Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
2009/3/5 SteveC st...@asklater.com: On 27 Feb 2009, at 05:04, Ben Laenen wrote: It looks like we finally got some kind of License plan for the step towards the new license, so everyone check http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan Let me start with the obvious questions first: * why don't you split between the votes whether you like license X and the question whether you're allowing the change of license on your data? After all, I want to have an idea *how much* of the data will still be there after the second vote. If it turns out that any data from someone who gave his approval would be deleted, then count me as no vote. so vote method is an interesting constraint... but I think we're being really hardcore in making sure that everyone who added data has to agree or we reset the process back to zero. * I still have no response to the question what would happen with my data if it's derived from someone who doesn't give it's approval for a license change. My view, personally, is that it should be dropped. But y'know I just don't think it will happen like that. If we build a positive process and bring people with us then we'll get the majority of the people along. We will lose small bits of data but thats ok, we have fantastic volunteer community to fix those edges, we'll be in shape in no time. And how are you going to check that anyway? You can do lots of things with CC-BY-SA data (copying, splitting, merging) where it's impossible to Well it's all in the database... every single edit (oh and the dump of the segments stuff). Because one day, about 4.5 years ago I knew it would be needed and designed it in. No need to thank me. No. Really. I think he's referring to the more complex derivatives (such as splitting a way) which are clearly logically derived but have no obvious connection in our data model (splitting creates a new way with no history, as well as leaving the original way in place but truncated). But this is only an issue if you're taking the literal unwind objects only approach and still regard such artefacts as in any way significant. Mostly nodes will get in the way anyway and force you to do some kind of cascade delete, but there are still more than a few ways these bits and bobs will leak through. My understanding is for example that if you split a way, there's not a single connection between the two parts of the way telling that one derived from the other. I can't comment on what potlatch does to my beautiful database. You can however comment on your crappy data model that doesn't allow forking an object to share a common history :-) Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting
Simon Ward simon at bleah.co.uk writes: Are you responding to my mail, or one earlier in the thread? I stated that everything should be reverted to before each incompatible change. I wanted to make the general point that while technically we can devise rules for deciding what changes are compatible and incompatible, there is a certain maximum level of complexity, and rules that generate long discussions on the mailing list are probably too complex to stand up in court. (Taking a pessimistic view.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Tobias Knerr schrieb: Frederik Ramm wrote: I have never mapped anything thinking hey, maybe someone else is going to make a nice map from this that I can then use. Not one single time. I don't know if that makes me an exception. Most people I talked to were enthusiastic about the data being collected, and were talking about cool things *they* could do with the data, but I might be moving in the wrong circles ;-) My (completely unscientific) observation is that liberal opinions about licensing (esp. PD-advocacy) are more common with people who actually write software / make map styles / do other advanced things with OSM data. Support for liberal licensing also appears to be more prevalent on the mailing lists than anywhere else in the project. I'm writing OSS (and being involved in JOSM devel) for quite a while. Most of the time I was talking with other developers about licensing results that the GPL was the preferred way to go. Your milage may vary. As Frederik (and other people) prominently advocating PD on our lists doesn't mean that this is common sense throughout the developers or makers community. One possible explanation might be that these liberals have experienced the problems of incompatible licenses etc. themselves. However, I'm starting to think that there's something else: If people are able to create cool OSM stuff themselves, they care most about licensing not getting in their way. Personally, I'm preferring the copyleft idea, as that's what I've seen to be the most benefit return for me - in the long run. The very unfortunate thing here is simply that there's no golden rule to choose as there's no GPL for data (as GPL is common in software development), so we have incompatible data licenses get in our way - which is very, very sad indeed. However, I've spend a lot of effort in OSM both with JOSM development and with mapping. If OSM we're PD or BSD licensed, I certainly wouldn't have even started to spend an hour of my time ... Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
It would be great to require that only free software could use OSM maps. I saw other peoples agreement on this when we discussed someone's 3D viewer for OSM data, and the #1 comment on this mailing list was we shouldn't glorify the use of non-free software. Proprietary routing software on OSM data was seen as something outside of this community, not necessarily unacceptable of itself, but certainly something that needed to be discarded and replaced with a free alternative. We have now tool to convert OSM data to garmin format (Mkgmap). The tool is opensource. Garmin can do routing (at least I assume it can, I don't posses any garmin devices or software myself) and is closed source. Would the new license make mkgmap unusable/illegal with odbl'd data? What about distributing maps converted to garmin format (assuming they are still under ODbL). If that would be allowed, then it won't prevent using closed-source SW for routing over OSM data, as anyubody can simply get converted maps and upload them to their garmin device. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 23:47, Roland Olbricht roland.olbri...@gmx.de wrote: And what to users who do not log in with a browser? Send them email. If they don't respond in some time (few weeks?) by visiting their account, deny them access to uploading new data. That will make them look in their acount and try to figure out what is wrong. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
MP wrote: We have now tool to convert OSM data to garmin format (Mkgmap). The tool is opensource. Garmin can do routing (at least I assume it can, I don't posses any garmin devices or software myself) and is closed source. Would the new license make mkgmap unusable/illegal with odbl'd data? No. Not at all. I don't know where this idea is coming from. ODbL does _not_ insist that the data can only be accessed by open-source programs or in open formats. A couple of people appear to have suggested that _their_ ideal licence would require this; but given that a) they haven't actually proposed such a licence, b) nor have they argued for the easy and obvious step of browser-sniffing to prevent IE/Safari/Opera users from using osm.org (well, exactly), I suggest said suggestions are politely ignored until they do. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22327489.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 23:50, Gervase Markham gerv-gm...@gerv.net wrote: On 03/03/09 18:39, Matthias Julius wrote: It is not that simple. What if those 5% is half of South Africa? You certainly can not interpolate overall OSM growth to re-surveying South Africa. ...which is why this is an unanswerable question. Let's go through the exercise, see what the percentage actually is and where the data is, and then decide what to do. Thayt is the worst thing - now you don't know who will agree to new license and who don't (unless you have some magic crystal ball). So you don't know which data are going to be removed and how much of them would it be until the last moment. You can only guess or estimate that, though once we start gathering consent for new license, we'll be having lower bound for the estimate - we will know for some data that these will stay there for sure (data for people wioth consent for new license) and the rest maybe yes, maybe no. I thought of one improvement - in addition to allowing people to consent to new license, allow them also to (completely voluntary) agree to Public domain their contributions. Some of the people on wikipedia (though not nearly a majority) does that for their contributions and many photos on wikimedia commons are under PD, so I assume some contributors may like it here too - then give them the possibility. Some tools to extract only PD subset of data could be added later if necessary (export list of users agreeing to PD would make this possible). And as wikipedia offers their complete dump with entire history, we maybe can offer planet dump with entire history in it too, so it could be easier to pick up only the PD contributions (or basically to dig through history for any reason without querying the main server) Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
MP singularita at gmail.com writes: Try this thought experiment: suppose a user imported data from Google Well, this is disallowed completely in first place. And so is importing the CC-BY-SA contributions into a new map which is not licensed CC-BY-SA. If one is disallowed then so is the other. Also, technically, when mixing licenses, we won't have mashup of cc-by-sa and odbl, we will have mashup of cc-by-sa without consent to relicense later under odbl and cc-by-sa with consent to relicense later under odbl. I guess that would work. The resulting collection would be distributable under CC-BY-SA only. If all of the old work without the extra consent is deleted, and all work derived from it (see earlier discussion), then you could distribute the result under the ODbL. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting
You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a non-relicensing contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept. In the worst case, in the event of a dispute, do you really fancy trying to convince a court of law that the elaborate heuristics you applied are sufficient to make the map completely independent of the work of the users who said 'no'? The only sound rule that can be sure to stand up in court is to delete all data from the contributors who didn't give explicit permission, and all data that depends on it. Period. You may think this is unnecessarily paranoid. Indeed it is: but if the relicensing exercise doesn't put the project on a legally unassailable footing, it is not worth doing. At the moment we can say with certainty that 100% of the contributors have clicked 'yes' to an agreement to distribute their changes under CC-BY-SA. Any legal niceties tidied up by a move to a different licence are good to have, all other things being equal, but are hugely outweighed if the data becomes a questionable mishmash of contributions that have agreement, and those that don't have agreement but pass some odd set of rules we invented ourselves to convince ourselves that we didn't need to get permission. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a non-relicensing contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept. In the worst case, in the event of a dispute, do you really fancy trying to convince a court of law that the elaborate heuristics you applied are sufficient to make the map completely independent of the work of the users who said 'no'? The only sound rule that can be sure to stand up in court is to delete all data from the contributors who didn't give explicit permission, and all data that depends on it. Period. You may think this is unnecessarily paranoid. Indeed it is: but if the relicensing exercise doesn't put the project on a legally unassailable footing, it is not worth doing. At the moment we can say with certainty that 100% of the contributors have clicked 'yes' to an agreement to distribute their changes under CC-BY-SA. Any legal niceties tidied up by a move to a different licence are good to have, all other things being equal, but are hugely outweighed if the data becomes a questionable mishmash of contributions that have agreement, and those that don't have agreement but pass some odd set of rules we invented ourselves to convince ourselves that we didn't need to get permission. I believe this is a wise approach. OSM is traditionally very conservative about using any data not from a know clean source. On the grand scale its relatively easy to capture map data, the value of a clean database far outweighs the risks associated with infringing anyone's copyright. We should apply the same degree of conserativism to our CC-BY-SA licensed data as we would to any other copyrighted data. Perhaps we are thinking about this all wrong. If we considered the ODbL to be a license fork of the project (albeit a friendly from the inside fork) then it makes it much easier to think about how all this should happen. 80n -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.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 plan - what data would need deleting
On Wednesday 04 March 2009, Ed Avis wrote: The only sound rule that can be sure to stand up in court is to delete all data from the contributors who didn't give explicit permission, and all data that depends on it. Period. I agree that the only legal sound way to do it is by removing all dependent data. But we can't even tell what data depends on data from contributors who didn't give permission... Suppose I split a way into two parts. The second part now gets uploaded as a completely new object, with nothing in its history pointing towards its origin. Or another example: I can align the outline of a forest to the road which I know is its boundary. So the forest is also a dependency, but not a single clue in the database the two might be related to each other. That's all becoming quite a minefield really. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting
2009/3/4 80n 80n...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a non-relicensing contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept. In the worst case, in the event of a dispute, do you really fancy trying to convince a court of law that the elaborate heuristics you applied are sufficient to make the map completely independent of the work of the users who said 'no'? The only sound rule that can be sure to stand up in court is to delete all data from the contributors who didn't give explicit permission, and all data that depends on it. Period. You may think this is unnecessarily paranoid. Indeed it is: but if the relicensing exercise doesn't put the project on a legally unassailable footing, it is not worth doing. At the moment we can say with certainty that 100% of the contributors have clicked 'yes' to an agreement to distribute their changes under CC-BY-SA. Any legal niceties tidied up by a move to a different licence are good to have, all other things being equal, but are hugely outweighed if the data becomes a questionable mishmash of contributions that have agreement, and those that don't have agreement but pass some odd set of rules we invented ourselves to convince ourselves that we didn't need to get permission. I believe this is a wise approach. OSM is traditionally very conservative about using any data not from a know clean source. On the grand scale its relatively easy to capture map data, the value of a clean database far outweighs the risks associated with infringing anyone's copyright. We should apply the same degree of conserativism to our CC-BY-SA licensed data as we would to any other copyrighted data. Perhaps we are thinking about this all wrong. If we considered the ODbL to be a license fork of the project (albeit a friendly from the inside fork) then it makes it much easier to think about how all this should happen. I think the problem here is the statement, delete all data from the contributors who didn't give explicit permission, and all data that depends on it. Period. If only it was that simple. There's two options: 1) Start again from the first point of time at which someone not agreeing to the switch contributed data. 2) Draw a pragmatic line somewhere to determine what constitutes a copyrightable derivation from CC-BY-SA data. Option 2 is what just about everybody is talking about. They're just putting the line in different places. So the question isn't ever really going to end in a Period. We're going to have to make a call, and that can be extremely conservative with large zones of reversion around every contaminated edit, or extremely aggressive with complex heuristics to determine significant edits, or any point in between. Most people seem to be aiming for middle ground with object based reversion only and extremely few heuristics (ie: a zero change edit doesn't count). Which makes some sense. But don't kid yourselves it's a simple A or B choice. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
