many have reported and what I've seen first hand OSM has made and keeps on making a clearly positive difference not only in crisis response but also in peoples' everyday lives for growing numbers of people especially in countries like Haiti. While I fully respect everybody's decision to do (including allow not to do) what ever they want with their contributions I want to raise a thought/question (in case no one has before) that it would be an awful shame if we'd have to trash as much data from OSM, the _only_ good map of Haiti!, as the coloring of the map implies, eih? So, two things: 1) I want to ask if it's possible to allow (and then persuade! :) users that have declined to the license / CTs as well as those that are still undecided and are leaning to not allowing to allow OSM to continue using their data for specific areas (without them having to fully accept the change)? I'm thinking humanitarian crisis areas but this could be extended in whatever ways. But to make my real point clear I want to re-articulate my thought: This is, in some areas, a clear humanitarian issue and can be a matter of life or death (as it has been in Haiti - and a number of other areas). 2) Big thanks to Ed Loach for the idea of contacting the undecided and Don Campbell for keeping the thread floating (which is only when it really sunk to my head). I'll definitely use this to try to persuade some decliners (but only after I hopefully hear thoughts to the 1st point) ... and hope that we have enough time to do this before any purging of data begins! To conclude my post I want to warmly and deeply thank _everyone_ (regardless of what you think of the license issue / CTs) who has been contributing to OSM and creating this incredible project -- and changing the world while at it! I've talked with so many people that have absolutely amazed and incredibly thankful for the OSM community contribution in Haiti that I've lost track a long ago. Most heart-warming have been those that have had a more direct and crucial benefit from OSM (as in soon after the quake) but there have been so many others ranging from business owners who can to private people who can -- first time ever -- to give perfect directions to exactly where they are; and all other kinds. It's really uplifting. And that in mind, please let's not allow minor -- or even major! -- differences in our opinions to harm the thing that I understand really at the bottom of things unites us: the desire will to create an (as) Open (as possible) map of the world. Cheers from Haiti, -Jaakko http://osm.org/user/jaakkoh -- jaa...@helleranta.com * Skype: jhelleranta * Mobile: +509-37-269154 * http://go.hel.cc/MyProfile ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com wrote: As I suggest in the subject line: I'd really love us not to punish the world's disadvantaged with our license/CT disagreements. That's why fosm.org exists. No data will get deleted. It will continue to exist and can be updated at fosm.org. If you are worried that your data is threatened then that's because you are now looking in the wrong place. Fosm has more data than OSM already and will continue to sync with all OSM updates as well as accepting new updates directly. OSM is not trying to punish anyone, its just that the community thinks that less data under a different license is better for them. If you are happy with the way things were then you don't have to lose anything, just change your URL from osm.org to fosm.org. 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible? Steve On Jun 22, 2011, at 11:18 AM, 80n wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com wrote: As I suggest in the subject line: I'd really love us not to punish the world's disadvantaged with our license/CT disagreements. That's why fosm.org exists. No data will get deleted. It will continue to exist and can be updated at fosm.org. If you are worried that your data is threatened then that's because you are now looking in the wrong place. Fosm has more data than OSM already and will continue to sync with all OSM updates as well as accepting new updates directly. OSM is not trying to punish anyone, its just that the community thinks that less data under a different license is better for them. If you are happy with the way things were then you don't have to lose anything, just change your URL from osm.org to fosm.org. 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:44 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: Haiti is one small area, most of the time people that copy from google don't have permission. I understand. And so is the humanitarian issue (vs. all mapping done in OSM) a small area. But that was what I was talking about. The fact that you wanted to answer to something else was your choice. As per tracing from Google in general (outside humanitarian crises), the answer is simple: redraw geometries as needed and if names are involved, check,those from legal sources or survey. No rocket science in this? Why don't you urge OSM-F to stick with the current license, after all it's the OSM-F pushing for a license change that will end up causing data loss. Because I warmly agree with the points in favor of the license change. Yes, there's inconveniences in the change because of various things including that people don't believe that it will succeed (which is what OSM has been up against since the very beginning, eih?). But the points in favor are very valid and I'm sure the change will succeed protect greater good over time. That is, ensure that the Commons is not abused. Cheers, -Jaakko ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:31 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible? I think they will stop it as soon as last CC dump is released Fabio ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com wrote: ... and hope that we have enough time to do this before any purging of data begins! Jaakko, I really want to know when that will occur (purging without resurveying within a reasonable time frame). The LWG said that is a community decision. I assume that that implies that the Haiti community (you and your collaborators) can decide by themselves how to proceed. Some cities or regions may never see the need to delete non-compliant data. What will then happen ? The only way I can see that the global community can make a decision for a local city or region in an orderly fashion is by a global vote. The whole process could take years. Regards, Nic ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
