Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
Anthony, I realise no analogy is perfect. In this case a problem is that if somebody breaks into the OSM data, he is not depriving the previous owners of it. And it is an Open street map after all - we're *inviting* people into the house! By the way I'm not sure why Copyright law is the big huge window sitting next to the locked door. If possible could you explain further or just google it for me or tell me where to find more info? Thanks, Brendan --Original Message Text--- From: Anthony Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:55:26 -0500 On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Brendan Morley wrote: All for addressing, as far as I can tell, a theoretical problem, with no real-world exploits. I understand that actual exploits would make the problem more obvious, but I find the underlying logic questionable nevertheless. No one has broken into my house for 5 years now. Does this mean my door locks are secure? No, it might easily just mean that * most people are honest enough not break into my house * the stuff I have in here is not valuable enough * I was simply lucky Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that the locks are insecure either, it's just that you need experts checking the locks to decide this. Unless you're living inside a bank vault, I highly doubt your locks are secure or that you'd be willing to pay to secure them. Especially not when they're sitting next to a big window that can probably be easily broken with a nice brick. Good analogy, actually. ODbL is the fancy million dollar lock (which is brand new and has been tested much less than your previous $50 one). Copyright law is the big huge window sitting next to the locked door. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Brendan Morley morb@beagle.com.auwrote: Anthony, I realise no analogy is perfect. In this case a problem is that if somebody breaks into the OSM data, he is not depriving the previous owners of it. And it is an Open street map after all - we're *inviting* people into the house! By the way I'm not sure why Copyright law is the big huge window sitting next to the locked door. If possible could you explain further or just google it for me or tell me where to find more info? Thanks, Brendan +1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
Brendan Morley wrote: All for addressing, as far as I can tell, a theoretical problem, with no real-world exploits. I understand that actual exploits would make the problem more obvious, but I find the underlying logic questionable nevertheless. No one has broken into my house for 5 years now. Does this mean my door locks are secure? No, it might easily just mean that * most people are honest enough not break into my house * the stuff I have in here is not valuable enough * I was simply lucky Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that the locks are insecure either, it's just that you need experts checking the locks to decide this. Similarly, that no one (we know of) has abused weaknesses in CC-by-SA so far could be because * most users of OSM like the project anyway, so they voluntarily comply * OSM is still inferior to other data sources in most places, so we aren't an attractive target; especially as we could cut off update by switching licenses (I'd expect clear support for that after an exploit) * we were simply lucky Again, just from looking at this, CC-by-SA might or might not work. It takes legal experts who check at the license to decide this. If the license has problems (and there are legal arguments indicating that they exist), just waiting until an exploit occurs is detrimental. After all, if we try to relicense in a few years, we will lose much more data (more contributors will have left/died/changed their e-mail address until then, each object will have been touched by a larger number of contributors, and of course there will be a larger amount of data in the database overall). So unfortunately, we need to decide soon - and in absence of reliable empirical data available, only theory is available. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Brendan Morley wrote: All for addressing, as far as I can tell, a theoretical problem, with no real-world exploits. I understand that actual exploits would make the problem more obvious, but I find the underlying logic questionable nevertheless. No one has broken into my house for 5 years now. Does this mean my door locks are secure? No, it might easily just mean that * most people are honest enough not break into my house * the stuff I have in here is not valuable enough * I was simply lucky Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that the locks are insecure either, it's just that you need experts checking the locks to decide this. Unless you're living inside a bank vault, I highly doubt your locks are secure or that you'd be willing to pay to secure them. Especially not when they're sitting next to a big window that can probably be easily broken with a nice brick. Good analogy, actually. ODbL is the fancy million dollar lock (which is brand new and has been tested much less than your previous $50 one). Copyright law is the big huge window sitting next to the locked door. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 14:55, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Good analogy, actually. ODbL is the fancy million dollar lock (which is brand new and has been tested much less than your previous $50 one). Copyright law is the big huge window sitting next to the locked door. If you'd like to reach a wider audience with your analogies you should really use ones involving cars. :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 14:55, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Good analogy, actually. ODbL is the fancy million dollar lock (which is brand new and has been tested much less than your previous $50 one). Copyright law is the big huge window sitting next to the locked door. If you'd like to reach a wider audience with your analogies you should really use ones involving cars. :) ODbL is the fancy million euro lock (which is brand new and has been tested much less than your previous 50 euro one). Copyright law is the five euro wheel you attached it to. ;) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:39:13 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 20:36, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: For Australians it means the loss of the coastline, most of which has been re- edited from government data, and major rivers like the Murray If someone presents me with a boolean Do you allow relicensing under the ODbL I'll have to say no because some of my edits are derived from CC-BY-SA data I don't have permission to license (and I probably can't even recall what all of it is). First, I would appreciate if people could stop talking about nuking data. Fair enough, I hadn't had much sleep that morning. The non-relicensed data will sit in some kind of separate, possibly read-only server, from where it can be accessed, just like now, under the terms of CC-BY-SA. This server may or may not be made available by OSMF but it will certainly exist, and OSMF has already said that a full history dump will be provided. Fred, not a criticism of you in particular, as I appreciate your time in explaining the situation. I very tempted though to make this mean that instead of my data being nuked, it will be orphaned instead. This is still Hobson's choice for me. I'm just kicking myself that I naively assumed that the custodians of my data contributions had my interests at heart. Now I realise the *custodians* are a much bigger threat to the longevity of my contributions than any 10^100 megacorp. All for addressing, as far as I can tell, a theoretical problem, with no real-world exploits. Brendan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
At 09:24 PM 6/12/2009, morb@beagle.com.au wrote: Quoting Anthony o...@inbox.org: Part of me suspects that this whole notion of removing contributions from people who don't agree is going to get dropped. At least for the contributors who don't respond one way or the other. It's just going to destroy too much of the database. Wow, this whole issue has kept me up all night, just reading through the emails and having the implications dawn on me. Have I got this straight? That I *must* agree to this odbl licence, or my (considerable) amount of edits will get *nuked* from the canonical OSM database? What a Hobson's choice. I'd better go and see what this odbl is then? Good idea. ;-) We really, really, really, like to keep your and everyone's edits going forward. But we have to respect your choice. Under the current regime, you are allowing your contributions to be used only under CC BY SA 2.0. We could duck the issue now, but does even the most diehard CC BY SA 2.0 supporter expect us to want the same license in 5 years, in 50 years? Our intent is that ODbL is designed with the same rights as current license in mind, but clears up CC BY-SA ambiguities. One of the objectives of current activity is to get reasonable community consensus that is indeed the case, before presenting you with this choice. Mike http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf - An overview of the whole shebang http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ ODbL Plain Language Summary http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ ODbL 1.0 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: We really, really, really, like to keep your and everyone's edits going forward. But we have to respect your choice. Under the current regime, you are allowing your contributions to be used only under CC BY SA 2.0. We could duck the issue now, but does even the most diehard CC BY SA 2.0 supporter expect us to want the same license in 5 years, in 50 years? What about dual licensing under CC-BY-SA and ODbL? That way you can keep the CC-BY-SA contributions. Of course, it doesn't make much sense, because the whole point of ODbL is that it's more restrictive than CC-BY-SA. But it shows that the problem at least some of us have is not any change, it's this particular change. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
Anthony osm at inbox.org writes: What about dual licensing under CC-BY-SA and ODbL? That way you can keep the CC-BY-SA contributions.Of course, it doesn't make much sense, because the whole point of ODbL is that it's more restrictive than CC-BY-SA. It makes a little bit of sense: the ODbL does have looser attribution requirements and would (I believe) make it possible to produce public domain map tiles, rather than having them CC-BY-SA. That might open up a few new applications or encourage a few companies which have been reluctant to use the data under CC to start using it under ODbL. (Though personally I doubt that many will - legal departments frightened by Creative Commons licences are unlikely to look kindly on the much more legalistic ODbL.) I think it would be a better transition, though - start using ODbL in parallel now, and if at some point in the future CC-BY-SA licensing is shown to cause real problems with enforcing share-alike (which on all available real-world evidence so far looks unlikely, but I'm told the possibility exists) then there could be a separate decision to move to ODbL only (which would not require deleting people's data). -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