I am not at all happy about how this sub-thread has developed into the realms of suggesting cartographers are somehow bad guys in this licence context. Richard correctly identifies me as one of the few cartographers working within the OSM project. However I am not, and never have been, a commercial cartographer. I prefer to be seen as a professional cartographer (in both senses of the word), or can live with traditional cartographer (as opposed to all the neo-cartographers) - and have worked in Higher Education rather than commercial cartography. Anyone that knows me will know that I have contributed in several ways to OSM (/resists temptation to list ) and have never wanted or expected any payback or to take advantage of other OSM players. Having said all that, my real point is that I know a lot of traditional cartographers (some in a commercial environment and some not) and have observed an actual reluctance to consider using OSM data. This might be surprising given that OSM has always said OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways [top of homepage]. My perception is that there are two things that stop this: Firstly, there seems to be either a misunderstanding of what the licence currently means, or a feeling that it is not possible to work within it's current terms. Secondly (and not directly relevant to this debate) the barriers to getting usable data from the DB. The Export tab offers XML format data (not a natural format for say an Illustrator user to encompass). Digging deeper gives the possibility of raw data or shape files from geofabrik, or cloudmade - giving those two plus formats such as Garmin, Navit and TomTom. And yes commercial cartographers can go to either of these named companies to pay for customised data output if they wish. I am hopeful (being of a fundamentally optimistic outlook by nature) that some resolution to the current licence issue will actually allow ALL cartographers to realise the fundamental aims of the project, and that we will see more and more innovative maps produced from this superb data source by both traditional and neo-cartographers. Cheers STEVE Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow Manager of e-Learning Academic Development Centre for Educational Technology Middlesex University phone/fax: 020 8411 5355 email: ste...@mdx.ac.uk http://www.mdx.ac.uk/schools/hssc/staff/profiles/technical/chiltons.asp Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/ SoC conference 2008: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/cartographers08/ -Original Message- From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst Sent: 03 March 2009 23:17 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] License plan OJ W wrote: [routing source code] I saw that as a bit of a loophole in the license which is unfortunate but rather difficult to close Ok, that's consistent. Extreme, perhaps, but consistent. But: [...] we can just declare that it should meet sharelike standards to ensure that OSM players are not trying to take advantage of each other. is inordinately offensive. As far as I know there are only two OSM players who are commercial cartographers in some way (though for neither of us is it our main job): me and Steve Chilton. To allege that we are aiming to take advantage of other contributors is, yes, offensive, but also insane beyond belief. You might not like Potlatch, you might not trace from NPE or ever use any traced data, you might never use the Mapnik layer. But there is no denying that all three of them are very major contributions to OSM without any - _any_ - payback. Meanwhile, the guys releasing the routing software are, er, the ones who've got €2.4m of venture capital. I don't begrudge them that - quite the contrary. I don't think anyone does. But you might want to open your eyes. Sheesh. Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22320263.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General 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 plan - what data would need deleting
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.ukwrote: 2009/3/4 80n 80n...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a non-relicensing contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept. In the worst case, in the event of a dispute, do you really fancy trying to convince a court of law that the elaborate heuristics you applied are sufficient to make the map completely independent of the work of the users who said 'no'? The only sound rule that can be sure to stand up in court is to delete all data from the contributors who didn't give explicit permission, and all data that depends on it. Period. You may think this is unnecessarily paranoid. Indeed it is: but if the relicensing exercise doesn't put the project on a legally unassailable footing, it is not worth doing. At the moment we can say with certainty that 100% of the contributors have clicked 'yes' to an agreement to distribute their changes under CC-BY-SA. Any legal niceties tidied up by a move to a different licence are good to have, all other things being equal, but are hugely outweighed if the data becomes a questionable mishmash of contributions that have agreement, and those that don't have agreement but pass some odd set of rules we invented ourselves to convince ourselves that we didn't need to get permission. I believe this is a wise approach. OSM is traditionally very conservative about using any data not from a know clean source. On the grand scale its relatively easy to capture map data, the value of a clean database far outweighs the risks associated with infringing anyone's copyright. We should apply the same degree of conserativism to our CC-BY-SA licensed data as we would to any other copyrighted data. Perhaps we are thinking about this all wrong. If we considered the ODbL to be a license fork of the project (albeit a friendly from the inside fork) then it makes it much easier to think about how all this should happen. I think the problem here is the statement, delete all data from the contributors who didn't give explicit permission, and all data that depends on it. Period. If only it was that simple. There's two options: 1) Start again from the first point of time at which someone not agreeing to the switch contributed data. 2) Draw a pragmatic line somewhere to determine what constitutes a copyrightable derivation from CC-BY-SA data. Option 2 is what just about everybody is talking about. They're just putting the line in different places. So the question isn't ever really going to end in a Period. We're going to have to make a call, and that can be extremely conservative with large zones of reversion around every contaminated edit, or extremely aggressive with complex heuristics to determine significant edits, or any point in between. Most people seem to be aiming for middle ground with object based reversion only and extremely few heuristics (ie: a zero change edit doesn't count). Which makes some sense. But don't kid yourselves it's a simple A or B choice. If someone were to fork the OSM database and try to make a PD version that only contained contribution from people who had self-declared their content as PD then we'd be right in demanding that they err on the side of caution. It's the same situation for ODbL. The fact that it's us doing this and not them is immaterial. 80n Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting
Dave Stubbs wrote: But don't kid yourselves it's a simple A or B choice. Absolutely. Steve actually answers this in his (very good IMO) Licence to kill post. You can theoretically work out a complicated Boolean system of is this derived from an ODbL refusenik's work?. You can read every bit of discussion about what substantial might mean in different jurisdictions, and write some clever fuzzy-matching software to reflect that. I think that's what people are talking about here. But as Steve points out, that's a programmer's answer, all very black-and-white. It doesn't actually work like that. What really makes the difference, in my very limited understanding (but hey, I'm a journalist not a programmer, limited understanding is a speciality :) ), is intent. Intent, and acting in good faith at all times. If we can demonstrate that we've taken reasonable precautions; that we have removed people's data on request (which, of course, we can do at any time); And for those who say well, let's stick with the clean dataset we have now: We don't actually have a clean dataset. Nowhere near. We have material from Google Maps in there. We have material from the Ordnance Survey. We may even have entire countries which have been taken from a source not compatible with our current licence - see the discussion about some of the ex-USSR states. The reason we haven't been sued is exactly the same. Intent and good faith. Things like community pressure, the stuff in the FAQ, and the warning you get when you start Potlatch. The efforts we go to to gather our own data. That is real, hard proof. And that won't change - we should make real efforts, and we will, but clinical boolean precision is a distraction. (Ed asked how we'd convince a court of law - that's how. At the very least, if Paul The Disaffected Mapper doesn't want to go to ODbL, some of his stuff somehow remains in, and he says ha, I'm going to sue, that _very_ instant a crowd of OSMers would go and survey the place in question to replace his data. You know what we're like. We like a challenge. :) ) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22329361.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: What really makes the difference, [...] is intent. Intent, and acting in good faith at all times. Could we perhaps shred all this legalese then, be done with the license (which is, in effect, an attempt at codifying things in a manner you and Steve have just discounted), and instead write an one-page statement of intent that says how we'd like our data to be used and how not, and that's it? Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
MP singularita at gmail.com writes: I thought of one improvement - in addition to allowing people to consent to new license, allow them also to (completely voluntary) agree to Public domain their contributions. Some of the people on wikipedia (though not nearly a majority) does that for their contributions and many photos on wikimedia commons are under PD, so I assume some contributors may like it here too - then give them the possibility. Some tools to extract only PD subset of data could be added later if necessary (export list of users agreeing to PD would make this possible). And as wikipedia offers their complete dump with entire history, we maybe can offer planet dump with entire history in it too, so it could be easier to pick up only the PD contributions (or basically to dig through history for any reason without querying the main server) OpenStreetMap has in a way advertised that users can decide to dual-license their data. I mean thes PD template system in the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Users_whose_contributions_are_in_the_public_domain In the beginning I thought that was a real alternative, but discovered soon that it was just a manifestation. I believe that majority of OSM users does not even like the idea of asking users now if they actually think that their data could well be in public domain. PD mappers just have better to do mapping with JOSM and save their incontestable edits as an own local copy for the future needs to be uploaded into OSM PD-repository or something. Main OSM database is not a place to store PD data to be extracted out afterwards. I suppose it is not even OK to add POIs with Potlatch and read them back to JOSM for making a local copy. One question: All edits of PD mappers could of course be tranferred under the new license even without asking us. But is is possible to connect our PD declarations in the wiki with our OSM data in a reliable way so that the tranfer could be automatic? User names used for mapping and in the wiki are not the same thing, or are they? However, wasting PD data just because the author can perhaps not be contacted feels silly. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: Main OSM database is not a place to store PD data to be extracted out afterwards. I suppose it is not even OK to add POIs with Potlatch and read them back to JOSM for making a local copy. That is disputed; there are those who say that something cannot lose its PD-ness by being transferred through a PD-unfriendly environment. One question: All edits of PD mappers could of course be tranferred under the new license even without asking us. But is is possible to connect our PD declarations in the wiki with our OSM data in a reliable way so that the tranfer could be automatic? User names used for mapping and in the wiki are not the same thing, or are they? They are not; but there is a template that people can use on their Wiki pages to give the name(s) they're mapping under. Was it {{User}}? Not sure. I think that before interpreting a Wiki PD dedication one would need to take a close look (Wiki user pages can be modified by anybody). Maybe we should, before we delete someone's data, do a quick check if we find him on the Wiki and he has PD'ed his data, by way of a manual process. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes: We don't actually have a clean dataset. Nowhere near. The reason we haven't been sued is exactly the same. Intent and good faith. You are right. So what is the way of dealing with a relicensing that preserves the intent of the contributors and is done in good faith? I would argue that only a conservative approach is good enough - removing all the 'no' contributions and things that depend on them. A complex set of rules and hand-waving to see what we can get away with isn't really acting in good faith and doesn't really respect the intent of people who uploaded data expecting it to have a CC-BY-SA licence. Again I would suggest the 'Google Maps Test' for any proposed scheme. Suppose back in 2005 somebody made substantial changes that were blatantly copied from Google Maps. They have lain undetected until now and others have made improvements to that area of the map. But now the copying has been detected, how much data must be deleted? Another way to consider it is that one OSM contributor, having done most but not all of the work in a particular region, wants to make a proprietary, copyrighted map of the region based on OSM data. How much of the data contributed by other OSM mappers does he need to remove? What about if another contributor originally added a feature and then he improved it? And so on. It is very tempting to give ourselves special indulgences when considering all this. Surely it won't matter if we just do X; we can mix together different licences for a transition period; it would be unkind and inconvenient to throw away large chunks of data just because the person who happened to map the region first couldn't be contacted. After all, we're all conscientious people acting in good faith and we want to do the right thing - that's the main thing, surely? Acting in good faith means taking the most cautious approach, seeing things from the other side, and not treating the OSM project any differently from another entity which wants to take the contributed work and strip off CC-BY-SA. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting
Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com writes: Suppose I split a way into two parts. The second part now gets uploaded as a completely new object, with nothing in its history pointing towards its origin. Although the way is new, don't the nodes along it keep their identity? Or another example: I can align the outline of a forest to the road which I know is its boundary. Yes, indeed. If the road is exactly along the forest boundary then you can again look at the nodes, but if there is some separation between the two there is no clue in the database. Yet clearly, tracing a road from the boundary of a forest, when you don't have permission to distribute the forest data itself under the licence you want, is no different to tracing a road from the boundary of an object you saw on Google Maps and overlaid on your screen. So, sadly, I suppose an 'exclusion zone' would have to be imposed. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Also, technically, when mixing licenses, we won't have mashup of cc-by-sa and odbl, we will have mashup of cc-by-sa without consent to relicense later under odbl and cc-by-sa with consent to relicense later under odbl. I guess that would work. The resulting collection would be distributable under CC-BY-SA only. If all of the old work without the extra consent is deleted, and all work derived from it (see earlier discussion), then you could distribute the result under the ODbL. I think this should be the way we'll be going instead of deletion. While it will postpone the moment from which all the data will be ODbLed, perhaps maybe year or alike in future, no or very little deletion would be necessary. ... PD mappers just have better to do mapping with JOSM and save their incontestable edits as an own local copy for the future needs to be uploaded into OSM PD-repository or something. Main OSM database is not a place to store PD data to be extracted out afterwards. I suppose it is not even OK to add POIs with Potlatch and read them back to JOSM for making a local copy. Why not? Unless someone modifies the data in meantime, what is wrong about reading back your own data as PD? One question: All edits of PD mappers could of course be tranferred under the new license even without asking us. But is is possible to connect our PD declarations in the wiki with our OSM data in a reliable way so that the tranfer could be automatic? User names used for mapping and in the wiki are not the same thing, or are they? ... No, they are not. In my case they are different (the one I picked for wiki was already taken by someone else for mapping, so I had to use another name for mapping). While I have on my wiki page (User:Bilbo) the template that tells everybody my edits are PD, the template actually does not tell which user's edits. So in my case, the matching username in mapping is completely different person. Best would be to add the ability directly to OSM (perhaps to the user settings somewhere) Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option
Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org writes: Could we perhaps shred all this legalese then, be done with the license (which is, in effect, an attempt at codifying things in a manner you and Steve have just discounted), and instead write an one-page statement of intent that says how we'd like our data to be used and how not, and that's it? Excellent idea. Or if I might make a slightly different suggestion: keep the CC-BY-SA licence because that's what we have, and it's the standard adopted by Wikipedia and other collections of free content. For the benefit of countries where a database right exists, and 'for the avoidance of doubt' as the ODbL says, add a short remark that the OSM foundation (which is the entity which has collated together all of the individual bits of mapmaking work into a giant database) will not assert its database right to stop distribution of OSM data, provided it's done under the CC-BY-SA. It is not necessary to have a big relicensing-and-deletion exercise to add this extra waiver of database rights, because everyone already agreed to let OSM distribute the data under CC-BY-SA and that's all we are doing. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting
Hi! Frederik Ramm wrote: [..] Could we perhaps shred all this legalese then [..] and instead write an one-page statement of intent that says how we'd like our data to be used and how not, and that's it? I don't want to sound stupid or offensive, but - sarcastic or whatever - I absolutely like Frederiks idea. Sorry... - Andreas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: For the benefit of countries where a database right exists, and 'for the avoidance of doubt' as the ODbL says, add a short remark that the OSM foundation (which is the entity which has collated together all of the individual bits of mapmaking work into a giant database) will not assert its database right to stop distribution of OSM data, provided it's done under the CC-BY-SA. What gives the OSMF special DB right to the collection of user-owned CC-BY-SA data as opposed to anyone else running a mirror of the DB? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason avarab at gmail.com writes: For the benefit of countries where a database right exists, and 'for the avoidance of doubt' as the ODbL says, add a short remark that the OSM foundation (which is the entity which has collated together all of the individual bits of mapmaking work into a giant database) will not assert its database right to stop distribution of OSM data, provided it's done under the CC-BY-SA. What gives the OSMF special DB right to the collection of user-owned CC-BY-SA data as opposed to anyone else running a mirror of the DB? If the OSMF doesn't in fact have the right to stop people using and distributing the database under database right laws, the above permission notice is redundant but harmless. If it does have that power, just as well to waive it so we can all get on with sharing the data under CC-BY-SA as intended. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 08:19, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com writes: Suppose I split a way into two parts. The second part now gets uploaded as a completely new object, with nothing in its history pointing towards its origin. Although the way is new, don't the nodes along it keep their identity? True, but what if I create a node at the same place I split? For instance, if I take an existing way and split it in two places to add a bridge tag, you'd end up with something like this: ( 1 )--A( 2 )B( 3 )--C--( 4 ) Nodes 2 and 3 have no reference to the original user in their individual histories, so it would be impossible to know that they are derived from whoever did the original way. Similarly, neither Way B nor any of its nodes have any reference back. Or, what if I happen to move every node in a way and change every single tag, and then the original mapper opts out of the license? What appears in the database at the current time is entirely my work, even though the refusenik appears in the history. Someone upthread suggested reverting to the database as it stood just before the first contribution from someone who refuses the new license, and I'm beginning to fear that's the only way to guarantee a completely clean version. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Or if I might make a slightly different suggestion: keep the CC-BY-SA licence because that's what we have, and it's the standard adopted by Wikipedia and other collections of free content. Not a helpful suggestion. It's been explained many times why sticking with CC-BY-SA on our geographical data set just isn't an option. These reasons are what spurred the initial considerations of changing the license all that time ago, and isn't something that's been undertaken lightly. If you're not up to speed on why, then please go find out. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option
Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com writes: Or if I might make a slightly different suggestion: keep the CC-BY-SA licence because that's what we have, and it's the standard adopted by Wikipedia and other collections of free content. Not a helpful suggestion. Isn't this rather prejudging the outcome of the licence debate and vote? I would expect that keeping the existing licence will be one of the options presented. It's been explained many times why sticking with CC-BY-SA on our geographical data set just isn't an option. I have read the explanation but I'm not convinced. As far as I can tell the only major point is that: OSM data is potentially in a curious unlicensed limbo at the moment, which will not protect us if a major geodata company, for example, decides to take our data without respecting the intent of the licence. I do not believe this scenario is at all likely, and even if it did happen it is a far lesser evil than losing big chunks of the OSM data and contributor base through a painful relicensing exercise. It is also a lesser evil than ending up with a new licence which is too restrictive and blocks reuse of the OSM data. (What 'too restrictive' means is a matter of opinion, but everyone can see that such an outcome is possible.) Further, as has been pointed out, this would be a very good outcome for OSM if it set the precedent that map data is not covered by copyright. I could start tracing in things from Ordnance Survey maps right away. Note that these maps are 'Crown Copyright', not 'Crown Database Right' or requiring you to agree to a contract or EULA to buy them. If it's good enough for the OS and their notoriously jealous legal department, it's good enough for OpenStreetMap. (The OS maps are printed maps and do not contain the OS's source database - but if the mere placement of map features is not covered by copyright, you could easily trace them and make your own independent database.) For this reason and others I do not think that any mapping agency would try to deny the enforceability of copyright and OSM's share-alike restrictions. But if they do, and it goes to court, it would be great news for OSM to lose! (If the database right can be used to patch holes in copyright's scope, then by all means do so. But there is no need to relicense to do that. The copyright licensing can continue to be done using CC-BY-SA as at present, and then the compiler of the database - which is the Foundation, not the individual contributors - can grant database right permission to those who distribute under the terms of CC-BY-SA.) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 04/03/09 10:51, MP wrote: Thayt is the worst thing - now you don't know who will agree to new license and who don't (unless you have some magic crystal ball). So you don't know which data are going to be removed and how much of them would it be until the last moment. Right. And then we decide whether or not to go ahead with the relicensing, depending on what the figures are. The alternative seems to be to get lots of people to make guesses about what they would do in certain situations, and then throw all that information away when we have actual data and ask people again, just like above. I don't see that as a good use of time. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option
Ed Avis wrote: I could start tracing in things from Ordnance Survey maps right away. Note that these maps are 'Crown Copyright', not 'Crown Database Right' http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crown+copyright+and+database+right%22 :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22333511.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes: I could start tracing in things from Ordnance Survey maps right away. Note that these maps are 'Crown Copyright', not 'Crown Database Right' http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crown+copyright+and+database+right%22 Heh. My maps are too old to have this. The point still stands: if it turns out that map data is copyright-free then this will be a great boost to the project. However, I wouldn't bet on that outcome. And if the OSM Foundation has a database right in the collected data, it could use it to sue anyone incorporating the data in proprietary maps right now. You do not need to relicense the data to cause that database right to appear. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option
On 4 Mar 2009, at 16:43, Ed Avis wrote: Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes: I could start tracing in things from Ordnance Survey maps right away. Note that these maps are 'Crown Copyright', not 'Crown Database Right' http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crown+copyright+and+database+right%22 Heh. My maps are too old to have this. The point still stands: if it turns out that map data is copyright- free then this will be a great boost to the project. However, I wouldn't bet on that outcome. The clear advice (verbal so far) from our lawyer is that in the UK/EU map data is covered by copyright (as well as DB rights). When one products an index of street names for a town then it starts to look more like a DB but some recent case law concluded that copyright was more significant that had been expected even in the case where two different people who didn't communicate and worked independently would come up with exactly the same answer - however somewhere in this second sentence I should have stopped and let our lawyer say it for herself. Regards, Peter And if the OSM Foundation has a database right in the collected data, it could use it to sue anyone incorporating the data in proprietary maps right now. You do not need to relicense the data to cause that database right to appear. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.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 plan - minimum-legalese option
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22crown+copyright+and+database+right%22 Heh. My maps are too old to have this. That would be an uphill battle, but there is a chance you might win. If you have old digital map data, you might have an even better chance. Do you have the resources to start a fight with OS? Thought so... - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option
Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com writes: The clear advice (verbal so far) from our lawyer is that in the UK/EU map data is covered by copyright (as well as DB rights). In that case what is http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=262 referring to with its 'curious unlicensed limbo' remark? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - minimum-legalese option
Peter Miller wrote: The clear advice (verbal so far) from our lawyer is that in the UK/EU map data is covered by copyright (as well as DB rights). I will quote the following from an Ordnance Survey agreement as much for people's amusement as for edification. Intellectual Property Rights means copyright, patent, trade mark, design right, topography right, database right, trade secrets, know-how, rights of confidence, broadcast rights and all other similar rights anywhere in the world whether or not registered and including applications for registration of any of them I have not made any of that up. Though I think Fake Ed Parsons put it more succinctly: Not only do we own all your data, we also own your trademarks, your logo and your fucking pet cat. Thanks. As ever with these things, either you join in on the arms race (which is why ODbL has three prongs: copyright, database right, contract), or you put down your arms and hope enough people will respect it (PD). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22334676.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! Steve Chilton schrieb: Having said all that, my real point is that I know a lot of traditional cartographers (some in a commercial environment and some not) and have observed an actual reluctance to consider using OSM data. This might be surprising given that OSM has always said OpenStreetMap creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways [top of homepage]. My perception is that there are two things that stop this: Firstly, there seems to be either a misunderstanding of what the licence currently means, or a feeling that it is not possible to work within it's current terms. Thank you for bringing this up. It has been on the back of my mind that OSM does not really live up to this mission statement on the top of the front page. It is good (or rather it is sad, but confirmation) to hear that there actually is reluctance among cartographers to use OSM data. I have found the same doubts in some forums in the geocommunity. The statement The project was started because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways describes very accurately the problem I have with the CC BY SA licence (apart from insufficient protection against abuse): I think of the OSM maps as free. But when I try to use them together with other sources in a creative, productive and not even unexpected way, I find myself bound by legal restrictions of the licence that disallow these use cases. This would indicate to me one of two cases: - The mission statement is wrong and needs to be changed to express the uncompromising disapproval of any non-totally-free use - The CC licence fails to provide the freedom of usage OSM was started for and needs to be replaced or augmented I believe/hope it was the latter and that is the reason why I approve the change of the licence. I want those two lines to be true and I want OSM to live up to them. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:18:48AM +, Ed Avis wrote: You have discussed some elaborate plans about what data from a non-relicensing contributor would have to be deleted and what would have to be kept. Are you responding to my mail, or one earlier in the thread? I stated that everything should be reverted to before each incompatible change. The only sound rule that can be sure to stand up in court is to delete all data from the contributors who didn't give explicit permission, and all data that depends on it. Period. Yes, like this. If you are referring to my mail, I can only assume you are referring to the last example sequence of edits I gave, and you assume that C’s edits are dependent on B’s incompatible edits. C created a completely new way where there was none. C may or may not have seen B’s removal of A’s scribble, but regardless, his edit is a completely new work. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan - what data would need deleting