Hi, 80n wrote: That's why fosm.org http://fosm.org exists. No data will get deleted. It will continue to exist and can be updated at fosm.org http://fosm.org. If you are worried that your data is threatened then that's because you are now looking in the wrong place. Fosm has more data than OSM already and will continue to sync with all OSM updates as well as accepting new updates directly. If someone is only worried about data being deleted, then they can simply take the CC-BY-SA planet dump and run with it. If someone doesn't want to go that static route because he wants to further participate in the large community updating OSM's data, then Fosm won't be any help after OSM changes its license. Unless of course Fosm could somehow manage to persuade many people to contribute to Fosm instead of OSM; which I assume is the basic message in this post. I wonder what would happen if someone involved in running Google Map Maker were to post a similar message. Hey, don't like how things go in OSM? Why not come to Google Map Maker where all license issues are solved! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:31 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible? 1. fosm.org is functional, you should try it. 2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests it will be a long time yet. 80n ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On 6/22/2011 12:51 PM, 80n wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:31 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote: How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible? 1. fosm.org http://fosm.org is functional, you should try it. I did. Perhaps we use different meanings for 'functional'. OSM shows you maps for example. Fosm has a link to 'maps' which 404s. 2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests it will be a long time yet. Timing isn't relevant to the question. Sounds like you'll have to stop using OSM then when it occurs. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 08:51:43PM +0100, 80n wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:31 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible? 1. fosm.org is functional, you should try it. 2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests it will be a long time yet. Which is a shame - The longer the period the more difficult it'll get to sync osm and fosm as people start pushing changes in both areas - read - multi master. A couple days ago OSM (Or better the OSM Foundation) started to dislike my contributions so i'd need to start contributing to fosm which in turn will make it more difficult to take contributions from OSM. The longer the OSM Foundation delays the deletions and relicensing the more it hurts both projects. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de „Für eine ausgewogene Energiepolitik über das Jahr 2020 hinaus ist die Nutzung von Atomenergie eine Brückentechnologie und unverzichtbar. Ein Ausstieg in zehn Jahren, wie noch unter der rot-grünen Regierung beschlossen, kommt für die nationale Energieversorgung zu abrupt.“ Angela Merkel CDU 30.8.2009 signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
jaakkoh wrote: This may well be my first post to the talk list Brave soul. :) (But welcome, seriously.) Browsing a little with the new license status option of Potlatch 2.2 I'm seeing unfortunately lot of red on the map (and some orange, too). Don't get too disheartened. To take your second point first, in my experience most people are actually pretty amenable to being contacted. A lot will simply not have noticed the original mail. Others may have seen it but not realised that it's really something they need to respond to. Personal contact saying hi, I'd really like to keep your data means a lot. When you do manage to contact them, the 98.5% agree/1.5% split (of those who've responded thus far) suggests that in most cases they'll be happy for the data to continue through to ODbL+CT - so it'll probably be ok. If not, as David Groom mentioned, the idea of allowing people to say I relicense these bits, but not those was once mooted - along the lines of what you suggested. There wasn't much take-up but I see no reason why it couldn't be resurrected if really needed. It doesn't even need to be part of the formal relicensing process: you or I or anyone could write a tool that deleted a problematic object, and recreated it with a clean history, _if_ all the contributors gave their permission to the tool author (and documented the permission). But I do genuinely think it won't be necessary: most people are happy to click 'Agree' if you ask. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/License-CT-issues-Let-s-not-punish-the-world-s-disadvantaged-pls-tp6504931p6505963.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: ** On 6/22/2011 12:51 PM, 80n wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:31 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: How will fosm (assuming it reaches the stage of being functional) continue to sync with OSM when the licenses are incompatible? 1. fosm.org is functional, you should try it. I did. Perhaps we use different meanings for 'functional'. OSM shows you maps for example. Fosm has a link to 'maps' which 404s. did you see this? http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2/index.html 2. When will the license become incompatible? The current plan suggests it will be a long time yet. Timing isn't relevant to the question. Sounds like you'll have to stop using OSM then when it occurs. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
