Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 09:04:32PM +0100, Stefan Keller wrote: Hi, 2014-03-16 10:38 GMT+01:00 Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de: For technical reasons Google cant use OUR data and THEIR community. Can't follow this argument: Data fusion is technically feasible beyond filling the holes. In software speak taking a snapshot and modifying it in two places is called branching. Have you ever tried to merge branches to get a result with best of both worlds? In Software its easy as long as not both branches modify the same line of code. In OSM Speak - how do you merge? When there are 2 modifications - which one is the one to take? Last write wins? Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 02:39:12PM +0100, Johan C wrote: We have much better map data? Based on what? OSM will for example in the next x years not be able to accomodate OSM friendly commercial companies like Telenav on addresses, lane assistance and POI's. I have been with OSM since 2007 and i have heard estimates for years and most of them have been proven wrong. My guess is that address completion in Germany at least will not be far away - I am working hard on that and i am now at 10k addresses. Looking at the larger Citys (100K) those are very good at address coverage already today. Whereby completion means Google level - Even Google does not have ALL addresses for Germany. My rough estimate is that they are at about 90%. The rest is beeing interpolated. And lane assist stuff is easy to add - Enable your JOSM style for lanes and go for it. I live between 2 citys (45k and 90k) and both of them are basically done with lane assist stuff. All bigger junctions beeing complicated are done. One can easily use this with Mapfactor Navigator which shows turn:lanes e.g. lane assist and destination:lanes Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Just posted my comments to key points that came up in the conversation over on the diary: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221#comment25849 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: Hello everyone - I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally decided to, um, share. I've been listening long to many OpenStreetMappers I respect a ton telling me it's not so bad and it's just what we're stuck with right now. But given how bad share alike is for OpenStreetMap I don't think we should give up for pushing for a more open license. Here's why I think share-alike hurts OpenStreetMap and how this keeps OpenStreetMap from having the full impact it could have: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221 Looking forward to your comments, Alex ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
We have much better map data? Based on what? OSM will for example in the next x years not be able to accomodate OSM friendly commercial companies like Telenav on addresses, lane assistance and POI's. Op zondag 16 maart 2014 heeft Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de het volgende geschreven: We have much better Map Data - so why does BMW offer Google? Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.dejavascript:; ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
You'll be surprised. On 16 mars 2014 14:39:12 UTC+01:00, Johan C osm...@gmail.com wrote: We have much better map data? Based on what? OSM will for example in the next x years not be able to accomodate OSM friendly commercial companies like Telenav on addresses, lane assistance and POI's. Op zondag 16 maart 2014 heeft Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de het volgende geschreven: We have much better Map Data - so why does BMW offer Google? Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.dejavascript:; ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Lets jump into this discussion late but with an exceptionally short statement: A few years ago, I checked the box All my contributions to OSM data are in the public domain. Because I think that is they way it should be so everyone can play. Simple. bye, Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-Isn-t-All-That-Open-Let-s-Change-That-and-Drop-Share-Alike-tp5799574p5799970.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Hi, 2014-03-16 10:38 GMT+01:00 Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de: For technical reasons Google cant use OUR data and THEIR community. Can't follow this argument: Data fusion is technically feasible beyond filling the holes. Even if argued in favour of CC-BY before, the current status quo of the Share-alike makes me comfortable just because of this point: not getting exploited by big companies only. As said before, I'm concerned about small and medium companies (SME) and about governement being possibly constrained by ODbL. I'd like to renew following statements of Steve and Simon: 2014-03-14 16:09 GMT+01:00 Steve Coast st...@asklater.com: Alex makes a bunch of these statements like that, I’ll pick three that jump out: 1) the assumption that share-alike encourages contribution is a myth” 2) The reality is that OpenStreetMap is only used extensively in situations where the share-alike license does not apply, for instance, map rendering. 3) OpenStreetMap's current licensing is stunting our growth And respond: 1) Data would be useful either way Agreed - except some license related caveats. 2) I’d say that’s because OSM doesn’t contain a lot of address or navigation data (which, as it happens, is where the money is), not because of the license. 3) My personal belief is it might stunt CloudMade or MapBox, but not Telenav or MapQuest, and, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats doesn’t show a lot of evidence of being stunted. This last observation makes me wonder: SME should have a disadvantage because of the license: Perhaps a legal service of OSMF would help? To renew Simon's following question: 2014-03-14 10:58 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch: One thing I would like to hear about in this context of this discussion, are examples of concrete use cases that are not happening because of share alike and that are in general things that the community would like to support Here's the OpenEcoMap use case: In urban and regional planning OSM can complement governement data with POIs not maintained by them (OpenEcoMap). Here OSM is being combined with legally different (non-PD) governement data. Now, it should be possible to combine OSM and governement data for doing spatial analysis and maps without 'affecting' governement data. OSM vector data is not being put in the same database. It's either being overlayed/intersected/compared within analysis with governement data - and it's being shown in a separate layer on the map. --Stefan 2014-03-16 20:53 GMT+01:00 NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de: Lets jump into this discussion late but with an exceptionally short statement: A few years ago, I checked the box All my contributions to OSM data are in the public domain. Because I think that is they way it should be so everyone can play. Simple. bye, Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-Isn-t-All-That-Open-Let-s-Change-That-and-Drop-Share-Alike-tp5799574p5799970.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Am 14.03.2014 12:43, schrieb o...@k3v.eu: IMHO, share alike is just like DRM on music What??? Come on, don't be foolish! DRM tries to prevent any reuse of date whereat Share Alike just requests to offer the data under the same conditions as you got them. This is a fundamental difference! Best regads, Michael. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On 15 March 2014 08:22:26 GMT, Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de wrote: Am 14.03.2014 12:43, schrieb o...@k3v.eu: IMHO, share alike is just like DRM on music What??? Come on, don't be foolish! DRM tries to prevent any reuse of date whereat Share Alike just requests to offer the data under the same conditions as you got them. This is a fundamental difference! Best regads, Michael. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Well my point is that using OSM should be a no-brainer and the complexity added to the license by share alike means that it isn't for a lot of potential users. I would prefer my contributions to be used as widely as possible. It really doesn't matter [to me] if a few people rip off the project if the result is OSM becomes ubiquitous. I don't suppose Linus Torvalds cares that a few Chinese companies rip off Linux when the open license means it is everywhere. Anyway, this is a rather pointless discussion as I can't imagine any changes to the license while the previous license change is still in peoples' memories ;] Kevin___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