Because the foundation is deciding now if the current Odbl 1.0 licence proposal will be the next OSM licence you will have to accept or refuse in February 2010, I would like to know what the community itself thinks about this Odbl 1.0. As Ulf Lamping said, it will be a gun on your head in Feb. 2010 where you will have the choice between accepting this licence or stop contributing to OSM and all your contributions will be removed. Therefore, I would like to know what you, the contributor, thinks today about the transition to Odbl 1.0 licence in this opinion poll: http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w Feel free to add comments to explain your choice. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
Pieren schrieb: Because the foundation is deciding now if the current Odbl 1.0 licence proposal will be the next OSM licence you will have to accept or refuse in February 2010, I would like to know what the community itself thinks about this Odbl 1.0. As Ulf Lamping said, it will be a gun on your head in Feb. 2010 where you will have the choice between accepting this licence or stop contributing to OSM and all your contributions will be removed. Therefore, I would like to know what you, the contributor, thinks today about the transition to Odbl 1.0 licence in this opinion poll: http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w I kind of miss the choise of No, but I consider all my data PD. Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD. Unless there is a mechanisim in OSM to e.g. Download only PD data or a seperate project that collects PD data (which is also put into ODbL-OSM), I don't really see a sense in saying My data is PD, since it will not make any difference to My data is ODbL. Or am I wrong? Greetings ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
Hi, Sebastian Hohmann wrote: I kind of miss the choise of No, but I consider all my data PD. Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD. Unless there is a mechanisim in OSM to e.g. Download only PD data or a seperate project that collects PD data (which is also put into ODbL-OSM), I don't really see a sense in saying My data is PD, since it will not make any difference to My data is ODbL. Or am I wrong? The PD choice has little legal relevance. I campaigned for the inclusion of the PD choice because, as a basis for future licensing discussions and also questions of interpretation, I want to know where the community stands. SteveC others tirelessly claim that there is a share-alike consensus in OSM and I don't believe that, and I want the issue put to rest one way or the other. If we find that 80% of OSMers actually are pro PD then this will not change the license one bit, but it might perhaps help reduce some share-alike zealotry and we might interpret some things in a more relaxed way (and ODbL leaves plenty of room for interpretation, concerning the big questions of what is substantial, what is a produced work, and what is a derived database). If, on the other hand, we find that 80% of OSMers would not release their data PD but prefer a share-alike license, then we would perhaps interpret the same questions with a more rigorous share-alike drift. 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] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Sebastian Hohmann m...@s-hohmann.de wrote: I kind of miss the choise of No, but I consider all my data PD. Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD. Unless there is a mechanisim in OSM to e.g. Download only PD data or a seperate project that collects PD data (which is also put into ODbL-OSM), I don't really see a sense in saying My data is PD, since it will not make any difference to My data is ODbL. Or am I wrong? Greetings I added this entry in the poll because it will be one of the possible choices you will have in February: (from http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/3/3c/License_Proposal.pdf) The current date for complete migration to the new license is 26th February 2010. Consent I hereby agree to the terms of the OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms, including re-licensing my contributions under the ODbL. [ Short scrolling box with complete Contributor Terms ] [Agree button] [Agree; and declare that I consider all my data PD (Public Domain) button] [Refuse button] Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
2009/12/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: Because the foundation is deciding now if the current Odbl 1.0 licence proposal will be the next OSM licence you will have to accept or refuse in February 2010, I would like to know what the community itself thinks about this Odbl 1.0. I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors). Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