OK, so lets assume that some data would have to be deleted (hopefully not lot of them, otherwise it would probably kill the project and spawn some forks with complete cc-by-sa data). Where there is the exact line between deleted and kept data is on another debate, but I wonder the way how the data would be deleted: - Would people know in advance what data are going to be deleted/reverted, so they can perhaps delete and redraw them themself? - If yes, how that would be done and how long before marking the data and actual deletion? - After deletion, would there be some marker like there is something deleted from here/this way was reverted for people to see, so they can improve the data again? - Would there be some log summarizing what data was/are going to be deleted from where after/before the deletion? Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 27 Feb 2009, at 05:04, Ben Laenen wrote: It looks like we finally got some kind of License plan for the step towards the new license, so everyone check http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan Let me start with the obvious questions first: * why don't you split between the votes whether you like license X and the question whether you're allowing the change of license on your data? After all, I want to have an idea *how much* of the data will still be there after the second vote. If it turns out that any data from someone who gave his approval would be deleted, then count me as no vote. so vote method is an interesting constraint... but I think we're being really hardcore in making sure that everyone who added data has to agree or we reset the process back to zero. * I still have no response to the question what would happen with my data if it's derived from someone who doesn't give it's approval for a license change. My view, personally, is that it should be dropped. But y'know I just don't think it will happen like that. If we build a positive process and bring people with us then we'll get the majority of the people along. We will lose small bits of data but thats ok, we have fantastic volunteer community to fix those edges, we'll be in shape in no time. And how are you going to check that anyway? You can do lots of things with CC-BY-SA data (copying, splitting, merging) where it's impossible to Well it's all in the database... every single edit (oh and the dump of the segments stuff). Because one day, about 4.5 years ago I knew it would be needed and designed it in. No need to thank me. No. Really. My understanding is for example that if you split a way, there's not a single connection between the two parts of the way telling that one derived from the other. I can't comment on what potlatch does to my beautiful database. And what with the countless relations? If there's one way added to it by someone that didn't give approval, the only thing you can do is remove the relation as it was derived from CC-BY-SA data. Goodbye to your hundreds of kilometers long routes. Be positive Ben-san. All will work out if we build it together, lets not drop it all at step one. Lets start from the fact we want to have a great license. That it wont be perfect but it is a fantastic first step and that if we build it together then we will get there and get on with the most important thing in our world - building the map. * Website to allow users to voluntarily agree to new license. Design allows you to click yes, or if you disagree a further page explaining the position and asking to reconsider as there may be a requirement to ultimately remove the users data. This will help stop people accidentally clicking 'no'. Sign up page now states you agree to license your changes under both CCBYSA and also ODbL. Question: how's that not pushing the new license onto the mappers? You remember the entire plan is open to comment right? You can suggest an alternative like wait until an asteroid hits and wipes out civilisation Then we won't need to worry about the license! Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! Ed Loach schrieb: As I think someone else pointed out, if it is abusable then we could abuse it and not lose any data with the switch. Yep, we would just loose the people and the credibility. This could only be considerd a last resort for data of people that still cannot be reached after trying really hard. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
I wrote: As I think someone else pointed out, if it is abusable then we could abuse it and not lose any data with the switch. And before the flood of emails - I forgot the smiley. I'm sure I read somewhere lots of suggestions about what would happen to various items based on whether the people who created it/amended it agreed to the new licence or not, but can't find where. Was it in the wiki or on an email list? Can anyone remember. Anyway, I don't understand all these legal aspects. I joined the project to help improve the map and will continue to do so whether the licence changes or not, hoping that those people who do know what they are talking about are acting in the best interest of the project. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
wer-ist-roger wrote: First of all we will lose data. We won't get everyone to agree on the new license. No matter why. Maybe they don't approve the new license or we just can't reach them anymore. There's three categories to consider relating to existing data. 1. People who have made edits and can't be contacted. This is the hard one. (As said previously, I think _minor_ contributors - whose work isn't substantial - could be moved across automatically if they don't respond, though still given the right to withdraw at a later time, but this isn't a universally-held opinion.) 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this percentage should be very small. I'm reminded of a participant at the SOTM licence debate (I won't identify him, he can speak up if he wants) who spoke fervently against PD - which of course isn't what's being proposed here - but later said I think if you moved to PD, I wouldn't withdraw my data, I just wouldn't contribute any more. If that's the case for PD then surely he wouldn't withdraw from a different share-alike/attribution licence. 3. Large organisations. I believe Canada has been done with the expectation of a move anyway; the US is PD so no bother; it's immaterial to Yahoo. So the issue is largely reassuring the original owners of the European imports. IMO ODbL should always be better for them because of its contribute back the source of improvements clause, which of course CC-BY-SA doesn't have: so, AND (for example) are guaranteed access to all improvements based upon their work. But this is probably an evangelism job for the foundation. So all in all, if done right (and that's a big if), the amount of data we lose _should_ be very small assuming that ODbL is deemed acceptable and the bugs are ironed out. There's then a second question: how does a licence move change future contributions? Much harder to measure, but my gut feeling is that because the licences are both attribution/share-alike, the move will be largely neutral, maybe even positive. I know a bunch of people who haven't contributed significantly to OSM because of CC-BY-SA, generally either because of unclarity (I don't have any confidence this will stand up, so I'm not contributing to something that could easily be exploited) or the old derived work issue. For myself, I'm spending every evening this week working on a detailed map of the Chesterfield Canal and the surrounding area: data which I'd put into OSM under ODbL, but which at present I do entirely standalone under Adobe Illustrator, because of CC-BY-SA. This is a regular occurrence (our magazine runs a detailed set of canal maps every month) and it frustrates me every time. But, on the other side, there will be a handful who genuinely prefer CC-BY-SA, and we'll lose them. Re: automatically moving from CC-BY-SA to ODbL via a licence upgrade: for those who don't follow legal-talk, I raised the idea there in the expectation that the nice chap from Creative Commons would respond, and sure enough, he did. However, his reply was that CC's position is that data should be licensed as public domain, so they wouldn't be interested in such a move. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22304926.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
I can't see how any plan that involves deleting non-trivial amounts of data is ever going to work anyway as who is going to stop people from re-uploading the data with minor changes to tags and all the nodes moved by a metre or two? Kevin Ed Loach wrote: I wrote: As I think someone else pointed out, if it is abusable then we could abuse it and not lose any data with the switch. And before the flood of emails - I forgot the smiley. I'm sure I read somewhere lots of suggestions about what would happen to various items based on whether the people who created it/amended it agreed to the new licence or not, but can't find where. Was it in the wiki or on an email list? Can anyone remember. Anyway, I don't understand all these legal aspects. I joined the project to help improve the map and will continue to do so whether the licence changes or not, hoping that those people who do know what they are talking about are acting in the best interest of the project. Ed ___ 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 plan
Hi, wer-ist-roger wrote: But we could lose even more! The ones that don't agree on the change might start a fork and that would be the worst thing that could happen. That's why we talk to each other before taking the next step. If people feel rushed or left out then they are likely to fork; if we work hard to include as many people as possible - sometimes a symbolic gesture is enough to make people feel that their concerns are heard, sometimes the wording of the license needs to be adapted -, then we might just get this through. And one more thing. How can we be sure that the coming up license suites the project? I don't want to have this discussion in 3 years again. The ODbL has a provision for automatic upgrades to later versions. It is currently unclear (a) who decides what a later version is, (b) whether we can convince everybody to trust them enough, and (c) how we can be sure that *if* we require a change to the license, a matching later version will be provided by them. But if these things are sorted out then we should be reasonably safe... Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: There's three categories to consider relating to existing data. 1. People who have made edits and can't be contacted. 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. 3. Large organisations. I have a fourth category to add: 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release (which seems to be planned for 28th March), or people who have legitimate concerns and find them answered with an I don't know from the legal counsel and an we'll press ahead anyway from OSMF. Having a proper process that takes our project members and their concerns seriously, rather than holding a gun to their heads and saying agree to this license or go away, is not only important for keeping as much data as possible, it is also, in my eyes, a requirement of project ethics. I can live with some data being lost. But I would like to avoid press headlines like 20% of OpenStreetMap members quit over license row / Disgruntled mappers say they feel ignored / Fake SteveC: 'Crisis? What Crisis?' - I think *that* kind of thing would hurt us more than having to redraw a few villages. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: There's three categories to consider relating to existing data. 1. People who have made edits and can't be contacted. 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. 3. Large organisations. I have a fourth category to add: 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release (which seems to be planned for 28th March), or people who have legitimate concerns and find them answered with an I don't know from the legal counsel and an we'll press ahead anyway from OSMF. Having a proper process that takes our project members and their concerns seriously, rather than holding a gun to their heads and saying agree to this license or go away, is not only important for keeping as much data as possible, it is also, in my eyes, a requirement of project ethics. I can live with some data being lost. But I would like to avoid press headlines like 20% of OpenStreetMap members quit over license row / Disgruntled mappers say they feel ignored / Fake SteveC: 'Crisis? What Crisis?' - I think *that* kind of thing would hurt us more than having to redraw a few villages. FULL ACK!!! Personally I am feeling excluded from what's going on behind the scenes and I think this is not the way for a project that has open in his name ... There were only very few news on talk/talk-de available for such an important thing as a license change. A little bit more respect to the people that actually did the mapping work would probably be a very good idea. We're only loosing 5% of the data is a very, very strange attitude for me. Not because of the data but because of the people behind that data. I must say that this is the first time that I'm seriously thinking about to stop my effort with OpenStreetMap completely and I'm feeling very sorry about that. But I just won't continue to spend effort if OSM in the long run probably ends up as a commercial thing. You're probably not aware, but with the way the current license discussion is done you are spreading a lot of FUD on your own project :-( Just wanted to let you know how the current actions are received from people not being directly involved in legal talk ... Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, Ulf Lamping wrote: We're only loosing 5% of the data is a very, very strange attitude for me. Not because of the data but because of the people behind that data. Well, we always said we have unlimited free labour ,-) But I just won't continue to spend effort if OSM in the long run probably ends up as a commercial thing. The idea that the new license is somehow paving the way for OSM to end up as a commercial thing is utterly wrong, and whoever claims this should be hit over the head with a large cluebat. However the fact that there seem to more such people than cluebats tells us that somewhere there's a lesson to be learned about communication. It seems that the new license effort, so far, has been a prime example of how *not* to do it. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Ulf Lamping wrote: Personally I am feeling excluded from what's going on behind the scenes and I think this is not the way for a project that has open in his name ... If it helps, there _isn't_ anything going on behind the scenes... well, at least not that I know of. Post in German, or French, or whatever, on here if you like - we all have Google Translate, someone will step up to translate manually, and it's a million times better than not posting. Put stuff on the wiki. Ask questions. Vent. Rant. Anything from a misplaced capital in ODbL to a serious doubt about the entire licensing philosophy. Just say it. Far, far better that you speak up and post I'm worried about this because..., even in Schwabisch dialect if you like, than you sit there in silence thinking there's this conspiracy to make OSM commercial and I feel left out. Because There Is No Cabal. Look around you - who's organised enough to come up with a conspiracy? If there was a conspiracy they'd be doing it better. But OSM is at heart a disorganised rabble - that's why the communication on the licence issue has been shit, yes, but that's also why we've mapped large portions of the world, because you couldn't organise it better than that. I've said it a million times before but: there is no you in this project, there is only us. Of course, this might be why Steve thinks I'm a filthy communist. If I could cross-post this to talk-de, talk-fr, talk-it and the rest, I would do. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22306472.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
A little bit more respect to the people that actually did the mapping work would probably be a very good idea. We're only loosing 5% of the data is a very, very strange attitude for me. Not because of the data but because of the people behind that data. Losing 5% of data will do much more damage than it looks - as we can probably assume, that the 5% would be rather randomly distributed, random 5% of objects would disappear. Now you need to go through the remaining 95% and check/remap it, especially for areas that are already mapped almost completely, to find out what was lost and redraw it. People will be stuck for weeks/months checking the data and repairing the damage - and some of them may get frustrated and leave the project. I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except the original data). Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this percentage should be very small. except that the ODbL does represent a fundamental change in licensing of map images - previously they were sharealike, but with ODbL it will only require attribution? This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-reserved map images based on their data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
OJ W wrote: This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights- reserved map images based on their data. Yeah, just like I lie in bed at night fretting that people can sell all-rights-reserved, closed-source routing services based on my data. Come on. cheers Richard (On a point of order, I don't believe ODbL _does_ allow all-rights-reserved anyway; that's what the reverse-engineering clause is about.) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22308562.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