2014-03-15 11:22 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: ... Do you know of any case where OSMF did more than write a letter? Just being curious: Do you - or anybody else - know of any specific case where G* wrote more than a letter? --S. 2014-03-15 11:22 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: Am 14/mar/2014 um 09:48 schrieb Norbert Wenzel norbert.wenzel.li...@gmail.com: And to the topic. It might not always be easy to enforce the share-alike clause, but I really like the fact that we have it and may enforce it if necessary. actually it seems we won't enforce it upon people who don't follow the share alike provisions, probably not even the attribution obligations will be enforced. Do you know of any case where OSMF did more than write a letter? Uses of osm without attribution are revealed every now and then but never has happened something (read: attempt to enforce the license) substantial whether they added attribution and declared share alike or not. e.g. MS could continue to distribute tainted aerials for months if not years, apple does so for at least 2 years, the wiki has a long but quite incomplete list of others: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License_violation cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Indeed, almost no license violation cases make it to court. In the 20 years since the GPL was created, it has gone to court only a handful of times, yet there have been hundreds (maybe thousands) of license violations which have been settled out of court. A court case benefits neither side. It's expensive to bring litigation and expensive to defend against it. This is why you hear of so few cases coming out the SFLC, because a vast majority of them are settled out of court, often with non-disclosure as a part of the settlement. This is by design. The goal here is no need to use the court system. Writing a letter should be enough. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On 03/15/2014 11:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 14/mar/2014 um 09:48 schrieb Norbert Wenzel norbert.wenzel.li...@gmail.com: And to the topic. It might not always be easy to enforce the share-alike clause, but I really like the fact that we have it and may enforce it if necessary. Do you know of any case where OSMF did more than write a letter? Uses of osm without attribution are revealed every now and then but never has happened something (read: attempt to enforce the license) substantial whether they added attribution and declared share alike or not. e.g. MS could continue to distribute tainted aerials for months if not years, apple does so for at least 2 years, the wiki has a long but quite incomplete list of others: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License_violation I do not know what the OSMF does regarding attribution and other license violations, but I know cases where the local community enforced the attribution, which, as others pointed out, would not be possible for PD data. Usually you don't need to sue users to get a correct attribution. That's all I personally want to see when someone uses OSM data. Norbert signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Am 15/mar/2014 um 11:31 schrieb Stefan Keller sfkel...@gmail.com: Just being curious: Do you - or anybody else - know of any specific case where G* wrote more than a letter? Maybe people act faster if it's G who writes the letter. I never got one from them but I'd expect it to be from a lawyer while ours are usually from mappers, a less intimidating profession ;-) Do you think they would have waited a year and more for MS until the tainted data was naturally washed out by successive updates of their imagery? cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Am 14/mar/2014 um 14:52 schrieb Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de: ODBL does not require Share-Alike for produced works. The map, even when based on OSM data is a produced work. Therefore even if the map is based on osm data, it's not share-alike, and any data based on the map IMHO cannot be share-alike too. I am not a lawyer neither, but my view of this is that the map (rendering) being licensed whatever doesn't mean there cannot be other rights involved at the same time. Eg a photo of the coke logo could be licensed pd but that doesn't make the logo pd, a pd series of photos of a disassembled product don't give you the permission to re-engineer that product etc., so even if the rendering is released as pd the underlying data still remains ODbL and when you extract it it will be under ODbL license and not the license of the rendering itself. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Martin Continuing to repeat a twisted version of what actually happened does not make it truer. Apple: the Foundation has engaged (documented) multiple times with the company on this matter, even though, as you VERY well know, the data they use is pre-licence change and the OSMF has no IP rights in the data. While not ideal, the current attribution is a lot better than what they originally had. Given the legal situation with CC by-SA and DB protection in the US that is about the limit of what we can reasonably do (and wasting time flogging dead horses is something that most people don't enjoy as much as you do). MS*: we immediately took the matter up with MS, and were promised that they would rectify the issue when they rolled out new imagery.They where a bit late with that, but otherwise they did exactly what they promised us. Again it is not quite sure what you expect, should we have closed bing down (which in some countries would have been possible)? Aka take a big gun and shoot ourselves in the foot. And BTW we didn't write letters in either case. Simon * background: MS had used polygons from OSM to blur some supposedly military relevant areas in Germany in their aerial imagery, the whole thing was very badly advised on behalf of MS and simply a screw up. Am 15.03.2014 11:22, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: Am 14/mar/2014 um 09:48 schrieb Norbert Wenzel norbert.wenzel.li...@gmail.com: And to the topic. It might not always be easy to enforce the share-alike clause, but I really like the fact that we have it and may enforce it if necessary. actually it seems we won't enforce it upon people who don't follow the share alike provisions, probably not even the attribution obligations will be enforced. Do you know of any case where OSMF did more than write a letter? Uses of osm without attribution are revealed every now and then but never has happened something (read: attempt to enforce the license) substantial whether they added attribution and declared share alike or not. e.g. MS could continue to distribute tainted aerials for months if not years, apple does so for at least 2 years, the wiki has a long but quite incomplete list of others: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License_violation cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On 15/03/2014, Kevin Peat o...@k3v.eu wrote: On 15 March 2014 08:22:26 GMT, Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de wrote: Am 14.03.2014 12:43, schrieb o...@k3v.eu: IMHO, share alike is just like DRM on music What??? Come on, don't be foolish! DRM tries to prevent any reuse of date whereat Share Alike just requests to offer the data under the same conditions as you got them. This is a fundamental difference! Well my point is that using OSM should be a no-brainer and the complexity added to the license by share alike means that it isn't for a lot of potential users. I would prefer my contributions to be used as widely as possible. Licenses are complex. It's the fault of international laws intermingling, not the fault of the licence writer nor of the share-alike clause. As has been pointed out, share-alike also *enables* some use-cases that wouldn't be possible with PD, CC0, or CC-BY. It's a balancing act. It really doesn't matter [to me] if a few people rip off the project if the result is OSM becomes ubiquitous. I don't suppose Linus Torvalds cares that a few Chinese companies rip off Linux when the open license means it is everywhere. Linux is GPLv2, which is absolutely share-alike and similar to OSM in that respect. And the Linux community has been much more active in fighting licence violations. The comparision with Linux really proves the opposite of what you seem to think. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On 14.03.2014 23:21, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: There's one fairly obvious to me : the share-alike requirement is necessary to enforce the attribution requirement (otherwise any user could just change the license to one that doesn't require attribution). It would not be legal for them to get rid of the attribution like that. Attribution requirements can exist without share-alike, see e.g. CC-BY. I believe that arrangement would also be the sweet spot for OSM. The user's best interest is the carrot, but the license is the stick. There's no harm using both, it's actually better. If having a stick didn't cost us anything, that would obviously be true. But this discussion came about because our stick also hits good users quite a lot. So if the carrot works pretty well by itself, perhaps we should get rid of the stick after all. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On 15/03/2014, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: On 14.03.2014 23:21, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: There's one fairly obvious to me : the share-alike requirement is necessary to enforce the attribution requirement (otherwise any user could just change the license to one that doesn't require attribution). It would not be legal for them to get rid of the attribution like that. Attribution requirements can exist without share-alike, see e.g. CC-BY. I know it sounds like a glaring loophole that ought to be illegal, but I have yet to see a paragraph of CC-BY that prevents me to : * Use the CC-BY material to create an adapted work * Release the adapted work as PD with attribution (using PD because I'm not allowed to place additional restrictions) * Use the PD material to create a private work. Of course you expect that in that process, only an insubstancial part of the original CC-BY material would be left. But insubstancial isn't legaly defined, so an unscrupulous user could get unrestricted access to a lot of data this way and still stand enough of a chance in court that nobody would bother attacking (especially considering the fact that CC-BY licensors probably do not care as much as CC-BY-SA licensors). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:44 PM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: On 15/03/2014, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: On 14.03.2014 23:21, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: There's one fairly obvious to me : the share-alike requirement is necessary to enforce the attribution requirement (otherwise any user could just change the license to one that doesn't require attribution). It would not be legal for them to get rid of the attribution like that. Attribution requirements can exist without share-alike, see e.g. CC-BY. Section 4 of CC-BY. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/legalcode Since this discussion isn't about CC-BY, there's no point in discussing it further, though. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
2014-03-15 12:16 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole si...@osmfoundation.org: Apple: the Foundation has engaged (documented) multiple times with the company on this matter, even though, as you VERY well know, the data they use is pre-licence change and the OSMF has no IP rights in the data. While not ideal, the current attribution is a lot better than what they originally had. Given the legal situation with CC by-SA and DB protection in the US that is about the limit of what we can reasonably do (and wasting time flogging dead horses is something that most people don't enjoy as much as you do). Also if cc-by sa can't protect facts in the US, there is Europe where they would have to adhere to the license (and they also provide their service here). Yes, the copyright is with the single contributors, yes, the foundation has decided not to spend their scarse resources on this case, and it is their right to do so, but in this case it doesn't look as if anyone would try to enforce share alike to the extent it seems possible (for old data, cc-by-sa). (e.g. look actively for osm contributors who have mapped in the areas from which apple uses data, which are these again?) I believe mentioning the areas from which they took osm data would be fair, as it can also protect us from wrong allegations for data problems in areas where the data is from different providers. MS*: we immediately took the matter up with MS, and were promised that they would rectify the issue when they rolled out new imagery.They where a bit late with that, but otherwise they did exactly what they promised us. Again it is not quite sure what you expect, should we have closed bing down (which in some countries would have been possible)? Aka take a big gun and shoot ourselves in the foot. yes, I also believe them that it was an incident and they didn't use the data on purpose against the license (or in other words they were not understanding that using the data under the license that it was available and publishing it would make their imagery share alike), still, they didn't do anything timely to correct the mistake, once it was pointed out to them, in fact all they promised was not to do it again, do nothing and wait for the next imagery update to wear the data out. In practise, also here nobody insisted in strict interpretation of the share alike provisions. Has there been any case where someone who used OpenStreetMap and continuously and deliberately ignored the license obligations had any kind of trouble? Maybe we're only waiting for G* to do it on a global scale ;-) ? Maybe we don't want to be like them, in the end we are happy with everyone using our data, and we don't want to scare people away by creating the impression you might risk a court case for small formal mistakes in adhering to the osm license. OK. Sounds like a reason why until today noone ever tried to enforce any of the license obligations on any user of the data besides from kindly asking them to do so (and do nothing when they don't). Still in practise its a weak share alike ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Paweł Paprota writes: Unless you protect and license your work, you *will* be exploited by a powerful corporation. It is not possible for any powerful corporation to exploit OpenStreetMap data. That's because OpenStreetMap is not way #20101312, it is Paweł Paprota. OpenStreetMap is not node #1511064846, it is Richard Weait. OpenStreetMap is not relation #445288, it is Ian Dees. Etc. Someone could take those ways, nodes, and relations and do something with them. We would still have our own copy of them. We would still have Paweł Paprota, Richard Weait, and Ian Dees. Nobody can take that away from us. We cannot be exploited, because we are not the data, we *create* the data. It would not be difficult to change the license, because the choice of license now lies with the OSM Foundation. I would note that one of the potential customers of OSM data -- the USGS -- would require that the data be in the public domain -- which is the license[1] I have always advocated for, from the day I heard about a potential license change. My understanding is that the license is the only thing keeping the USGS from using, and thus contributing to, OSM. [1] Or distribution policy; whatever; not an interesting discussion. --- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:26:23AM -0400, Alex Barth wrote: Hello everyone - I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally decided to, um, share. I've been listening long to many OpenStreetMappers I respect a ton telling me it's not so bad and it's just what we're stuck with right now. But given how bad share alike is for OpenStreetMap I don't think we should give up for pushing for a more open license. Here's why I think share-alike hurts OpenStreetMap and how this keeps OpenStreetMap from having the full impact it could have: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221 I was in favor of dropping Share-Alike when we switched from CC-BY-SA and all my arguments have come reality. From how many geocoding responses to store it becomes a Database under the Terms of the ODbL etc ... All these uncertinity harms OSM from adoption. Using tiles is simple - Using for more advanced stuff becomes more and more a nightmare. Its all a matter of interpreting the license as other have stated in this thread. I thought we were switching from CC-BY-SA because we didnt want any interpretation anymore. It might be that under some jurisdications the CC-BY-SA would not have hold up but it was the declared will. So with the ODbL we have the same situation but only MUCH MORE complex. And in the End - All those how fear the big bad google for taking our work and earning money with it if we dont make it share alike - Have you followed data contributions lately? Contributions are not coming because people are forced to do so - but because maintainance of data is much easier. This has been the case for the Linux Kernel and this is the same with the OSM Database. (Yes - there were a few litigations concerning the GPL - but compare that to contributions of formerly closed source drivers etc) There was a time when Share Alike was THE only way of forcing other to contribute. This was well before the Internet was a so widespread and the tasks were much smaller. Since 1995 or something we have solved this issue - I am Linux and Open Source _only_ since around that time. 2/3rds of my life i have been using and developing Open Source/Free Software and sharing without any restrictions. Putting a Share Alike on OSM felt like beeing back in the stone ages of early computing - full of fear of the big corps stealing our freedom. I thought we had left this behind. Today maintaining the Linux Kernel or OSM without a HUGE community is a lost fight so there is nothing to gain by taking this data _from_ the community. Those who do this are the ones to loose, not the ones giving away their code/data. IMHO Share Alike is proposed by those full of fear. Instead we should relax and try to make OSM the most useful collection of data for everyone not just the ones beeing able to understand the ODbL. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/14/2014 12:41 AM, Michael Kugelmann wrote: Am 13.03.2014 15:26, schrieb Alex Barth: Looking forward to your comments, No! Stay at Share alike to avoid misuse of open data! Compare it to the GPL which is frequently used in OS-Sortware. Am I correct when I say ODBL is more like LGPL than GPL? Afaik it is ok to use OSM data without any obligations on your work, as long as you don't mix the data. Would that be correct? And to the topic. It might not always be easy to enforce the share-alike clause, but I really like the fact that we have it and may enforce it if necessary. I don't see why this should render OSM non-free. Norbert -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTIsJeAAoJEN1BMR2v0jNa1akP/id1wZFHEc61zffZMITCsRN6 liKJprbyw8nleb6bBLPBeFAYXkSN/7voO3Xa6Jtr45kVNWSib3rc2FrsF7rFnmJl zMjXNeIBvxyF3afPK1dNMAC1gvhenrtU2bnTKFg4Wg7KO8OgW8zhKe8pw04y8+nq k5MivlDUAXD7A2Oowheh9RkKj+pwY0zjqG7Z+YY6L5KCqw1tGacXdt5Zu7N7EGEe LuoxYCGLYRrUOEjZEGFKdx+u2LjqQNXhCTYujSmElyuQIszb2Njl+2wRzfkxXHYn P4yr/UbOTnFOBNGrUw6Z1NRWN0qC9FFjtgsyMQGJwmZ+4NpMYzXS8AtO1bEZaWji z9pq9Z2xyBJynBuSNlbKGWse7UpYjJ4xPMHP6at6qichRYe+YSIAZz1aYMPHtKhx +LNe/pfHcpyTEwHeay8hUrzVRNwt37ETo1+YXoKi9g+vcNw3VMWerEXLlexaGMWF wMJBNs8xRtw0Ewcuoj0A2tF8T+bwti71I3v9qNLrvaxYrId3ElrncGAXoiCq7cD6 uNt6DUr8AvhQ6a8USr5xBUW6UITpsYIO2VJ1ol/vy4f3+2/1xmkW8AQ2RbqHcJSD jRdxbsf5wWtQ1zTUtrcb4ipjxV7J0v4PYRkc3yQEqKkgflxN7NMhb5sSKRmNZIV0 F+oPiMNUt/MxAn5TIzMu =KvXH -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
With current ODbL I'm mainly concerned about 1. small and medium corporations as well as 2. government entities. I'm not so concerned about big companies, especially G* exploiting OSM (although I dislike some behaviours of G*). So I'm in favor of CC-BY (e.g. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). Yours, Stefan 2014-03-14 9:48 GMT+01:00 Norbert Wenzel norbert.wenzel.li...@gmail.com: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/14/2014 12:41 AM, Michael Kugelmann wrote: Am 13.03.2014 15:26, schrieb Alex Barth: Looking forward to your comments, No! Stay at Share alike to avoid misuse of open data! Compare it to the GPL which is frequently used in OS-Sortware. Am I correct when I say ODBL is more like LGPL than GPL? Afaik it is ok to use OSM data without any obligations on your work, as long as you don't mix the data. Would that be correct? And to the topic. It might not always be easy to enforce the share-alike clause, but I really like the fact that we have it and may enforce it if necessary. I don't see why this should render OSM non-free. Norbert -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTIsJeAAoJEN1BMR2v0jNa1akP/id1wZFHEc61zffZMITCsRN6 liKJprbyw8nleb6bBLPBeFAYXkSN/7voO3Xa6Jtr45kVNWSib3rc2FrsF7rFnmJl zMjXNeIBvxyF3afPK1dNMAC1gvhenrtU2bnTKFg4Wg7KO8OgW8zhKe8pw04y8+nq k5MivlDUAXD7A2Oowheh9RkKj+pwY0zjqG7Z+YY6L5KCqw1tGacXdt5Zu7N7EGEe LuoxYCGLYRrUOEjZEGFKdx+u2LjqQNXhCTYujSmElyuQIszb2Njl+2wRzfkxXHYn P4yr/UbOTnFOBNGrUw6Z1NRWN0qC9FFjtgsyMQGJwmZ+4NpMYzXS8AtO1bEZaWji z9pq9Z2xyBJynBuSNlbKGWse7UpYjJ4xPMHP6at6qichRYe+YSIAZz1aYMPHtKhx +LNe/pfHcpyTEwHeay8hUrzVRNwt37ETo1+YXoKi9g+vcNw3VMWerEXLlexaGMWF wMJBNs8xRtw0Ewcuoj0A2tF8T+bwti71I3v9qNLrvaxYrId3ElrncGAXoiCq7cD6 uNt6DUr8AvhQ6a8USr5xBUW6UITpsYIO2VJ1ol/vy4f3+2/1xmkW8AQ2RbqHcJSD jRdxbsf5wWtQ1zTUtrcb4ipjxV7J0v4PYRkc3yQEqKkgflxN7NMhb5sSKRmNZIV0 F+oPiMNUt/MxAn5TIzMu =KvXH -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On Friday 14 March 2014, Florian Lohoff wrote: [...] Today maintaining the Linux Kernel or OSM without a HUGE community is a lost fight so there is nothing to gain by taking this data _from_ the community. Those who do this are the ones to loose, not the ones giving away their code/data. Actually the Linux kernel is a good example how big companies abuse free open products. Most famous example is of course Google with Android which circumvents the weak GPLv2 share-alike provisions and contradicts the spirit of the GPL, namely to ensure the right to freely study, modify and redistribute software by locked hardware and closed source modules. But there are many other examples of closed linux systems (like routers, nas, entertainment) that maybe release an alibi source package but without practical means to acutually make modifications. IMHO Share Alike is proposed by those full of fear. It seems to me it is fairly damaging for the aim of abolishing share-alike to assume its proponents are driven by fear. Unless you try to convince people through arguments you have little chance in changing their opinion. Even if you manage to create a non share-alike, 'more free' OSM this will inevitably fail unless you convince the vast majority of the mappers and you cannot do that by telling them to drop their fear and relax. Keep in mind what you are essentially asking mappers here is to waive their right to freely use improvements others make to their mapping work (which is - as Simon pointed out - where share-alike kicks in). You would need good arguments for that i think and i have not heard them to this point. Note i do not have a clear position on the whole matter - as a data user i see clear disadvantages of share-alike and have to deal with them but i see no perspective to convince me, the mapper, to settle without it just because it would be more convenient/more profitable for me, the data user... ;-) -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
One thing I would like to hear about in this context of this discussion, are examples of concrete use cases that are not happening because of share alike and that are in general things that the community would like to support (so not evil corp can't take the data now and keep it). Concrete in the sense that they are uses that really would happen if share alike would be dropped, not we can build a straw man that shows how bad share alike is. Example: one of the classical straw men is that government GIS offices over the whole world would wide spread directly take OSM data and integrate it in to their own official datasets, if you believe that, I have a number of bridges that I would like to sell :-). The more realistic scenario is that difference between their data and OSM would trigger a resurvey on their side, which is already totally OK. Simon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
2014-03-14 10:58 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch: Example: one of the classical straw men is that government GIS offices over the whole world would wide spread directly take OSM data and integrate it in to their own official datasets, if you believe that, I have a number of bridges that I would like to sell :-). The more realistic scenario is that difference between their data and OSM would trigger a resurvey on their side, which is already totally OK. Already happening http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Agenzia_mobilit%C3%A0_ambiente_territorio (sorry, it's in Italian) Simon Regards, Stefano ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Norbert, 1. Yes, it would be fair to say that ODbL is much closer to LGPL than it is to GPL. The ODbL does not require Share-Alike merely on combining two datasets, but only if you modify the data that's in OSM in addition to adding your own. 2. Using GPG is good. Using GPG without MIME encapsulation is pretty bad. http://www.phildev.net/pgp/pgp_clear_vs_mime.html#pgpmime - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:58:57 +0100, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: One thing I would like to hear about in this context of this discussion, are examples of concrete use cases that are not happening because of share alike and that are in general things that the community would like to support (so not evil corp can't take the data now and keep it). Concrete in the sense that they are uses that really would happen if share alike would be dropped, not we can build a straw man that shows how bad share alike is. ... On the flip side of this, if share alike is so great where are the examples of organisations contributing back to OSM because of it? Mostly I think organisations contribute because it is in their interest to do so (a better map makes their product better) not because the license says they have to. Share alike adds massive complexity to the license. This seems indisputable to me and just puts another barrier in the way of adoption. IMHO, share alike is just like DRM on music in that it inconveniences legitimate uses of the data but doesn't stop the crooks who will just rip it off anyway regardless of what the license says. Kevin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
To throw another log into the fire: What about imports? OSM having a share-alike licence enabled us to incorporate (and otherwise use) all kinds of open data sets, which may be licensed PD/CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA or ODbL. (A lot of open government data in the EU is released under CC-BY or even share-alike.) If OSM would switch to something more liberal, we would cut us off from potential source material: If we were going to CC-BY our database, we couldn't use CC-BY-SA and ODbL material any more, and if we were going all the way to CC0, anything other than PD/CC0 would be a no-go. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Am 14.03.2014 12:43, schrieb o...@k3v.eu: ... On the flip side of this, if share alike is so great where are the examples of organisations contributing back to OSM because of it? Mostly I think organisations contribute because it is in their interest to do so (a better map makes their product better) not because the license says they have to. ... Clarification: share alike does not require that you contribute back to OSM. What typically happens is that the companies in question send their users to OSM to make improvements directly in OSM, which is a clear win-win for both parties, Simon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:43 AM, o...@k3v.eu wrote: On the flip side of this, if share alike is so great where are the examples of organisations contributing back to OSM because of it? We see this already. I've spoken to companies and orgs who have said specifically that they would not contribute to OSM if it was not Share-Alike. No one wants to be competing against themselves in the future. You don't see it because it's already part of OSM, rather than something new. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Simon Poole wrote: One thing I would like to hear about in this context of this discussion, are examples of concrete use cases that are not happening because of share alike and that are in general things that the community would like to support (so not evil corp can't take the data now and keep it). Concrete in the sense that they are uses that really would happen if share alike would be dropped, not we can build a straw man that shows how bad share alike is. Hi Simon, We have considered that we cannot use OpenStreetMap as a background map in any of the applications where users are sending location aware information back to administration. For showing existing data it would be OK but not for gathering data from users because user could locate a place corner of Annankatu and Merimiehenkatu http://osm.org/go/0xPLoLTa0?m= by looking at the OSM map. The interpretation of ODbL is that this location is derived from OSM data and thus the database of the administration would become ODbL. It could be OK in some use cases but some data are confidential and ODbL is not an option. Therefore we do not use OSM at all. We use our own services and Google Maps. This is a concrete example. However, changing the interpretation of ODbL into georeferencing locations by looking at OSM map does not yield a derivative database would not necessarily change the situation in Finland any more because since 2012 most raster and vector data from the National Land Survey of Finland have been open data under attribution-only license. Because of this using the data is simple. This has also helped OSM because raster maps and aerial images can be utilized for digitizing and vector data imports have started this year. Jukka Rahkonen- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Am 14.03.2014 14:17, schrieb Jukka Rahkonen: .. Hi Simon, We have considered that we cannot use OpenStreetMap as a background map in any of the applications where users are sending location aware information back to administration. For showing existing data it would be OK but not for gathering data from users because user could locate a place corner of Annankatu and Merimiehenkatu http://osm.org/go/0xPLoLTa0?m= by looking at the OSM map. The interpretation of ODbL is that this location is derived from OSM data and thus the database of the administration would become ODbL. It could be OK in some use cases but some data are confidential and ODbL is not an option. Therefore we do not use OSM at all. We use our own services and Google Maps. Two remarks/questions: - is the derived data actually being publicly used? - Off Topic: the use doesn't seem to be compatible with what is generally known about googles ToS (naturally I assume that is just a question of money) Simon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On 14 March 2014 12:01, Martin Raifer tyr@gmail.com wrote: OSM having a share-alike licence enabled us to incorporate (and otherwise use) all kinds of open data sets, which may be licensed PD/CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA or ODbL. (A lot of open government data in the EU is released under CC-BY or even share-alike.) If OSM would switch to something more liberal, we would cut us off from potential source material: If we were going to CC-BY our database, we couldn't use CC-BY-SA and ODbL material any more, and if we were going all the way to CC0, anything other than PD/CC0 would be a no-go. As I understand it, we can't import things under CC-By-SA at the moment anyway, because the ODbL is incompatible. But there is a very valid point there, that it's not just a matter of asking contributors to agree to change the license, we'd need to review all the imported data to check whether or not the licence it was imported under is compatible with whatever license we're wanting to change to. To this end Ithink it's somewhat unfortunate that OSMF/LWG haven't taken a firmer line on the use of third-party data (not just classical imports, but other manual uses of sources) to ensure that the sources and licences they're used under are properly documented. A change to anything more liberal than either CC-By or ODC-By (the attribution-only version of ODbL) would cut out most attribution requiring imports -- crucially, this would cause vast amounts of damage in the UK, where mappers have been using OS OpenData from the National Mapping Agency to enhance OSM in various ways. As for whether share-alike is a good thing, I would note that the contribute back argument probably hasn't helped us all that much so far -- but I think that's as much down to potential data users being slow to accept the benefits of open data. Yes, some potential users are being put off as a result, but I think in time positions may change, and data owners may well come round to accepting the benefits of open data. Also, it's not entirely clear whether allowing more lberal uses would actually benefit the project that much. (Particularly not if we didn't insist on attribution.) What share-alike certainly does do is to stop companies just ripping off our data and not giving anything back to the community. Philosophically and practically, I think this is a very good thing. Overall, I can see that share-alike may be currently holding back some potential users, but it is also helping us by preventing crowd-serfing. Since corporate and government acceptance of opendata is currently still in its infancy, I think it would be premature to switch to a more liberal licence at this stage. We should wait to see how things develop, as the OpenData movement gains further traction, and the quality of OSM relative to other offerings increases. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Hi Jukka, although I'm curious about an answer from someone who's more competent in the legal things, I'm not sure with your argument here. ODBL does not require Share-Alike for produced works. The map, even when based on OSM data is a produced work. Therefore even if the map is based on osm data, it's not share-alike, and any data based on the map IMHO cannot be share-alike too. Let's assume the opposite: - The map is a produced work and may be published on any license (more restrictive as well as more open than ODBL), so let's assume the map is CC-BY (without Share-Alike), - Then from CC-BY it follows that anyone could derive other stuff from that map without being obliged to follow any share-alike clause. So if anyone would require data gathered on top of an osm map to be share-alike, he's wrong (or ODBL contradicts itself in this example in some way). As I assume the ODBL to be checked many times, I assume yet that therefore your implication chain to be wrong and new data collected on top of an osm based produced work is not tainted with share-alike from ODBL. Nevertheless I am not a lawyer, so someone else may proove me wrong If I am. You mention Google Maps as a possible alternative to prevent this problem. I disagree here, too. If you're talking about a substantial amount of data derived from (or above) an OSM based map, the same would be forbidden with google maps data, too. As the terms of service of google state (German version): Sofern Sie zuvor keine schriftliche Genehmigung von Google bzw. dem Anbieter der betreffenden Inhalte erhalten haben, dürfen Sie (a) den Inhalt weder ganz noch teilweise kopieren, übersetzen, abändern oder abgeleitete Werke daraus erstellen translated by me: without written permission of Google or the affected data providers your are not allowed to copy (in parts or as a whole), translate or modify the content or produce derived works from it. Therefore the same as for OSM holds for any content of Google Maps, and you probably should think about using Google as an alternative from a legal point of view. regards Peter Am 14.03.2014 14:17, schrieb Jukka Rahkonen: Simon Poole wrote: One thing I would like to hear about in this context of this discussion, are examples of concrete use cases that are not happening because of share alike and that are in general things that the community would like to support (so not evil corp can't take the data now and keep it). Concrete in the sense that they are uses that really would happen if share alike would be dropped, not we can build a straw man that shows how bad share alike is. Hi Simon, We have considered that we cannot use OpenStreetMap as a background map in any of the applications where users are sending location aware information back to administration. For showing existing data it would be OK but not for gathering data from users because user could locate a place corner of Annankatu and Merimiehenkatu http://osm.org/go/0xPLoLTa0?m= by looking at the OSM map. The interpretation of ODbL is that this location is derived from OSM data and thus the database of the administration would become ODbL. It could be OK in some use cases but some data are confidential and ODbL is not an option. Therefore we do not use OSM at all. We use our own services and Google Maps. This is a concrete example. However, changing the interpretation of ODbL into georeferencing locations by looking at OSM map does not yield a derivative database would not necessarily change the situation in Finland any more because since 2012 most raster and vector data from the National Land Survey of Finland have been open data under attribution-only license. Because of this using the data is simple. This has also helped OSM because raster maps and aerial images can be utilized for digitizing and vector data imports have started this year. Jukka Rahkonen- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Hi, On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:58:57AM +0100, Simon Poole wrote: One thing I would like to hear about in this context of this discussion, are examples of concrete use cases that are not happening because of share alike and that are in general things that the community would like to support (so not evil corp can't take the data now and keep it). Concrete in the sense that they are uses that really would happen if share alike would be dropped, not we can build a straw man that shows how bad share alike is. I can tell on my own base. I work for a company which does FTTH/VDSL2 infrastructure operation and planning. Internally i am playing with OSM Data mixed with other Telecoms infrastructure data - Using OSRM to calculate infrastructure distances e.g. DSL Speeds etc., construction costs of FTTC, FTTH projects. Never ever that mixed infrastructure data will be available under ODbL. Although the produced work might be interesting to detect internet white spots i cant give it out of my Hands. So it'll stay as little toy project of mine. Whenever there is a need to produce stuff off my hands i'd need to buy commercial map/geodata material. It a matter of fact that i'd need to pay lawyers and find complicated ways to use OSM - So i dont. Complex Licenses or uncertainty is enough for me to not go down that path. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Simon Poole wrote: Two remarks/questions: - is the derived data actually being publicly used? Sometimes is, sometimes not. If it is publicly used then it may be that only part of the attributes are public. Something that is not publicly used right now may come public in the future but still not with all the attributes. With the maps from the National Land Survey there is no need to worry about all that. Unfortunately there is not yet infrastructure for making the use of NLS maps as easy as OSM or Google and that is a trouble for small municipalities, for example. - Off Topic: the use doesn't seem to be compatible with what is generally known about googles ToS (naturally I assume that is just a question of money) I haven't heard about any troubles with Google's ToS and I know that lawyers have been used for checking that. Don't know about money. -Jukka Rahkonen- Simon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: We see this already. I've spoken to companies and orgs who have said specifically that they would not contribute to OSM if it was not Share-Alike. No one wants to be competing against themselves in the future. This is actually a pretty good argument for share-alike.By having share-alike, a company that pours time, money, and effort into improving the database will not inadvertently help a competitor that would not give anything back. Sure, a CC-BY or even CC0/PD license is freer than a share-alike license, but only for a data user in isolation (they don't have any onerous obligations and that's freer). But, share-alike ensures that the freedom is sustainable for *everybody* in perpetuity and not just single users. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
2014-03-13 15:26 GMT+01:00 Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com: I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally decided to, um, share. I've been listening long to many OpenStreetMappers I respect a ton telling me it's not so bad and it's just what we're stuck with right now. But given how bad share alike is for OpenStreetMap I don't think we should give up for pushing for a more open license. Here's why I think share-alike hurts OpenStreetMap and how this keeps OpenStreetMap from having the full impact it could have: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221 I had a question, starting from this: «Ever tried to get an actual lawyer to provide guidance on the ODbL? That's what I'm talking about. Tried to use the OpenStreetMap Wiki to learn about how the ODbL is interpreted by the licensor, the OpenStreetMap Foundation? That's what I'm talking about.» How many cases of litigation in court over ODbL licensed data do we know about so far? Cristian An interested Wikipedian and mapper. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On 14/03/2014, o...@k3v.eu o...@k3v.eu wrote: On the flip side of this, if share alike is so great where are the examples of organisations contributing back to OSM because of it? There's one fairly obvious to me : the share-alike requirement is necessary to enforce the attribution requirement (otherwise any user could just change the license to one that doesn't require attribution). And that (c) osm visible in all the websites that use osm, be it fousquare or my cat's blog, is a very powerfull tool to gain recognition, users, and contributors. Without share-alike, companies would listen to their web designers and remove the ugly and useless attribution. Mostly I think organisations contribute because it is in their interest to do so (a better map makes their product better) not because the license says they have to. The user's best interest is the carrot, but the license is the stick. There's no harm using both, it's actually better. I certainly hope that the carrot is the main reason why people contribute :) But the stick has been needed many times as well. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On 14/03/2014, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote: For showing existing data it would be OK but not for gathering data from users because user could locate a place corner of Annankatu and Merimiehenkatu http://osm.org/go/0xPLoLTa0?m= by looking at the OSM map. The interpretation of ODbL is that this location is derived from OSM data and thus the database of the administration would become ODbL. To me that's a very strict/paranoiac interpretation of the odbl. Especially if locations are looked up on a raster rendering, rather than matched with vector data. As it turns out, OSM itself has decided to use that paranoiac interpretation when looking at aerial imagery for example. Because we need to be paranoiac when using other people's data. But when other people are using our data, we could appease their paranoia if the OSMF released a list of interpretation for the tricky corner-cases. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On Mar 14, 2014 8:24 AM, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote: Simon Poole wrote: One thing I would like to hear about in this context of this discussion, are examples of concrete use cases that are not happening because of share alike and that are in general things that the community would like to support (so not evil corp can't take the data now and keep it). Concrete in the sense that they are uses that really would happen if share alike would be dropped, not we can build a straw man that shows how bad share alike is. Hi Simon, We have considered that we cannot use OpenStreetMap as a background map in any of the applications where users are sending location aware information back to administration. For showing existing data it would be OK but not for gathering data from users because user could locate a place corner of Annankatu and Merimiehenkatu http://osm.org/go/0xPLoLTa0?m= by looking at the OSM map. The interpretation of ODbL is that this location is derived from OSM data and thus the database of the administration would become ODbL. It could be OK in some use cases but some data are confidential and ODbL is not an option. Therefore we do not use OSM at all. We use our own services and Google Maps. Foursquare uses OSM (and Google maps, depending on which app screen you are in) to derive/verify venue locations. Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221 Looking forward to your comments, No, thanks, the licence is good as it is. -- -S ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Hello everyone - I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally decided to, um, share. I've been listening long to many OpenStreetMappers I respect a ton telling me it's not so bad and it's just what we're stuck with right now. But given how bad share alike is for OpenStreetMap I don't think we should give up for pushing for a more open license. Here's why I think share-alike hurts OpenStreetMap and how this keeps OpenStreetMap from having the full impact it could have: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221 Looking forward to your comments, Alex ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
De : Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com Hello everyone - I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally decided to, um, share. I've been listening long to many OpenStreetMappers I respect a ton telling me it's not so bad and it's just what we're stuck with right now. But given how bad share alike is for OpenStreetMap I don't think we should give up for pushing for a more open license. Here's why I think share-alike hurts OpenStreetMap and how this keeps OpenStreetMap from having the full impact it could have: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221 Looking forward to your comments, Hi Alex, I disagree with you. Personnaly I contribute to OSM because of the share alike licence. To take you example about Google using OSM data that will increase the community I`m not convinced at all. I think that people would not realize that OSM is behind that and they will only join Google Community to contribute to Google Map data. Without a share alike licence these data will certainly remain in Google DB and not be contributed to OSM one because I wonder what would be the interest of Google to share the data with its competitor whereas it doesn`t do that today. So at the end Google would benefit of OSM data but OSM will not benefit from this usage in my opinion. OSM continue to grow so I don`t see any reason to fallback in a painfull licence change process that will mostly benefit to consumers and not to the project itself. This is an endless philosophical debat like the GPL vs BSD in software and I don`t think there is a best solution for everyone. My 2 cents Julien ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Read this and substitute OSM for Wikipedia: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/13/google_stabs_wikipedia_in_the_front/ quote The moral is: if you're a contributor to an open web resource, then beware: the hippy ethos simply marks you out as a mug. Unless you protect and license your work, you *will* be exploited by a powerful corporation. Because as the Scorpion said to the Frog[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog], It's in my nature - it's what I do*. /quote On Thu, Mar 13, 2014, at 15:26, Alex Barth wrote: Hello everyone - I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally decided to, um, share. I've been listening long to many OpenStreetMappers I respect a ton telling me it's not so bad and it's just what we're stuck with right now. But given how bad share alike is for OpenStreetMap I don't think we should give up for pushing for a more open license. Here's why I think share-alike hurts OpenStreetMap and how this keeps OpenStreetMap from having the full impact it could have: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221 Looking forward to your comments, Alex _ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Oh yes yes yes, let's have some real fun again, let's change the Licence ! Yves On 03/13/2014 03:26 PM, Alex Barth wrote: Hello everyone - I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally decided to, um, share. I've been listening long to many OpenStreetMappers I respect a ton telling me it's not so bad and it's just what we're stuck with right now. But given how bad share alike is for OpenStreetMap I don't think we should give up for pushing for a more open license. Here's why I think share-alike hurts OpenStreetMap and how this keeps OpenStreetMap from having the full impact it could have: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221 Looking forward to your comments, Alex ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On 13.03.2014 15:31, Simone Cortesi wrote: Looking forward to your comments, No, thanks, the licence is good as it is. Far from it, there's a lot that's wrong with the ODbL: First of all, it's too hard to understand. Even on legal-talk, you often don't get useful statements about what is and what isn't allowed. That's a no-go for an open license - those are supposed to make things easy to use for everyone. Then the license asks us to put effort into producing data dumps that most of the time nobody even looks at. Even trivial actions can become legal nightmares, e.g. an end user sharing screenshots that were (behind the scenes) derived from a locally created derivative database. Any time a developer trying to use OSM needs to make design decisions based on license issues instead of technical merits, I feel something is wrong. Not to mention that some use cases are even made impractical entirely, such as reverse geocoding of certain datasets. You may think that the ODbL is the perfect balance of permissions and restrictions, but I'm not so sure. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Under which license would you share it? And why? OSM offers you so many opportunities, I wonder what could be missing. On Mar 13, 2014 11:28 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: Hello everyone - I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally decided to, um, share. I've been listening long to many OpenStreetMappers I respect a ton telling me it's not so bad and it's just what we're stuck with right now. But given how bad share alike is for OpenStreetMap I don't think we should give up for pushing for a more open license. Here's why I think share-alike hurts OpenStreetMap and how this keeps OpenStreetMap from having the full impact it could have: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221 Looking forward to your comments, Alex ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
I wrote an unpublished blog article a week ago (obviously not in response to post of Alex) that I've put online now http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/21225 It might be of interest where IMHO Alex didn't get it quite right. Simon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
On Thursday 13 March 2014, Tobias Knerr wrote: No, thanks, the licence is good as it is. Far from it, there's a lot that's wrong with the ODbL: First of all, it's too hard to understand. Even on legal-talk, you often don't get useful statements about what is and what isn't allowed. That's a no-go for an open license - those are supposed to make things easy to use for everyone. Yes, things are complicated in some aspects and it is difficult to get reliable answers but this is not caused by share-alike per se. You can of course argue removing share-alike would make it much easier to create a simple and easy to understand license - this is not the main argument of Alex i think, namely that uses of the data should be allowed which are clearly forbidden now. I think the lack of clarity in the license terms could be well addressed by some official statements from the OSMF how they interpret various terms. Such statements would of course not be legally binding, individual mappers could still have a different opinion, but it would be a clear baseline. And also lets not forget the laws the license is based on are not clear cut either, there are many aspects of database law which are open to interpretation and which have not yet been decided in courts yet. A license can only be as clear as the law it is based on. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Besides predicting that exactly that would happen with Wikipedia once google started providing WP based excerpts, I don't think that it is really an argument pro/con any specific licence*. WP historically was the sole consumer and distributor of WP data of note, in the case of OSM that has been different at least for a large part of its history. So in the end it is really just normality arriving for WP (if you don't want that to happen then you probably shouldn't be an open data project). Simon * at least here google is now providing regular, well visible links to wikipedia, in contrast to what they originally did (tiny light grey invisible text). IMHO still not CC by-SA compatible, but that is for WP to decide. Am 13.03.2014 17:50, schrieb Paweł Paprota: Read this and substitute OSM for Wikipedia: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/13/google_stabs_wikipedia_in_the_front/ quote The moral is: if you're a contributor to an open web resource, then beware: the hippy ethos simply marks you out as a mug. Unless you protect and license your work, you *will* be exploited by a powerful corporation. Because as the Scorpion said to the Frog[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog], It's in my nature - it's what I do*. /quote On Thu, Mar 13, 2014, at 15:26, Alex Barth wrote: Hello everyone - I've been sitting on writing about the detrimental effects of OpenStreetMap's share-alike license (ODbL) for a while and finally decided to, um, share. I've been listening long to many OpenStreetMappers I respect a ton telling me it's not so bad and it's just what we're stuck with right now. But given how bad share alike is for OpenStreetMap I don't think we should give up for pushing for a more open license. Here's why I think share-alike hurts OpenStreetMap and how this keeps OpenStreetMap from having the full impact it could have: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221 Looking forward to your comments, Alex _ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
I've posted a comment on Alex post, but I need to clarify a few things. The part were I also think ODbL may be a problem is regarding collaborating with government agencies where share-alike is required. It is a pitty that these agencies cannot join OSM because of ODbL, not because they just want to use OSM data in a non open way but because their less restrictive licence is incompatible with ODbL. This is the point where something may be changed but I don't know how it could be done. Except that special case, ODbL allows a lot of things, and its share-alike requirement looks to me not as less open but as always open... which in fact is more open on the long term. -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France Conférence State Of The Map France du 4 au 6 avril à Parishttp://openstreetmap.fr/sotmfr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Alex, I agree with you! Figured I'd speak up as it always seems the no votes get all the attention on the list. -Jake On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.frwrote: I've posted a comment on Alex post, but I need to clarify a few things. The part were I also think ODbL may be a problem is regarding collaborating with government agencies where share-alike is required. It is a pitty that these agencies cannot join OSM because of ODbL, not because they just want to use OSM data in a non open way but because their less restrictive licence is incompatible with ODbL. This is the point where something may be changed but I don't know how it could be done. Except that special case, ODbL allows a lot of things, and its share-alike requirement looks to me not as less open but as always open... which in fact is more open on the long term. -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France Conférence State Of The Map France du 4 au 6 avril à Parishttp://openstreetmap.fr/sotmfr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Jake, On 13.03.2014 20:17, Jake Wasserman wrote: Figured I'd speak up as it always seems the no votes get all the attention on the list. This is not a vote; it is a discussion. Although the distinction becomes blurred sometimes, in discussions it is common to think about an issue, balance the arguments that have already been said, and then write down one's own opinion and the reasoning behind it. Simply +1/-1ing someone else's opinion is not something that furthers the discussion, and generally frowned upon in mailing lists. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Am 13.03.2014 15:26, schrieb Alex Barth: Looking forward to your comments, No! Stay at Share alike to avoid misuse of open data! Compare it to the GPL which is frequently used in OS-Sortware. Best regards, Michael. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
I wrote an unpublished blog article a week ago (obviously not in response to post of Alex) that I've put online now http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/21225 It might be of interest where IMHO Alex didn't get it quite right. Simon ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Alex, I agree with you! Figured I'd speak up as it always seems the no votes get all the attention on the list. -Jake On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.frwrote: I've posted a comment on Alex post, but I need to clarify a few things. The part were I also think ODbL may be a problem is regarding collaborating with government agencies where share-alike is required. It is a pitty that these agencies cannot join OSM because of ODbL, not because they just want to use OSM data in a non open way but because their less restrictive licence is incompatible with ODbL. This is the point where something may be changed but I don't know how it could be done. Except that special case, ODbL allows a lot of things, and its share-alike requirement looks to me not as less open but as always open... which in fact is more open on the long term. -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France Conférence State Of The Map France du 4 au 6 avril à Parishttp://openstreetmap.fr/sotmfr ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike
Jake, On 13.03.2014 20:17, Jake Wasserman wrote: Figured I'd speak up as it always seems the no votes get all the attention on the list. This is not a vote; it is a discussion. Although the distinction becomes blurred sometimes, in discussions it is common to think about an issue, balance the arguments that have already been said, and then write down one's own opinion and the reasoning behind it. Simply +1/-1ing someone else's opinion is not something that furthers the discussion, and generally frowned upon in mailing lists. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Moderating agree/disagree comments (was Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike)
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 13.03.2014 20:17, Jake Wasserman wrote: Figured I'd speak up as it always seems the no votes get all the attention on the list. This is not a vote; it is a discussion. Although the distinction becomes blurred sometimes, in discussions it is common to think about an issue, balance the arguments that have already been said, and then write down one's own opinion and the reasoning behind it. The expression of simple agreement or disagreement is fine IMO and several people have practically done so on this thread already. Not sure why you singled out Jake, the first one who expressed simple agreement ;-) That's said, sharing why is always best. Jake I encourage you to do so ;-) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