And I would like that people reading this thread forwards and translates this call to other local lists for the widest polling as possible. Unfortunately, the licence itself is not (yet) translated. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors). Cheers As far as I understood (but some experts might rectify if I'm wrong), only the last contributor of an element will have to accept the new licence. So if your uploads are based on other authors who will reject the new licence, the data will remain anyway if you, the last contributor in the history of this element accepts the new licence. If you think that you could accept the new licence but not in these conditions, you might select the option no, I will not accept the new license Odbl but I will if the license is reworked and add some comments below. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If we find that 80% of OSMers actually are pro PD then this will not change the license one bit, but it might perhaps help reduce some share-alike zealotry and we might interpret some things in a more relaxed way (and ODbL leaves plenty of room for interpretation, concerning the big questions of what is substantial, what is a produced work, and what is a derived database). Then there definitely should be a Refuse; and declare as PD, since anyone who truly is pro-PD would refuse to accept the draconian terms of the ODbL. The ODbL, with contractual enforcement of provisions beyond copyright law, is extremely anti-PD. Under it, protection lasts forever, meaning the database never truly goes into the public domain. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
Frederik Ramm schrieb: Hi, Sebastian Hohmann wrote: I kind of miss the choise of No, but I consider all my data PD. Because even though any PD data could be also made ODbL, there is no sense in declaring it PD if it's not collected and published as PD. Unless there is a mechanisim in OSM to e.g. Download only PD data or a seperate project that collects PD data (which is also put into ODbL-OSM), I don't really see a sense in saying My data is PD, since it will not make any difference to My data is ODbL. Or am I wrong? The PD choice has little legal relevance. I campaigned for the inclusion of the PD choice because, as a basis for future licensing discussions and also questions of interpretation, I want to know where the community stands. SteveC others tirelessly claim that there is a share-alike consensus in OSM and I don't believe that, and I want the issue put to rest one way or the other. If we find that 80% of OSMers actually are pro PD then this will not change the license one bit, but it might perhaps help reduce some share-alike zealotry and we might interpret some things in a more relaxed way (and ODbL leaves plenty of room for interpretation, concerning the big questions of what is substantial, what is a produced work, and what is a derived database). If, on the other hand, we find that 80% of OSMers would not release their data PD but prefer a share-alike license, then we would perhaps interpret the same questions with a more rigorous share-alike drift. I like that it is included, but I still can't say e.g. I like PD, but I don't like ODbL in the current version. Since the vote is about whether the ordinary mapper would accept ODbL, I think it's strange that you can't vote against it if you like PD. I haven't read the latest version of the ODbL, so I don't know what I would vote, but with the current choices, people might either accept ODbL just because they like PD or deny PD because they don't like ODbL. And since this is supposed to show the current general opinion on the license change, I wouldn't like the results to be unintentionally falsified. Maybe it would be better to split the questions. Would you accept ODbL: yes/no/if change/dont know Would you accept PD: yes/no/dont know What would you prefer: CC-BY-SA/ODbL/PD I don't know if this is possible, but this way, even if someone would accept ODbL if there is no other choice, he could still vote for PD or CC-BY-SA. Someone might not prefer PD, but might still accept it if a majority would prefer it. Or someone might not prefer PD, but would also never accept it. There are a lot of other possible combinations. After all, this is a complicated topic and there are many different opinions. Greetings ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors). Cheers As far as I understood (but some experts might rectify if I'm wrong), only the last contributor of an element will have to accept the new licence. this isn't correct. to recover the full history of an element all authors who have contributed to it will have to agree. for more details, please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Backup_Plan#Marking_elements_.22OK.22 So if your uploads are based on other authors who will reject the new licence, the data will remain anyway if you, the last contributor in the history of this element accepts the new licence. If you think that you could accept the new licence but not in these conditions, you might select the option no, I will not accept the new license Odbl but I will if the license is reworked and add some comments below. if you're in the US you could also accept the new license on Anthony's (as far as i can tell, correct) interpretation, which is that factual data doesn't gather copyright protection. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