MP singularita at gmail.com writes: I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except the original data). You would have to be very careful about doing that. I don't think it would work to view the map, see a street tagged 'bad licence', delete it and then add it back. Even if you were honest enough to close your eyes, turn around three times and then re-trace it from the aerial photography, it still looks very suspect. And when deleting the street you would have to delete all its nodes, including those that are intersections with other streets, since it obviously doesn't do anything to delete the way but leave all the nodes there to be straightaway reconnected. Try this thought experiment: suppose a user imported data from Google Maps and randomly scattered it around the map. But he added a special tag to it so that people could later delete these tainted map features and recreate them. Even after the last bit of tagged data had been deleted and re-added, could you really claim that the resulting map was clean and legally sound? If a mishmash of CC-BY-SA and ODbL licensed map data is workable, then let's trace all the missing towns from Google Maps right now and mark them with a special tag to be replaced later when we get round to it. I'm sure the Google licence doesn't allow you to mix it with your own data and release the result under a licence of your choice, but then neither does CC-BY-SA or the permission grant made by users when they sign up to the project. Since the reason for relicensing is to be ultra-cautious and take care of certain theoretical legal bogeymen, it makes sense to be ultra-cautious in removing possibly tainted data. There is no point doing a relicensing that leaves the project in a more questionable legal situation than before. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: OJ W wrote: This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights- reserved map images based on their data. Yeah, just like I lie in bed at night fretting that people can sell all-rights-reserved, closed-source routing services based on my data. Come on. Could you expand that answer? Removing cartography from the scope of OSM's license would seem to deserve a better explanation than a dismissal like that. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this percentage should be very small. It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the following questions: - do you delete only data from contributors who explicitly say 'no' to the new licence or also if you have no response ? what is the argument to consider an absence of response to be a 'yes' or 'no' ? - do you delete data from big contributors only or also all small or single contributions ? - if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are only part of the history of objects, do you rollback to a previous version of these objects ? remove completely the objects if the contributor is the creator or the last modifier ? only if the contributor is the single contributor on the whole history of the object ? - if the objects you delete are part of a relation, do you keep the relation at the end even if all members have to be deleted ? or you also delete the relation in this case ? what happen if another contributor (who accepted the new license) added/changed properties of a relation where all members have to be deleted ? - if someone says 'no' to the new license and wrote a bot, do you also delete the bot contributions ? - after deletion, do you keep the trace in the history of other related objects ? will it be possible for someone else to revert the deletion through Potlatch for instance ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: except that the ODbL does represent a fundamental change in licensing of map images - previously they were sharealike, but with ODbL it will only require attribution? That is hos the license is understood by most people, yes. Some questions on the final wording are still outstanding, as you have probably seen. This could potentially alienate anyone who wonders why they are doing surveying for free so that cartographers can sell all-rights-reserved map images based on their data. It could, potentially, even if I agree with Richard. I think it is important to explain why this change is to the better in the majority of the cases. It is no longer possible to make massive amendments to the OSM data set, make a mp of this and not share the data. Previously, you had to share the map image, including design elements like pictograms, but to get the updated map data into the database again, someone would have to to georectification of the map and trace the changes. With the ODbL, the image of the map does not have to be free, but the data have to be shared. This means that the design elements are proprietary, but the data are easily available. This also opens up uses where you can combine data sources with different licenses. One example could be digital elevation models combined with data from OSM, to make a good hiking map. Two examples: I want to make a map of Copenhagen, with some good beer pubs. I am a lousy artist, and would like to grab some pictograms from istockphoto.com to make a good looking map. This is not possible today, and the map will lack good pictograms. I will also be adding some extra pubs and other information which is not in the database today. If anyone want to add this extra information to the database, so they will be available for other users, they will have to do this manually and the project gains very little. Cloudmade and Geofabrik have some nice looking stylesheets that I would like to base the above map on. Even if the map tiles are available to me, they are little of no use to me. I will need to customize some things, like rendering of pubs and restaurants, and cannot use the tiles directly. The share alike properties of these images is not worth very much to me. I think the bottom line here, is that the _data_ are very much more valuable than any image made with them. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Pieren wrote: It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the following questions: It's not been decided. What do you think should happen? Everything is up for debate. ODbL itself is up for debate. As Jordan (co-author) said on odc-discuss earlier re: a point we raised: It (like the rest of the ODbL) isn't set in stone and so totally open for discussion. Really, there's no evil force presenting a fait accompli here. brokenrecordThere is no you or them, only us./brokenrecord cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22310154.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net writes: Under CC-BY-SA, as I'm sure you know, a printed map can only be licensed as copyleft. The cartographer therefore no longer has exclusive rights to their added value (colours, selection of data to include, and so on), which are clearly apparent from the map. These can be trivially copied. Under CC-BY-SA, a routing service does not have to be licensed as copyleft.[1] The author of the routing service does not have to disclose their added value (weightings for different types of road, any transformations applied to the data, etc.). These cannot be trivially copied: to do so would require reverse-engineering a near-infinite set of requests and you'd probably be banned for DoSing before that. ;) But I don't see how arguing for full disclosure by cartographers, but not by routing system authors, is tenable. What you wrote above is a very good argument for it. Rendering the data into a printed map is not a great deal of effort. Anyone can do it and many already do so. There are not many people who would be put off from rendering maps by being unable to make the result proprietary. The copyleft requirement is pretty trivial and doesn't create disincentives to rendering a map, because rendering a map is so easy. (In any case, even though you can freely copy a PNG file of a map or photocopy a page, and even though you can see for yourself what colour scheme was used, you don't have the program code that was used to render the ways and the text, which is the hard part. That code doesn't have to be distributed.) On the other hand, the data for a routing service such as road weightings takes a bit of effort to get right and is something that many companies wish to keep secret (while nobody thinks that map coloration can be a secret). If using OSM data meant you also had to reveal your routing database, it might act as a serious brake on use of OSM by the commercial routing services, and perhaps even in academic projects. Tele Atlas are quite happy to license their data without insisting that you disclose your algorithms or weights, and if OSM ends up being more restrictive then the companies won't use it. No loss to them - only to us. I support the principle of copyleft, but it is important not to get too greedy. Just because some seeming bad use of the data can technically be prevented by a certain extra clause in the licence does not mean that it should be. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Ed Avis wrote: What you wrote above is a very good argument for it. Rendering the data into a printed map is not a great deal of effort. Anyone can do it and many already do so. There are not many people who would be put off from rendering maps by being unable to make the result proprietary. The copyleft requirement is pretty trivial and doesn't create disincentives to rendering a map, because rendering a map is so easy. I think you're approaching that from a very programmatic perspective, and this confirms it: (In any case, even though you can freely copy a PNG file of a map or photocopy a page, and even though you can see for yourself what colour scheme was used, you don't have the program code that was used to render the ways and the text, which is the hard part. No, no, no, no, no, no. It might be easy to do an automated rendering. That's not what I'm talking about. What concerns me is hand-drawn cartography. The program code for that, in my case, is something like Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator, which anyone can have - but that's incidental. I spend days on getting the cartography right for the maps we produce in the magazine every month. It isn't rendering. It's entirely done by hand. Getting the label placement right, choosing the colour set, working on the pull-outs, generalising features so that they don't collide but the user doesn't notice the distortion: that _is_ a great deal of effort. I try to aspire to OS Landranger quality of cartography, not MapQuest! http://www.systemeD.net/osm/caldon_2.jpg http://www.systemeD.net/osm/caldon_3.jpg http://www.systemeD.net/osm/caldon_4.jpg (There's no OSM data in there - and conversely, OSM doesn't have all that data either; and even if the maps were CC-BY-SA, which they weren't, the generalisation is such that CC-BY-SA doesn't give much useful return to the project.) Believe me, I first wrote a passable routing program with reasonably decent weighting at the age of 19 or so (heh, I found a review - http://www.thecompclub.org.uk/newsletters/12.pdf), and it was a whole host more trivial than the n years of experience that have, I hope, given me the skills to design attractive maps. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22311108.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
2009/3/3 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:13 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: 2. People who don't like ODbL and withdraw their data. _Assuming_ we can get the bugs sorted in ODbL, and we can't take that for granted yet, this percentage should be very small. It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the following questions: As has been said, a lot of this is up for discussion of various kinds... here's my brief attempt at answering... all responses are just my interpretation... feel free to say I'm wrong :-) - do you delete only data from contributors who explicitly say 'no' to the new licence or also if you have no response ? what is the argument to consider an absence of response to be a 'yes' or 'no' ? No response == no... but they might change their mind later and ask for their data to be reintegrated which really is /fun/. See next q though. - do you delete data from big contributors only or also all small or single contributions ? YMMV on this one. For cleanest DB you delete everything, for most data kept we run the risk with small uncopyrightable contributions. Also we may treat no response differently to no for this. From now on I'm assuming a cleanest DB scenario... - if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are only part of the history of objects, do you rollback to a previous version of these objects ? yes remove completely the objects if the contributor is the creator or the last modifier ? yes for creator, revert for modifier only if the contributor is the single contributor on the whole history of the object ? yes - if the objects you delete are part of a relation, do you keep the relation at the end even if all members have to be deleted ? or do you revert the relation to the point before the object was added to the relation, or even to the point before the object was edited (as otherwise your remaining relation maybe derived from the object). Personally I think you're probably OK removing the object. Does an empty, unreferenced relation serve any purpose? And if it doesn't do we care? or you also delete the relation in this case ? what happen if another contributor (who accepted the new license) added/changed properties of a relation where all members have to be deleted ? relations are like any other object -- revert to the relation state before the person edited, then start removing things from it. - if someone says 'no' to the new license and wrote a bot, do you also delete the bot contributions ? we can't tell the difference, so yes. But we may be able to mark most of the edits as trivial and not remove them. - after deletion, do you keep the trace in the history of other related objects ? will it be possible for someone else to revert the deletion through Potlatch for instance ? Nasty question :-) Really the history should be deleted. You can leave a trace that something happened, but details shouldn't be available, neither should revert. We don't currently have a way to do that. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM, wer-ist-roger juwelier-onl...@web.dewrote: The only thing I'm missing right now is a little more explenation on the wiki page. For example why needs the database a license at all? The database is nothing without the data init. So first of all why dose the database need a license and why do we need two different licenses for database and the data within? What is an appropriate wiki page? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 03/03/09 09:43, Frederik Ramm wrote: 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release (which seems to be planned for 28th March), I agree that the timeline is too tight, particularly given that people have to manage communication with communities other than English. But where are suggestions being brushed away? Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except the original data). You would have to be very careful about doing that. I don't think it would work to view the map, see a street tagged 'bad licence', delete it and then add it back. Even if you were honest enough to close your eyes, turn around three times and then re-trace it from the aerial photography, it still looks very suspect. And when deleting the street you would have to delete all its nodes, including those that are intersections with other streets, since it obviously doesn't do anything to delete the way but leave all the nodes there to be straightaway reconnected. Sometimes (if current data are drawn very inaccurately and do not contain any valuable tags like name, etc..) I do this - delete current data, then draw it again from scratch from aerial photography with greater accuracy. It is faster than trying to move existing vertices around, splitting and merging the ways in the process. Yes, you have to be very catious when redrawing, but I think it may be possible. Try this thought experiment: suppose a user imported data from Google Well, this is disallowed completely in first place. But here we have good data, just under different (but similar) license. Since the reason for relicensing is to be ultra-cautious and take care of certain theoretical legal bogeymen, it makes sense to be ultra-cautious in removing possibly tainted data. There is no point doing a relicensing that leaves the project in a more questionable legal situation than before. Well, but how can you then explain to users that half of the data is lost just due to small incompatibilities between cc and odbl? Also, technically, when mixing licenses, we won't have mashup of cc-by-sa and odbl, we will have mashup of cc-by-sa without consent to relicense later under odbl and cc-by-sa with consent to relicense later under odbl. I think such mashup could work for short time (before we persuade all to get consent or delete and replace their data if we have no consent), once we have all cc-by-sa with consent for odbl, we can just switch to odbl. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