Pieren schrieb: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: I missed an option saying I'm in favour of ODbL but may not be in position to agree to relicense all data I uploaded (because part of it is CC-BY-SA owned by other authors). Cheers As far as I understood (but some experts might rectify if I'm wrong), only the last contributor of an element will have to accept the new licence. So if your uploads are based on other authors who will reject the new licence, the data will remain anyway if you, the last contributor in the history of this element accepts the new licence. Ouch! So I can write a small script that touches every element in the OSM database to own the copyright of the whole database?!? Well, that's certainly not my understanding of copyright! Regards, ULFL BTW: There's a german user (spammer?) that exactly does that already on a smaller scale (unknown if he's doing it manually or by a script). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
2009/12/6 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: So if your uploads are based on other authors who will reject the new licence, the data will remain anyway if you, the last contributor in the history of this element accepts the new licence. If you think that you could accept the new licence but not in these conditions, you might select the option no, I will not accept the new license Odbl but I will if the license is reworked and add some comments below. if you're in the US you could also accept the new license on Anthony's (as far as i can tell, correct) interpretation, which is that factual data doesn't gather copyright protection. IANAL but I think in Europe it's the same with factual data. But, we're a project that has been claiming CC-BY-SA was valid for at least some time initially and on multiple occasions have sent people mails if they didn't comply with that license so it really would be difficult to pull the your license is not enforceable anyway now in relation to other people's datasets. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Ulf Lamping ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com wrote: Ouch! So I can write a small script that touches every element in the OSM database to own the copyright of the whole database?!? Well, that's certainly not my understanding of copyright! Regards, ULFL No, Matt corrected me. It means that all the time I spent in the last two years to improve other contributions (e.g. positioning, tagging ) might disappear depending on others decisions. Sad that I was not informed earlier as I would have deleted existing contributions and created mines from scratch. Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for me :take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the only one then delete and recreate them identically under my user account then all my efforts are saved at the licence transition ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
Hi! Pieren schrieb: Therefore, I would like to know what you, the contributor, thinks today about the transition to Odbl 1.0 licence in this opinion poll: http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w It is good that there is a general poll of opinion. This is something the OSMF should have organized. I have translated the call to German and put it on the talk-de. I am very interested in the outcome and am looking forward to see what the actual numbers say. One the request to those people questioning the poll (in true community style) or suggesting more options. Please leave the poll alone, it may not be perfect and may not have your personal preferred option, but it corresponds to the intended options of the real vote and the major realistic outcomes. It is a very good chance to get an overview over the opinion of the active people so please just cast your vote as best as you can. bye Nop ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
Pieren wrote: Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for me :take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the only one then delete and recreate them identically under my user account then all my efforts are saved at the licence transition ? In my opinion, whether your data is derived from other data isn't determined by having the same object ID. If I completely remove all tags from a node, move it somewhere else and add new tags, then it's most likely not derived from the previous work. If I add a tag to a road, then it is derived from previous work, and this doesn't change at all if I choose to copy the road and delete the original. Using the object history is just an approximation based on the assumption that mappers will usually keep an object if they are improving existing data, and create new objects if they add completely new information. It's not really possible for an automated process to do anything else. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Pieren wrote: Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for me :take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the only one then delete and recreate them identically under my user account then all my efforts are saved at the licence transition ? In my opinion, whether your data is derived from other data isn't determined by having the same object ID. If I completely remove all tags from a node, move it somewhere else and add new tags, then it's most likely not derived from the previous work. If I add a tag to a road, then it is derived from previous work, and this doesn't change at all if I choose to copy the road and delete the original. Using the object history is just an approximation based on the assumption that mappers will usually keep an object if they are improving existing data, and create new objects if they add completely new information. It's not really possible for an automated process to do anything else. Actually even this doesn't work. If a way is split into two (using JOSM) then the database does not record any information about the split and the history is kept with only one of the ways. This means that the history and original attribution for half of all the split ways is just not there. I don't think there's going to be a way of deleting all the data for those people who don't accept the new license. Tobias Knerr ___ 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] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