2009/3/3 MP singular...@gmail.com: I think we should find some way to avoid deleting at all. For some transitional time (in which the data will be still under cc-by-sa but we will be collecting consent of users for ODbL) mark data coming from/derived from people uncontactable/disagreeing with license with some special tag. Let people delete these parts and redraw them from scratch (from allowed sources/existing GPS tracks, anything except the original data). You would have to be very careful about doing that. I don't think it would work to view the map, see a street tagged 'bad licence', delete it and then add it back. Even if you were honest enough to close your eyes, turn around three times and then re-trace it from the aerial photography, it still looks very suspect. And when deleting the street you would have to delete all its nodes, including those that are intersections with other streets, since it obviously doesn't do anything to delete the way but leave all the nodes there to be straightaway reconnected. Sometimes (if current data are drawn very inaccurately and do not contain any valuable tags like name, etc..) I do this - delete current data, then draw it again from scratch from aerial photography with greater accuracy. It is faster than trying to move existing vertices around, splitting and merging the ways in the process. Yes, you have to be very catious when redrawing, but I think it may be possible. Try this thought experiment: suppose a user imported data from Google Well, this is disallowed completely in first place. But here we have good data, just under different (but similar) license. And what makes Google's data /bad/? Presumably that it's copyrighted and we can't copy it right? Well, guess what... so's the cc-by-sa data. Since the reason for relicensing is to be ultra-cautious and take care of certain theoretical legal bogeymen, it makes sense to be ultra-cautious in removing possibly tainted data. There is no point doing a relicensing that leaves the project in a more questionable legal situation than before. Well, but how can you then explain to users that half of the data is lost just due to small incompatibilities between cc and odbl? By telling them? No body wants to loose data here. That doesn't mean we can just go around violating our own license. Also, technically, when mixing licenses, we won't have mashup of cc-by-sa and odbl, we will have mashup of cc-by-sa without consent to relicense later under odbl and cc-by-sa with consent to relicense later under odbl. I think such mashup could work for short time (before we persuade all to get consent or delete and replace their data if we have no consent), once we have all cc-by-sa with consent for odbl, we can just switch to odbl. Sure, but somebody copying the data and then deleting the original doesn't make it OK and with consent. All this idea does is muddy the water by inviting people to copy data and cause us problems. If we have to delete stuff, we should delete it properly and keep ourselves clean. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi, Gervase Markham wrote: 4. People who don't dislike ODbL per se but dislike the manner in which it was brought about, and thus feel rushed/excluded. People who make sensible suggestions for improvement but see their suggestions brushed away or simply ignored because this would just delay the license release (which seems to be planned for 28th March), I agree that the timeline is too tight, particularly given that people have to manage communication with communities other than English. But where are suggestions being brushed away? Nothing has been brushed away as far as I am aware; I just think there is a (considerable IMHO) risk that things will either be brushed away or at least be seen to. 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 plan
Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net writes: 80n wrote: What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? I'd be interested to see this related to our userbase and editing stats. If (say) we lose 5%, how many months - at current rates of growth - does it take us to get back to the previous level? It is not that simple. What if those 5% is half of South Africa? You certainly can not interpolate overall OSM growth to re-surveying South Africa. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 03:28:10PM +0100, Pieren wrote: It's very confusing now about who, how and what is deleted with the license change. I would appreciate if someone could answer the following questions: My take: - do you delete only data from contributors who explicitly say 'no' to the new licence or also if you have no response ? Delete both. what is the argument to consider an absence of response to be a 'yes' or 'no' ? The main thing is, no contributor, unless they have specifically stated otherwise, has (or in some cases, can) assign the rights to OSM, and OSM cannot just assume rights other than those given by the licence they were contributed under. Some users have declared their contributions to be in the public domain (or as close as law permits). Whether or not they respond, I think it’s safe to assume their data can be distributed under the terms of the new licence (I’d hope we’d be polite and ask anyway). - do you delete data from big contributors only or also all small or single contributions ? All data incompatible with the new licence, large or small. - if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are only part of the history of objects, do you rollback to a previous version of these objects ? Rollback to the last version before any changes incompatible with the new licence are made. There is the idea floating around that modifications to existing data are insubstantial, and successive contributions could potentially be kept without issue, but I think it is safest to remove them. Maybe if a user responds “no”, a further page could ask whether or not they agree with their modifications to other peoples’ data being used under the terms of the new licence. remove completely the objects if the contributor is the creator or the last modifier ? Remove the object completely if the contributor is the creator. If the contributor is the last modifier, revert to the revision before as above. only if the contributor is the single contributor on the whole history of the object ? Remove the object completely. - if the objects you delete are part of a relation, do you keep the relation at the end even if all members have to be deleted ? or you also delete the relation in this case ? I am not sure there is much point in keeping the relation. If someone needs to use a relation to describe the same thing they can always create a new one. There is another question here: If the contributor created a relation and added ways and nodes appropriately, do you delete the relation even when it includes references to objects from other contributors? I think, to be safe, you do, but I also feel there is a looser coupling if the relation only relates objects compatible with the new licence. what happen if another contributor (who accepted the new license) added/changed properties of a relation where all members have to be deleted ? I still don’t think there is much point in keeping the relation. - if someone says 'no' to the new license and wrote a bot, do you also delete the bot contributions ? Yes, unless they say otherwise. It may well be that the bot author feels that, while they do not agree to the new licence for their own modifications, those made by the bot may be insubstantial (e.g. spelling corrections), and say “no” for their own edits, and “yes” for their bot’s edits. - after deletion, do you keep the trace in the history of other related objects ? In the interests of keeping it clean, any reverts made due to incompatible changes would not be kept in the history. A backup can be kept of the old database of CC-by-sa compatible data. It might come in handy if some non‐responders pipe up and say “yes”, or the “no” voters change their minds. will it be possible for someone else to revert the deletion through Potlatch for instance ? It shouldn’t be. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: It might be easy to do an automated rendering. That's not what I'm talking What concerns me is hand-drawn cartography. The program code for that, in my case, is something like Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator, which anyone can have - but that's incidental. I spend days on getting the cartography right for the maps we produce in the magazine every month. It isn't rendering. It's entirely done by hand. Getting the label placement right, choosing the colour set, working on the pull-outs, generalising features so that they don't collide but the user doesn't notice the distortion: that _is_ a great deal of effort. I try to aspire to OS Landranger quality of cartography, not MapQuest! Currently OSM surveyors do their thing in the understanding that cartographers will turn the result into something nice that they can use (and the surveyors know that they will benefit from this due to the map images being sharealike) If the cartographers then devise a new license that says my contributions are more important than yours, I should get exclusive rights over my additions to the map with a paintbrush while you shouldn't get exclusive rights over your additions to the map with a GPS then it reduces the incentive for people to survey, since the work they do can be published in a way that they can't use or copy. The only counter-argument to this seems to be that the freetards are invited to do a free version of cartography themselves, duplicating effort that has already been done in the proprietary world in order to get access to the results (as nice map images) of their own surveying ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 05:21:02PM +0100, Tobias Knerr wrote: because of a change to the data, but the (unpublished) tools creating the images, thus nothing of use would be contributed back to the free world with ODbL. Then we need to make sure as many tools as possible are free software, and are at least as good as the proprietary competition. I have had to explain to free software advocates before (I am one) that OpenStreetMap is about free geodata, not necessarily free software. Still, some free software advocates will go off in a hissy fit because they believe the project has its priorities wrong. The better answer would to get behind the free software tools that are already out there, maybe even help to develop more, and compete with proprietary software the same way free software always has done. It turns out that much of the software for OpenStreetMap is free software. I don't think explaining that data is more useful for us than images will help (I've already tried that), because that won't stop them from demanding both. Similarly, we can put enough free images out there for them to be useful to all, and make the non‐free ones hardly worth the pixels/vectors. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Am Dienstag 03 März 2009 schrieb Gustav Foseid: On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM, wer-ist-roger juwelier-onl...@web.dewrote: The only thing I'm missing right now is a little more explenation on the wiki page. For example why needs the database a license at all? The database is nothing without the data init. So first of all why dose the database need a license and why do we need two different licenses for database and the data within? What is an appropriate wiki page? - Gustav First of all it would be interesting for what we need the Open Database License and the Factual Information License? So we are actully not talking about just one (everyone just talks about ODbL) but two licenses, so what's als about this factual information license thing? An appropriat wiki page for me would be a page that explains to a law noob like me what happens to my data that I submit. What can be done with the data once it's uploaded (from an contributer and user perspectiv) and what could happen with it in the future (especially concerning the licenses, new versions of them and how we want to prevent another discussion like this). Who is the owner of this material. Maybe one should point out the differences between the current licens and the new licenseS and what it means to the regular contributer. It is not important to show every aspect of the licens but to give a good and short overview. Giving more information about the licenses might be good to get them more popular. Because the more I read about it here on the mailing list the more I get confused and by now I even disagree a little with the license change. A good wiki page that shows a little more then just the current one might help more. Roger ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The cartographer goes off on a tangent; he does not help us in reaching the goal of a free world map; he is a *user* of the free world map and not a *creator*. It is nice if he makes his work available because it allows us to show off what can be done with our data (although if he at least attributes us that's also a good thing). But him releasing his work does not contribute to the free world map; or, turned the other way round, him keeping his work for himself does not slow us down in any way (because what would we do with his painted maps? trace our data off them?). what would we do with the cartographer's map images? (other than print them to navigate with or, put them in an encyclopedia, seems reasonable after *we* mapped the area...) the obvious one is: we would use them in software currently, there are many different slippy-maps showing different renderings of OSM data. They are all technically compatible (due to the tilenames) and they are all legally compatible (due to the CC-SA license on images). An application can swap between any of the maps (and cache or distribute copies as they please) just by changing a URL. As with many other open standards, this leads to a wealth of innovation in the devices, websites, applications and products which use these mapservers (e.g. tangoGPS, the iphone app, the mediawiki plugin, the variety of OSM website designs) If anyone who converts map data into a map image is provided with WTFYW license and gets to choose who is permitted to use, view, modify, overlay, and copy their images then lots of websites might decide I paid for hosting and rendering, so only people who agree to these conditions can use my maps, leading to a fragmentation of licenses for the various slippy maps available. Do we want to see the slippy-map tileservers becoming a commercial battleground for who can make the most money while imposing the most restrictions, where currently it's a nice easy everything is CC-BY-SA level playing-field where tangogps doesn't have to worry about enforcing the terms and conditions of 20 different rendererers? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Thank you for your post Frederick! I've been lurking on this discussion for awhile and you just summed up exactly my thoughts on it. Hi, OJ W wrote: Currently OSM surveyors do their thing in the understanding that cartographers will turn the result into something nice that they can use (and the surveyors know that they will benefit from this due to the map images being sharealike) This is your assumption, not mine; I have never mapped anything thinking hey, maybe someone else is going to make a nice map from this that I can then use. Not one single time. I don't know if that makes me an exception. Most people I talked to were enthusiastic about the data being collected, and were talking about cool things *they* could do with the data, but I might be moving in the wrong circles ;-) If the cartographers then devise a new license that says my contributions are more important than yours, I should get exclusive rights over my additions to the map with a paintbrush while you shouldn't get exclusive rights over your additions to the map with a GPS I don't like more important. I think that the designer is actually doing something *less* important in the grand scheme of things. (His work might make up 90% of the work that goes into his particular product, but for us, it is negligible.) The surveyors are directly working towards the declared aim of this project; creating a free world map. Everything a surveyor does (well unless he's malicious or extremely stupid) will further this goal; his work is important to us. The cartographer goes off on a tangent; he does not help us in reaching the goal of a free world map; he is a *user* of the free world map and not a *creator*. It is nice if he makes his work available because it allows us to show off what can be done with our data (although if he at least attributes us that's also a good thing). But him releasing his work does not contribute to the free world map; or, turned the other way round, him keeping his work for himself does not slow us down in any way (because what would we do with his painted maps? trace our data off them?). It all boils down to ideology. Forcing the cartographer to release his work means that we're not only about the free world map but also about free map images, free art installations, free t-shirt designs, free computer games, and so on. Concentrating on the data and ignoring the other stuff means, well, concentrating on the free world map. I am a great believer in the principal goodness of men, and I sure would encourage everyone who takes anything from OSM, be it data, or just inspiration, to catch the spirit and give cool things away as well. But trying to *force* people to do so will, I believe, create unnecessary problems and friction and unease (witness inability to use CGIAR data by OpenCycleMap for example) and just make things worse for everyone. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
OJ W wrote: If the cartographers then devise a new license that says my contributions are more important than yours, I should get exclusive rights over my additions to the map with a paintbrush while you shouldn't get exclusive rights over your additions to the map with a GPS then it reduces the incentive for people to survey, since the work they do can be published in a way that they can't use or copy. So to return to the point you have completely ignored, can you tell me why you're happy that the (current) licence doesn't require routing program source code to be released, please? Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:14 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: Do we want to see the slippy-map tileservers becoming a commercial battleground for who can make the most money while imposing the most restrictions, where currently it's a nice easy everything is CC-BY-SA level playing-field where tangogps doesn't have to worry about enforcing the terms and conditions of 20 different rendererers? I think you're severely misunderstanding the current situation. There are certainly conditions on the use of the opencyclemap tiles that are not covered by cc-by-sa. You can't scrape all the z18 tiles, because you'll be banned if you try. If you're app relies on being able to scrape all the z18 tiles from tile.osm.org, then it'll be incompatible with the cycle map. Every server that I'm aware of has terms and conditions already, and they are all different. However, you are right in saying that as it stands, once you've actually acquired a tile you can be sure that you have a consistent license. I don't think it's a problem. If someone makes a tileserver with crappy TsCs then someone else can make another one with the same data and TsCs that are acceptable to whichever standard. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! OJ W schrieb: If anyone who converts map data into a map image is provided with WTFYW license and gets to choose who is permitted to use, view, modify, overlay, and copy their images then lots of websites might decide I paid for hosting and rendering, so only people who agree to these conditions can use my maps, leading to a fragmentation of licenses for the various slippy maps available. Do we want to see the slippy-map tileservers becoming a commercial battleground for who can make the most money while imposing the most restrictions, where currently it's a nice easy everything is CC-BY-SA level playing-field where tangogps doesn't have to worry about enforcing the terms and conditions of 20 different rendererers? Actually, the opposite is the case. Right now, the restrictive SA-licence keeps the community people from creating better maps using both OSM data and other sources with other licences. At the same time, the data ist not sufficiently protected and any unscrupulous company or person can just grab everything and create a much better map combining any sources, completely disregarding the spirit of the licence. The community could not compete with such multi-sourced maps and puplic usage would likely prefer the stolen, but much more complete maps. The new license will *enable* the community to create better works based on OSM and as long as these are available for free, the evil commercial cartographer has no leverage to sell his commercial products if he doesn't add considerable effort and due to the DB-license everything he adds is available to the community to build upon it, too. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Everything is up for debate. For me, this license change resembles the EULA story with openSuse, see http://zonker.opensuse.org/2008/11/26/opensuse-sports-a-new-license-ding-dong-the-eulas-dead/ and http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/opensuse-ends-eula At least in Germany, this EULA story might had more impact on openSuse than the cooperation of Microsoft and Novell. And it started as a clash of cultures when Novell changed the Suse pages from the Suse way of organizing a site to the Novell way of organizing a site. A lot of end users have been trained to the following way of perceiving: a screen mask that consists of several pages of scrollable text and then two buttons Yes or Abort means We never warrant that any part of this software works. But we always let you pay again when you do something we haven't planned. no matter what's actually written in the text. For a lot of people who are not primarly interested in law, this is what commercial means. So I would like to suggest the following: 1. Create a message like --- We are trying to get out of the caveats and flaws of copyright law and therefore need a new license. The final draft can be found at http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ and http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/fil/ For non-law-experts, this means http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases --- 2. When a useful version of that message exists, request for as many translations as possible. Even doing here on talk@ would be a good place. 3. After some days, make the thing available at every user login. 4. Don't start the license commit itself at most a month after this message has been announced. At least for those who perceive Yes-Abort-pages that way, this would much more look like the behaviour of an open project. And what to users who do not log in with a browser? Cheers, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Frederik Ramm wrote: I have never mapped anything thinking hey, maybe someone else is going to make a nice map from this that I can then use. Not one single time. I don't know if that makes me an exception. Most people I talked to were enthusiastic about the data being collected, and were talking about cool things *they* could do with the data, but I might be moving in the wrong circles ;-) My (completely unscientific) observation is that liberal opinions about licensing (esp. PD-advocacy) are more common with people who actually write software / make map styles / do other advanced things with OSM data. Support for liberal licensing also appears to be more prevalent on the mailing lists than anywhere else in the project. One possible explanation might be that these liberals have experienced the problems of incompatible licenses etc. themselves. However, I'm starting to think that there's something else: If people are able to create cool OSM stuff themselves, they care most about licensing not getting in their way. Mappers who don't have the technical or artistic skills or simply the time to do so will still want cool stuff to be done with OSM. Of course, they have to rely on others creating it, and, more importantly, others allowing them to use it under attractive conditions. A license that guarantees the last part might seem rather appealing for many of them. Just a side note because I found this aspect of the statement especially interesting. Most probably overly generalizing, misleading and/or simply wrong. ;-) Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
OJ W wrote: [routing source code] I saw that as a bit of a loophole in the license which is unfortunate but rather difficult to close Ok, that's consistent. Extreme, perhaps, but consistent. But: [...] we can just declare that it should meet sharelike standards to ensure that OSM players are not trying to take advantage of each other. is inordinately offensive. As far as I know there are only two OSM players who are commercial cartographers in some way (though for neither of us is it our main job): me and Steve Chilton. To allege that we are aiming to take advantage of other contributors is, yes, offensive, but also insane beyond belief. You might not like Potlatch, you might not trace from NPE or ever use any traced data, you might never use the Mapnik layer. But there is no denying that all three of them are very major contributions to OSM without any - _any_ - payback. Meanwhile, the guys releasing the routing software are, er, the ones who've got €2.4m of venture capital. I don't begrudge them that - quite the contrary. I don't think anyone does. But you might want to open your eyes. Sheesh. Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22320263.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
- if you decide to delete contributions and those contributions are only part of the history of objects, do you rollback to a previous version of these objects ? Rollback to the last version before any changes incompatible with the new licence are made. This could be perhaps optimized: if user A creates some highway=road, user B changes it to residential and user C changes it to secondary. A and C agrees to new license, B won't. But contribution of B was completely removed by C's edit, so it won't be necessary to revert to highway=road in this case. Basically, if the edits of incompatible users got later reverted or altered so their contribution is not there anymore, there is no need to rollback, just delete their revision from history. This could help in cases where user B just make lot of mistakes that got later reverted/corrected. Technically, for ways we would have problems with restoring old revision, since the nodes referenced by the old revision could have been moved/deleted in the meantime, so that would possibly create some invalid data. There is the idea floating around that modifications to existing data are insubstantial, and successive contributions could potentially be kept without issue, but I think it is safest to remove them. Perhaps for really minor changes, like alterations to created_by or conversion from true to yes or alike we could make an exception. Or in cases where the object was completely modified from the last license-incompatible version. In the interests of keeping it clean, any reverts made due to incompatible changes would not be kept in the history. Would there be at least some information like this object was reverted because of new license (which would signal that the object perhaps need to be re-improved somehow) and for deleted objects information that something was deleted from here? A backup can be kept of the old database of CC-by-sa compatible data. It might come in handy if some non‐responders pipe up and say “yes”, or the “no” voters change their minds. Won't be of much use after longer time, since the missing data are probably first to get readded and merging contribution of people who changed their mind with the parts that was restored by remapping the affected area in meantime would be difficult and won't be posible to automate. Also, what if someone who disagrees to new license deletes some data (either because that data is wrong or is replaced by something else that he draws). Will the deleted data get restored? Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 12:33:56AM +0100, MP wrote: This could be perhaps optimized: if user A creates some highway=road, user B changes it to residential and user C changes it to secondary. A and C agrees to new license, B won't. But contribution of B was completely removed by C's edit, so it won't be necessary to revert to highway=road in this case. Basically, if the edits of incompatible users got later reverted or altered so their contribution is not there anymore, there is no need to rollback, just delete their revision from history. This seems reasonable, but (there’s always one) what happens in the case that A creates highway=road, B changes it to highway=residenital (intentional mis‐spelling), and C corrects it to highway=residential? Unless C can be said to have surveyed it, this looks like an “improvement” to B’s efforts, and a trivial one at that. It should probably be reverted to A’s edit, and tagged for resurvey. There is the idea floating around that modifications to existing data are insubstantial, and successive contributions could potentially be kept without issue, but I think it is safest to remove them. Perhaps for really minor changes, like alterations to created_by or conversion from true to yes or alike we could make an exception. Reasonable: Changes that don’t change the semantics, or are just meta‐data about the change, can be excepted. Would there be at least some information like this object was reverted because of new license (which would signal that the object perhaps need to be re-improved somehow) and for deleted objects information that something was deleted from here? I don’t see why not. Also, what if someone who disagrees to new license deletes some data (either because that data is wrong or is replaced by something else that he draws). Will the deleted data get restored? I know what OSM needs: Changesets! ;) I think all incompatible edits should get restored, although I understand it could lead to a little bit of a mess. Hopefully, in most cases: 1. A scribbles on the map. [compatible change] 2. B removes the scribble [incompatible change]; and 3. B replaces it with a neat road [incompatible change]. B doesn’t agree to the licence and the neat road gets deleted, and the scribble gets added back in. The following looks more messy, however: 1. A scribbles on the map [compatible] 2. B removes the scribble [incompatible] 3. C adds a neat road [compatible] If we follow the rule of reverting incompatible changes only 2 is reverted to 1 (A’s scribble gets added back in). 3 is considered an independent change. We end up with both a scribble and a neat road in the same area. This situation likely won’t be easy to detect until after the changes, when validators will gleefully litter the map with warnings about overlapping ways. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Hi, OJ W wrote: Currently OSM surveyors do their thing in the understanding that cartographers will turn the result into something nice that they can use (and the surveyors know that they will benefit from this due to the map images being sharealike) This is your assumption, not mine; I have never mapped anything thinking hey, maybe someone else is going to make a nice map from this that I can then use. Not one single time. I don't know if that makes me an exception. Most people I talked to were enthusiastic about the data being collected, and were talking about cool things *they* could do with the data, but I might be moving in the wrong circles ;-) Well, I guess you're really the minority here ;-) My feeling is that most of the mapping people involved in the project right now are really depending on what the developers/designers are doing. And they are happy with the map results the major maps offer. Personally I would love to see a motorcycle dedicated map - but hesitated to start the effort ... Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
MP singularita at gmail.com writes: As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license - what about tagging such data with some tag like license=cc_by_sa to warn people that this part is licensed otherwise and keep the data in database? I don't think that would work. If some parts of the data are CC-BY-SA, and some parts are under a new licence, then the resulting database )or maps derived from it) would be a derived work of both. That means that it can be distributed only under CC-BY-SA, and also that it can be distributed only under the new licence. The result would be that you cannot legally distribute it at all. Presumably OSM chose CC-BY-SA to stop other organizations taking the OSM data and distributing it under different conditions. Even if only some of the data in your work is OSM data licensed CC-BY-SA, you must distribute the whole work under that licence, or not at all. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Iván Sánchez Ortega ivan at sanchezortega.es writes: I'm one of the persons who consider CC-by-sa to be a risk for the integrity of the project (i.e. there are potential legal loopholes). I'd rather nuke half the user-contributed data than lose everything. This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose everything' and how would changing to a different licence avoid that? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday 27 February 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: If you take a *relaxed* view then all our data is un-protected anyway because facts are not copyrightable. With that relaxed view I'd be copying teleatlas maps by now. except that TA data *isn't* just factual because they add in creative easter eggs. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 02/03/2009, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: MP singularita at gmail.com writes: As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license - what about tagging such data with some tag like license=cc_by_sa to warn people that this part is licensed otherwise and keep the data in database? I don't think that would work. If some parts of the data are CC-BY-SA, and some parts are under a new licence, then the resulting database )or maps derived from Well, if you need the data for personal use - you can use them even with mixed license. If you need to distribute them, etc ... you could filter the cc-by-sa data out. This would allow the remaining cc-by-sa data to be iteratively deleted and then redrawn under correct license. I think this could be viable, if there would be only small part of such data. (so the period in which the data won't be properly distributable will be quite small, perhaps few days till all is redrawn) Martin it) would be a derived work of both. That means that it can be distributed only under CC-BY-SA, and also that it can be distributed only under the new licence. The result would be that you cannot legally distribute it at all. Presumably OSM chose CC-BY-SA to stop other organizations taking the OSM data and distributing it under different conditions. Even if only some of the data in your work is OSM data licensed CC-BY-SA, you must distribute the whole work under that licence, or not at all. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
2009/3/2 MP singular...@gmail.com: On 02/03/2009, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: MP singularita at gmail.com writes: As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license - what about tagging such data with some tag like license=cc_by_sa to warn people that this part is licensed otherwise and keep the data in database? I don't think that would work. If some parts of the data are CC-BY-SA, and some parts are under a new licence, then the resulting database )or maps derived from Well, if you need the data for personal use - you can use them even with mixed license. If you need to distribute them, etc ... you could filter the cc-by-sa data out. This would allow the remaining cc-by-sa data to be iteratively deleted and then redrawn under correct license. I think this could be viable, if there would be only small part of such data. (so the period in which the data won't be properly distributable will be quite small, perhaps few days till all is redrawn) You probably don't mean it that way, but redrawn here sounds suspiciously like copy, which of course you can't do :-) You'd obviously have to redo from scratch, which if there's anything remotely significant would take more than a few days. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