2009/12/6 80n 80n...@gmail.com: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Pieren wrote: Could someone deliver a script that could make this automatically for me :take all elements where I am the last contributor but not the only one then delete and recreate them identically under my user account then all my efforts are saved at the licence transition ? In my opinion, whether your data is derived from other data isn't determined by having the same object ID. If I completely remove all tags from a node, move it somewhere else and add new tags, then it's most likely not derived from the previous work. If I add a tag to a road, then it is derived from previous work, and this doesn't change at all if I choose to copy the road and delete the original. Using the object history is just an approximation based on the assumption that mappers will usually keep an object if they are improving existing data, and create new objects if they add completely new information. It's not really possible for an automated process to do anything else. Actually even this doesn't work. If a way is split into two (using JOSM) then the database does not record any information about the split and the history is kept with only one of the ways. This means that the history and original attribution for half of all the split ways is just not there. I don't think there's going to be a way of deleting all the data for those people who don't accept the new license. One way of preserving the actual logical history of elements through the edits that works more often than looking at the id, but not in 100% cases either, is by looking at the tags, such as source= (if present). That's why I advocate linking to other databases by including those database's key in a tag (such as wikipedia= ). In this case if a changeset creates an element with source= or source:ref= value identical to some other element in the same changeset, it probably shares the IP ownership with those other elements. In practice I think it's going to be easier because most edits on ways / relations only bump up the version on the way / relation object and you rarely touch the nodes, which actually hold the geo reference value. If you create a way using the nodes a different way was using till that point, it's probably a piece of the same way. If a way/relation needs to be deleted because its long history includes a mapper who opted out, it can be easily recreated if you have the nodes. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Using the object history is just an approximation based on the assumption that mappers will usually keep an object if they are improving existing data, and create new objects if they add completely new information. It's not really possible for an automated process to do anything else. Actually even this doesn't work. If a way is split into two (using JOSM) then the database does not record any information about the split and the history is kept with only one of the ways. This means that the history and original attribution for half of all the split ways is just not there. I don't think there's going to be a way of deleting all the data for those people who don't accept the new license. There's not going to be a way of doing it perfectly. Consider the reason people get so paranoid about someone tracing copyrighted maps. If you accept that the data is copyrighted, then a single contribution has the potential to taint a large portion of the database, depending on how strictly you want to interpret what constitutes a derivative work. Part of me suspects that this whole notion of removing contributions from people who don't agree is going to get dropped. At least for the contributors who don't respond one way or the other. It's just going to destroy too much of the database. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
If the person who originally mapped the noses does not agree, does this mean that all of the information on the way must be deleted? If a particular contributor has died since making their contributions, they cannot either agree nor disagree. Does this mean that all work derived from their contributions must automatically be deleted? Given the large number of contributors, it is a near certainty that some of them will have died by now. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0 From :balr...@gmail.com Date :Sun Dec 06 12:28:50 America/Chicago 2009 2009/12/6 80n 80n...@gmail.com: If a way/relation needs to be deleted because its long history includes a mapper who opted out, it can be easily recreated if you have the nodes. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
Quoting Anthony o...@inbox.org: Part of me suspects that this whole notion of removing contributions from people who don't agree is going to get dropped. At least for the contributors who don't respond one way or the other. It's just going to destroy too much of the database. Wow, this whole issue has kept me up all night, just reading through the emails and having the implications dawn on me. Have I got this straight? That I *must* agree to this odbl licence, or my (considerable) amount of edits will get *nuked* from the canonical OSM database? What a Hobson's choice. I'd better go and see what this odbl is then? Brendan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, morb@beagle.com.au wrote: Quoting Anthony o...@inbox.org: Part of me suspects that this whole notion of removing contributions from people who don't agree is going to get dropped. At least for the contributors who don't respond one way or the other. It's just going to destroy too much of the database. Wow, this whole issue has kept me up all night, just reading through the emails and having the implications dawn on me. Have I got this straight? That I *must* agree to this odbl licence, or my (considerable) amount of edits will get *nuked* from the canonical OSM database? What a Hobson's choice. I'd better go and see what this odbl is then? Brendan For Australians it means the loss of the coastline, most of which has been re- edited from government data, and major rivers like the Murray Coastline from Australian Geoscience, whose data we obtained, 59736km Murray River 2756km ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 20:36, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: For Australians it means the loss of the coastline, most of which has been re- edited from government data, and major rivers like the Murray If someone presents me with a boolean Do you allow relicensing under the ODbL I'll have to say no because some of my edits are derived from CC-BY-SA data I don't have permission to license (and I probably can't even recall what all of it is). Which'll mean nuking 50% of all the data in Iceland most of which I've touched at some point. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
Hi, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 20:36, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: For Australians it means the loss of the coastline, most of which has been re- edited from government data, and major rivers like the Murray If someone presents me with a boolean Do you allow relicensing under the ODbL I'll have to say no because some of my edits are derived from CC-BY-SA data I don't have permission to license (and I probably can't even recall what all of it is). Which'll mean nuking 50% of all the data in Iceland most of which I've touched at some point. First, I would appreciate if people could stop talking about nuking data. The absolute worst case, where data cannot be re-licensed into ODbL because the original contributor is dead, does not agree, cannot be reached, or cannot be bothered to read our proposal, is this: The non-relicensed data will sit in some kind of separate, possibly read-only server, from where it can be accessed, just like now, under the terms of CC-BY-SA. This server may or may not be made available by OSMF but it will certainly exist, and OSMF has already said that a full history dump will be provided. We will, in all likelihood, be rendering tiles that display the old data alongside the new data in a fashion largely indiscernible from today's maps. These map tiles will have to be CC-BY-SA licensed (because part of them comes from CC-BY-SA sources) but that's fine with us. (OSMF has not made a statement, and probably neither a decision, about whether or not the osm.org tileserver will serve such mixed renderings but if that server doesn't then you can be sure others will fill the need.) We might even - and again, this is something outside of OSMF's control and can be set up by any interested group in the project - allow limited write access to the old CC-BY-SA database, so that when things are eventually relicensed or resurveyed, they can be removed from the old data set to avoid rendering conflicts. So for map rendering, the damage will be, I shall say, minimal. More effort for rendering, yes, but the same good maps that we already have. It will be more difficult for routing engines or other users of our data because combining CC-BY-SA and ODbL data in a database is not possible except in fringe situations where you can get away with having a collective database. Also, of course, editing will be more difficult because you have the legacy data. But even here it is thinkable to have editors that will download old and new data, and maybe display the old data in a greyed out version or so, indicating that editing is only possible on the new data. (There's neither technical nor legal reason to disallow editing on the old data, but we do want to have an incentive for people to ultimately make the switch I think. Also we have to be careful not to copy data from one dataset to another.) But this is the worst case. I firmly believe that it will be possible to come to terms with many contributors, even if they disagree with ODbL at the moment, or if they are government bodies which act at turtle speed. It will take some effort and may not always work, but I see no reason to be so pessimistic about this. (It will be necessary for OSMF to rein in those in it's ranks who think that this can be achieved by insulting anyone who is against ODbL, but I trust this will automatically come as the organisation matures.) Also, there will surely be a fine-grained approach to edits. Just because you have touched something in Iceland and cannot make the switch to ODbL, one can still retrieve the version from before you touched it, and use that. Better than nothing. (In cases like yours, I think one should really make an effort to determine which of your edits are tainted by external CC-BY-SA sources. I think it would be ok to get this 90% right, it doesn't have to be absolutely correct - if a few CC-BY-SA items slip through, or if a few non-CC-BY-SA items get dropped, the damage isn't that big.) 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] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
What will be the likely scenario for the USA, where most of the data is derived from the TIGER database (land attributes such as roads, buildings, rivers, and lakes; political areas such as states and counties; and statistical areas such as census tracts)? By US law, this data is in and must remain in the public domain. If all OSM data derived from TIGER data must be removed or rendered read-only, this won't leave much editable data in the USA. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria -Original Message- From: Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:39:13 To: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmasonava...@gmail.com Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0 Hi, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 20:36, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: For Australians it means the loss of the coastline, most of which has been re- edited from government data, and major rivers like the Murray If someone presents me with a boolean Do you allow relicensing under the ODbL I'll have to say no because some of my edits are derived from CC-BY-SA data I don't have permission to license (and I probably can't even recall what all of it is). Which'll mean nuking 50% of all the data in Iceland most of which I've touched at some point. First, I would appreciate if people could stop talking about nuking data. The absolute worst case, where data cannot be re-licensed into ODbL because the original contributor is dead, does not agree, cannot be reached, or cannot be bothered to read our proposal, is this: The non-relicensed data will sit in some kind of separate, possibly read-only server, from where it can be accessed, just like now, under the terms of CC-BY-SA. This server may or may not be made available by OSMF but it will certainly exist, and OSMF has already said that a full history dump will be provided. We will, in all likelihood, be rendering tiles that display the old data alongside the new data in a fashion largely indiscernible from today's maps. These map tiles will have to be CC-BY-SA licensed (because part of them comes from CC-BY-SA sources) but that's fine with us. (OSMF has not made a statement, and probably neither a decision, about whether or not the osm.org tileserver will serve such mixed renderings but if that server doesn't then you can be sure others will fill the need.) We might even - and again, this is something outside of OSMF's control and can be set up by any interested group in the project - allow limited write access to the old CC-BY-SA database, so that when things are eventually relicensed or resurveyed, they can be removed from the old data set to avoid rendering conflicts. So for map rendering, the damage will be, I shall say, minimal. More effort for rendering, yes, but the same good maps that we already have. It will be more difficult for routing engines or other users of our data because combining CC-BY-SA and ODbL data in a database is not possible except in fringe situations where you can get away with having a collective database. Also, of course, editing will be more difficult because you have the legacy data. But even here it is thinkable to have editors that will download old and new data, and maybe display the old data in a greyed out version or so, indicating that editing is only possible on the new data. (There's neither technical nor legal reason to disallow editing on the old data, but we do want to have an incentive for people to ultimately make the switch I think. Also we have to be careful not to copy data from one dataset to another.) But this is the worst case. I firmly believe that it will be possible to come to terms with many contributors, even if they disagree with ODbL at the moment, or if they are government bodies which act at turtle speed. It will take some effort and may not always work, but I see no reason to be so pessimistic about this. (It will be necessary for OSMF to rein in those in it's ranks who think that this can be achieved by insulting anyone who is against ODbL, but I trust this will automatically come as the organisation matures.) Also, there will surely be a fine-grained approach to edits. Just because you have touched something in Iceland and cannot make the switch to ODbL, one can still retrieve the version from before you touched it, and use that. Better than nothing. (In cases like yours, I think one should really make an effort to determine which of your edits are tainted by external CC-BY-SA sources. I think it would be ok to get this 90% right, it doesn't have to be absolutely correct - if a few CC-BY-SA items slip through, or if a few non-CC-BY-SA items get dropped, the damage isn't that big.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008
Re: [OSM-talk] Opinion poll about the new licence Odbl 1.0
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 22:32, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: By US law, this data is in and must remain in the public domain. No, it must be in the public domain at the time of its release by the US federal government but can be re-licensed later by anyone anywhere. We've currently re-licensed it under the CC-BY-SA and will relicense it again under the WTFPL or the ODbL or whatever we end up using with no problems at all. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