MP singularita at gmail.com writes: As for the people who can't be reached/refused to accept new license - what about tagging such data with some tag like license=cc_by_sa I don't think that would work. Well, if you need the data for personal use - you can use them even with mixed license. If you need personal use only then Google Maps is fine. Freely distributable map data is the raison d'etre of OpenStreetMap. This would allow the remaining cc-by-sa data to be iteratively deleted and then redrawn under correct license. That would have to be a very careful process. Imagine that you started with a printout of Google Maps and iteratively rubbed out small sections and redrew them. Even when you had redrawn the whole thing, do you think you'd really be on a firm legal footing? The purported reason for relicensing is to put the project on an undeniably sound legal basis. The only way to do that is to get explicit permission from some contributors, and remove the contributions of all the rest (as well as anything that depends on or was derived from those contributions). Obviously a flag 'this road was formerly marked as one-way, but that tag was removed for copyright reasons' would just be a way of copying the removed data. So you would have to be careful when removing data and make sure that whatever is re-added is done from scratch, by re-tracing the satellite outlines and re-walking the streets, and without any automatic notice 'something is missing here'. There would need to be reasonable checks that nobody is copying data from the CC-BY-SA licensed set, since doing so would be very tempting. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
El Lunes, 2 de Marzo de 2009, Ed Avis escribió: Iván Sánchez Ortega ivan at sanchezortega.es writes: I'm one of the persons who consider CC-by-sa to be a risk for the integrity of the project (i.e. there are potential legal loopholes). I'd rather nuke half the user-contributed data than lose everything. This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose everything' and how would changing to a different licence avoid that? It is my opinion that CC-by-sa poses a high risk of not being enforceable to databases. That would mean losing the share-alike rights to the data. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es MSN:i_eat_s_p_a_m_for_breakf...@hotmail.com Jabber:ivansanc...@jabber.org ; ivansanc...@kdetalk.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose everything' and how would changing to a different licence avoid that? It is my opinion that CC-by-sa poses a high risk of not being enforceable to databases. That would mean losing the share-alike rights to the data. So you mean the data will become sort of public domain? Well, then there is question: what is worse? 1. Have all the data, but risk someone abusing it? 2. Or force the license change, therefore enforcing the share-alike rights correctly, but tossing some data away? Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to abuse the license using some loophole will simply grab last dump srill published under cc-by-sa instead of the new license - and then abuse the non-enforcability of cc-by-sa to databases. As for the possible data loss - since new license is basically still in spirit of cc-by-sa we can assume that most users will agree to license change, if we can contact them. So if we assume we will contact everybody who has logged/uploaded data at least once in last month and we will fail to contact the others - how many data will be removed? Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
So now we are talking about changing the OSM license. On the one hand I agree that this is necessary but we have to be quite sure that this is the right thing to do. We might lose more during this process then we gain: First of all we will lose data. We won't get everyone to agree on the new license. No matter why. Maybe they don't approve the new license or we just can't reach them anymore. The worst thing would be a huge data lose that we gained because of governments or organizations. But we could lose even more! The ones that don't agree on the change might start a fork and that would be the worst thing that could happen. We got already more then enough to do but splitting our resources into two or more different projects would be awe full. And one more thing. How can we be sure that the coming up license suites the project? I don't want to have this discussion in 3 years again. Roger ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
El Martes, 3 de Marzo de 2009, MP escribió: Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to abuse the license using some loophole will simply grab last dump srill published under cc-by-sa instead of the new license - and then abuse the non-enforcability of cc-by-sa to databases. ... Which is, IMHO, the reason for the migration to ODbL to be as fast as possible. (If this happens, though, we should start looking for loopholes in other people's data). So if we assume we will contact everybody who has logged/uploaded data at least once in last month and we will fail to contact the others - how many data will be removed? We won't know until we ask. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es - ¿Cuanto tiempo lleva muerto? - Unas cinco horas. - Interrogadle -- Fringe, 2008 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 03:39, Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es wrote: El Martes, 3 de Marzo de 2009, MP escribió: Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to abuse the license using some loophole will simply grab last dump srill published under cc-by-sa instead of the new license - and then abuse the non-enforcability of cc-by-sa to databases. ... Which is, IMHO, the reason for the migration to ODbL to be as fast as possible. (If this happens, though, we should start looking for loopholes in other people's data). What about finding a loophole that will allow convert from cc-by-sa to ODbL without asking anybody? :) I think wikipedia is doing something similar with their transition from GFDL to cc-by-sa So if we assume we will contact everybody who has logged/uploaded data at least once in last month and we will fail to contact the others - how many data will be removed? We won't know until we ask. I tried running some statistics on extract of Czech Republic from (~ 78000 km^2, 684 Mb uncompressed) If i take data from all users, that have uploaded/modified at least one node, way or relation in last month, I end up with 72.66% of all the data. If I use last two months instead, I end up with 85.56% of data. That is only current state, not considering any history or possible derivative work, etc When I tried the same for germany, I get 59.82% for one-month-recent contributors and 79.17% for two-month-recent. Even worse. If we assume people without contribution in last two months as unreachable (lack of interest in OSM for them), we lose at least 20% data. If the loss would be such high, I think we'll have another fork very soon. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! MP schrieb: This seems rather apocalyptic. What do you mean by 'lose everything' and how would changing to a different licence avoid that? It is my opinion that CC-by-sa poses a high risk of not being enforceable to databases. That would mean losing the share-alike rights to the data. So you mean the data will become sort of public domain? That is not the same. PD means the data is open to everybody. Abusing a bad licence means the data is open for grabbing for unscrupulous people that don't care about violating the idea. But it is still restricted to honest users respecting the licence. A ridiculous situation. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Hi! MP schrieb: What about finding a loophole that will allow convert from cc-by-sa to ODbL without asking anybody? :) I think wikipedia is doing something similar with their transition from GFDL to cc-by-sa An extremely bad idea. This is the perfect way to alienate people even more and cause a counter-initative or split in the community. From the reactions I see, many people are annoyed that the initiative for a new licence has been conducted in secret by a small group of people, that the information has not been spread and not been translated and that they are being overrun and forced to agree by threat of deletion of their data. These are not my words but taken from posts in lists and forum. The only way to get this rolling is to inform people and ask for their cooperation. It has had a very bad start, but looking for loopholes will feel to many people like you're stealing their data. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Well, then there is question: what is worse? 1. Have all the data, but risk someone abusing it? 2. Or force the license change, therefore enforcing the share- alike rights correctly, but tossing some data away? Note that if cc-by-sa is somehow abusable, anybody that want to abuse the license using some loophole will simply grab last dump srill published under cc-by-sa instead of the new license - and then abuse the non-enforcability of cc-by-sa to databases. As I think someone else pointed out, if it is abusable then we could abuse it and not lose any data with the switch. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On 28/02/09 12:21, 80n wrote: What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? We should probably exclude mass donated data as 90% is probably TIGER anyway. So what percentage of *user contributed* data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? I'm not sure it's particularly useful to speculate on the question. Why don't we go through the exercise of attempting relicensing, see what the percentage actually is, and if there are particular areas or countries which would be hard-hit, and then have the debate? If I say 10%, and the actual figure was 11%, what would I do? No idea. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Feb 27, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I think it's pretty unarguable that, in the UK, your tracing of the Peruvian lakes would merit copyright or similar protection (as sweat-of-the- brow). Both the UK sweat-of-the-brow and the Norwegian (and Dutch?) protection of a large number of facts _might_ be invalid after the database directive. I think that the reason that the US only protects creativity and not facts is because the US doesn't want to give out a monopoly on a set of facts about the world. I'm unfamiliar with how sweat-of-the-brow works. Does it actually give a monopoly on a listing of facts? For example, in the US, you could make a listing of every postcode, and your only claim to copyrightability would be any judgement your exercised on which postcodes you listed and which you chose to not list. It seems like in the UK, you could do the same thing and have a copyright on it -- but another person could exercize the same brow- sweating and claim a copyright on EXACTLY the same facts. Which then brings up the interesting possibility of a third party infringing two copyrights. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com wrote: I think that the reason that the US only protects creativity and not facts is because the US doesn't want to give out a monopoly on a set of facts about the world. I'm unfamiliar with how sweat-of-the-brow works. Does it actually give a monopoly on a listing of facts? For example, in the US, you could make a listing of every postcode, and your only claim to copyrightability would be any judgement your exercised on which postcodes you listed and which you chose to not list. It seems like in the UK, you could do the same thing and have a copyright on it -- but another person could exercize the same brow-sweating and claim a copyright on EXACTLY the same facts. Which then brings up the interesting possibility of a third party infringing two copyrights. Whether you infringe on copyright depends on where you copied it from. If you copied from both datasets then quite possibly you infringe both. If you don't copy form someone else then there's no problem. It's the means that matter, not the results. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@gmail.com http://svana.org/kleptog/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
Ben Laenen wrote: Great use of the ellipsis. You may have missed that I actually had some things to say there. Yes, I'm sure you did. But what I was trying to say is that (IMO) the really important bit is this: My hope basically when starting this thread was that these fundamental issues would have been cleared up by now in legal-talk or wherever since you now made the schedule available. Seriously - who is this you?!!! There is no you in OSM. There's a big us. It's an open source, collaborative project. (I presume you can't mean the OSMF board in this context as I'm not on it and haven't been for going on a year, as I'm sure you checked on the OSMF website.) I expect the OSMF people think they _have_ sorted out the fundamental issues. Similarly, Potlatch does everything that I would ever need and I never open another mapping program. But, amazingly, some people have a different view and use this strange thing called JOSM. Their definition of the fundamentals of mapping aren't the same. That's good. We have thousands of mappers, of course they'll think differently. And this is doubly true of licensing, which is always going to be the single most controversial area in this or any open-source project. So I want a very detailed answer, in your previous message, is the wrong way to go about things. In my view, this could be a problem. Could we do _this_ to solve it? is exactly the right way. Come and join in, it's fun. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22260658.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Saturday 28 February 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote: My hope basically when starting this thread was that these fundamental issues would have been cleared up by now in legal-talk or wherever since you now made the schedule available. Seriously - who is this you?!!! With you I mean the people who are pushing ahead with this license change. The license plan didn't just come out of nowhere. I'm sure some people discussed it somewhere. So I mean those people. There is no you in OSM. There's a big us. But just because there's a big us, is it too much to ask us for our opinion about the license change and for us to mention our concerns to the people mentioned above (from now on referred to as them)? I personally just don't like it that they just decided that in one month I have to immediately make a decision on relicensing my data. The implication of that question is too much to begin with, and as said I'm very wary that because I say yes I would pass the approvals across some kind of threshold which would delete say 10% of all data and their derivative data which might include a lot of my work. I need to know first that that won't happen. So I want a very detailed answer, in your previous message, is the wrong way to go about things. Well sorry, but I really do want it. Who comes up with it (it could be me) doesn't matter. This should really be resolved before getting to the question we will all get in a month. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License plan
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday 28 February 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote: My hope basically when starting this thread was that these fundamental issues would have been cleared up by now in legal-talk or wherever since you now made the schedule available. Seriously - who is this you?!!! With you I mean the people who are pushing ahead with this license change. The license plan didn't just come out of nowhere. I'm sure some people discussed it somewhere. So I mean those people. There is no you in OSM. There's a big us. But just because there's a big us, is it too much to ask us for our opinion about the license change and for us to mention our concerns to the people mentioned above (from now on referred to as them)? I personally just don't like it that they just decided that in one month I have to immediately make a decision on relicensing my data. The implication of that question is too much to begin with, and as said I'm very wary that because I say yes I would pass the approvals across some kind of threshold which would delete say 10% of all data and their derivative data which might include a lot of my work. I need to know first that that won't happen. We[1] are listening. You'd prefer to stay with the same license than lose 10% of the data. We should take that kind of feedback on board. What percentage of data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? We should probably exclude mass donated data as 90% is probably TIGER anyway. So what percentage of *user contributed* data would other people feel willing to see sacrificed in order to move forward with the new license? 80n [1] We = Us So I want a very detailed answer, in your previous message, is the wrong way to go about things. Well sorry, but I really do want it. Who comes up with it (it could be me) doesn't matter. This should really be resolved before getting to the question we will all get in a month. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk