[talk-au] Going separate ways
David wrote Just a quick note that my understanding is those figures are generated based on v1 history, none of the bot edits would have been v1 unless they created a new entity, not just a new/modified tag. David, you may be right although I took Richard's nodes last edited to mean the latest version and a quick sampling showed about 30% of ways attributed to the two bots I mentioned. Nick ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Hitting reset on talk-au
I'm speaking strictly personally here, posting to talk@ and opengeodata. OSM often crosses bridges in it's growth. Mostly they're technical, like introducing color maps, rendering new things or speeding up the system. We have a much more ugly bridge to cross in front of us. Would you want to be part of a community which includes people explicitly working to disrupt it, trolling it and breaking data? Would you want to be part of a community where people are literally scared for their jobs when thinking about helping run it? Over the last few days there has been a bunch of discussion on talk-au which you can read in the archives, though for your own sanity you might want to skip it. For the most part the posts revolve around the OSMF, the LWG and the license process. I considered my presence there over the last few days as both a last ditch attempt to salvage the data and more importantly the community that's there. As RichardF pointed out, their license acceptance rate is about half what most EU communities have achieved. I would say that the people on that list feel disaffected with the process and their representation in it. Despite multiple attempts at trying to have a reasonable dialog over both what happened and what we can do about it, mostly I've been met with extreme animosity. Most of that comes from people either banned from the main lists, been deleted/blocked from OSM or been moderated or who have publicly stated they're here to disrupt the project. I've tried to get many people involved posting there in what I thought was a worthwhile effort, in effect to save that list. Almost everybody declined to do so. Only RichardF braved it and was met with a predictable response. Frederik has given up and from my reading of his email considers talk-au dead (I think you should make that email public). I find that understandable. I've been trying to find someone to moderate the list along the Etiquette guidelines on the wiki. Mikel has given up, understandably, and he leads the main moderators. We found one native Australian to moderate but they backed out because they literally feared for their job safety, that the people who now inhabit the list would make life with their employer difficult. Thus, they declined to do so after initially accepting. I actually am convinced that was the right decision and the people on that list are capable of it. I don't think anyone I know in OSM would want to be part of a community like that. I think it's a sad low point in what otherwise is a wonderful project to be involved in. Let me be more clear, *I* don't want to be part of a community that accepts this. Who in their right mind would want to be a part of a community run by people explicitly out to disrupt, fork and troll? In the best traditions of open projects our ideas and code are Free. It's not clear that our time and server resources should be. Unlike our ideas and code, they're finite and open to abuse. Make no mistake that our time and resources are being used explicitly to destabilize the very project which provides them. Used by mostly anonymous or pseudonymous people who as I say have been kicked, banned or explicitly stated they want to destabilize OSM. This is not about censorship. If you read the lists, you'll find we've made available repeatedly both the methods and the people to help resolve issues. These people are free to fork the project and the data, it's all available for download. They have their own mailing lists. Are there genuine questions about license, it's implementation and so on? Absolutely. But level-headed discussion is not welcome on talk-au for the most part. There are a few people who can discuss this stuff impersonally there but it's a small part of the list. Now - why are we at this point? The OSMF and the working groups, the apparatus of how a chunk of this project is set up, are unable to deal with direct threats like this, even if it's been going on for a year or more. One of the main forks of OSM (if you can call it main, it doesn't yet display a map) is run by an ex-board member. When you have someone like that working together with those who've explicitly declared they want to disrupt OSM, it's very hard for a young, open and democratic organization to deal with. For the most part we have no idea how many of these people are even real too, it's been suggested that a few of the pseudonyms are in fact just one person creating them on the fly. We simply don't have the tools for it. Until last week we had no moderation at all, and that took many, many months (perhaps years) to set up. The board meets too infrequently to be able to respond to people explicitly working for its downfall, which perhaps is a little ironic. The working groups likewise I don't think have the bandwidth as they currently operate. Generally in an otherwise do-ocracy there is a lack of people who feel they have the authority to take on
Re: [talk-au] Hitting reset on talk-au
Maybe you have a better option? Yes. It already happened. Liz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hitting reset on talk-au
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: So - what do we do now? Ignore the trolls (meaning troll-like messages, not troll-like people). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Irony...
Is it just me, or is there a certain amount of irony in Nearmap not allowing OSM to use their aerials to trace from, but being quite happy to use OSM as their street layer? (Don't get me wrong - I think Nearmap have a very tidy product, but it's just a pity that a compromise couldn't be worked out.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Murn wrote:
I think the biggest problem people in .au had was that there were some
issues which were specific to the Australian usage of OSM (imports of
gov data, etc). Those who sought to change the licence claimed to be
listening to people, but when Australian mappers raised issues, we were
simply told 'bad luck youre only a tiny percentage of the data'.
Part of the problem that has arisen is that our data would be affected
more than most by the removal of CCBYSA imported data. Some people
looked at this as simply a data loss in a remote part of the world, the
same way most of us wouldnt care if a big import from Africa was due to
be removed for the same reason.
The OSMF has always accepted that some users wont accept the licence
(whether on principle or because of the sources they wish use) and this
loss of mappers will be acceptable for the future progression of OSM.
From the OSMF perspective, they feel this is a required step to move
on. From the Aussie perspective, it feels like its acceptable to lose
our contributions, or at least easier to remove them than to work to
resolve any minor attribution issues that we ('we' meaning a few
users knowledgable about the licence) have raised.
Those last two paragraphs are a fair summary, certainly.
I think OSMF (and I'm not part of OSMF, of course) would disagree with
your bad luck characterisation, and would say that other parts of the
world have engaged with the process (so we now have an agreement with
Ordnance Survey, for example) whereas Australia hasn't.
But that's water under the bridge. The current discussion has shown that
the rift between the two is now too strong. I think the priority now is
to make sure that each project can continue without adversely affecting
the other.
[...]
You are covering one point of the equation, the contributors. What
about the map users? Sure, its great to have a massive network of
contributors, but if the data being contributed isnt being used or isnt
complete enough to be used, then you'll lose the masses. The masses
dont want to add nodes and new roads, they want to replace garmin maps
with OSM maps, so they can drive for their job or their holiday. They
dont care about what licence is on the maps, they just want the most
complete maps they can get. If that means a choice of OSM or OSM - 52%
who in their right mind would choose the smaller dataset?
Absolutely - so if OSM doesn't attract enough new contributors
post-changeover, FOSM becomes the dominant map for Australia (or
CommonMap, or...). I don't have a problem with that at all.
But also: Australia has a great advantage. You're both a whole continent
and an island. There is therefore no reason why data users can't use
FOSM for Australia and OSM for the rest of the world - and even combine
the two into one dataset.
Because you can just cut out Australia and place it in a new database
with no linkage, it can be a Collective Database, not a Derivative
Database - so they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously
works with ODbL (4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because
CC is unclear for data licensing, but it's likely that it does (after
all, there are CC-licensed Wikipedia pages which contain non-CC-licensed
photographs, as Collective Works).
So a data user could work from planet-combined.osm, which contains OSM
rest-of-the-world and FOSM Australia. Such a file could legally be
distributed by a mirror site as a Collective Database/Work. Best of both
worlds for data users.
Richard
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 19:04, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously works with ODbL (4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for data licensing, but it's likely that it does (after all, there are Well if you attempt to use data I've created under any license other than cc-by-sa I'd be happy to to file an injunction to finally answer how much copyright extends to map content creation. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11/07/2011 10:13, John Smith wrote: On 11 July 2011 19:04, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote: they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously works with ODbL (4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for data licensing, but it's likely that it does (after all, there are Well if you attempt to use data I've created under any license other than cc-by-sa I'd be happy to to file an injunction to finally answer how much copyright extends to map content creation. It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This is the very first clause (1a) of CC-BY-SA. In Australian legal terms, the two databases are underlying works and so retain their own rights. The two together are a compilation (albeit one that is so simple it doesn't attract any additional copyright in itself), and therefore users need permission of the rights-holders in the underlying works. This permission has already been granted in the two open content licences used: the Collective Work permission of CC-BY-SA and the Collective Database permission of ODbL. Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Irony...
They do allow OSM to trace their imagery, or anyone else for that matter. So long as traced data is licensed under CC-BY-SA. It is the OSMF/OSM whom chooses that this license isn't suitable and whom won't accept the data. As for this choice, i.e. why nearmap insists over CC-BY-SA rather that CC0 (as I doubt anything short of CC0 isn't acceptable to OSMF/OSM), this is the whole non-copyleft v copyleft (BSD v GPL) debate. I don't know what's best and I keep changing my mind on what I think is best. On one hand non-copyleft (i.e. licensing so tracing is compatible with the current OSM) seems freeer as there are less restrictions, on the other hand copyleft (i.e. the current CC-BY-SA licensing scheme) means in theory there should be more work in the commons (i.e. forces those who would rather a proprietary license for their tracings to put them in the commons for the benefit of everyone). FOSM has more data for Australia than OSM so nearmap may choose to use FOSM data rather than OSM data for their street layer (if they still choose to use such a layer, because given their current direction they seem to be moving away from this audience...) On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Matt White mattwh...@iinet.com.au wrote: Is it just me, or is there a certain amount of irony in Nearmap not allowing OSM to use their aerials to trace from, but being quite happy to use OSM as their street layer? (Don't get me wrong - I think Nearmap have a very tidy product, but it's just a pity that a compromise couldn't be worked out.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This is the very first clause (1a) of CC-BY-SA. In Australian legal terms, the two databases are underlying works and so retain their own rights. The two together are a compilation (albeit one that is so simple it doesn't attract any additional copyright in itself), and therefore users need permission of the rights-holders in the underlying works. This permission has already been granted in the two open content licences used: the Collective Work permission of CC-BY-SA and the Collective Database permission of ODbL. It's my understanding that CC-by-SA is only compatible with itself, and it's definitely not compatible with the ODBL because the ODBL doesn't require any sort of minimum attribution or share a like clause on produced works. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bing
It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. We as a community can't verify this. http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all we have is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf which we can't verify as authentic. But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data. That is, if OSM were as rigorous as Debian we wouldn't allow this as it is in violation of point 8 of the DFSG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines I would love to have these issues proved unfounded, but until then, I don't use bing at all, and am hoping the areas of OSM I'm interested in don't become too polluted by bing data. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11/07/2011 10:52, John Smith wrote: On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote: It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This is the very first clause (1a) of CC-BY-SA. In Australian legal terms, the two databases are underlying works and so retain their own rights. The two together are a compilation (albeit one that is so simple it doesn't attract any additional copyright in itself), and therefore users need permission of the rights-holders in the underlying works. This permission has already been granted in the two open content licences used: the Collective Work permission of CC-BY-SA and the Collective Database permission of ODbL. It's my understanding that CC-by-SA is only compatible with itself, and it's definitely not compatible with the ODBL because the ODBL doesn't require any sort of minimum attribution or share a like clause on produced works. There is no need to be compatible: that's the entire point of the Collective Work provision. It allows you to combine two separate and independent works with different licences. In the words of CC-BY-SA, this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License (4a). Rather than me restating the same thing 8972352345 times, I suggest that, before you do file an injunction, you consult a lawyer who will tell you the same thing I have just told you. Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:52 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A Collective Database or Collective Work means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This is the very first clause (1a) of CC-BY-SA. In Australian legal terms, the two databases are underlying works and so retain their own rights. The two together are a compilation (albeit one that is so simple it doesn't attract any additional copyright in itself), and therefore users need permission of the rights-holders in the underlying works. This permission has already been granted in the two open content licences used: the Collective Work permission of CC-BY-SA and the Collective Database permission of ODbL. It's my understanding that CC-by-SA is only compatible with itself, and it's definitely not compatible with the ODBL because the ODBL doesn't require any sort of minimum attribution or share a like clause on produced works. What he's saying is there is no requirement under Australian Copyright law (or CC licence) for a whole compilation/database/document to have the same licence. It's the same way the Government can use Creative Commons for official documents but they exempt the Coat of Arms from that licence (because under Australian law, only officers of the Commonwealth can use the Coat of Arms and they use it to signify official documents/property). The CC licence calls a compilation of things a Collective Work and this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this Licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/au/legalcode Collective Works are not Derivative Works so this is okay! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bing
On 11 July 2011 19:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. All we have is SteveC's word that this is what happened, to the best of my knowledge Bing themselves near released anything definitive on their own website. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I think it's reasonably obvious by now that the two sides in this debate aren't ever going to be reconciled. It's not exclusively an .au problem, but it is mostly. If you look at any of the analysis done recently, Australia simply hasn't taken to ODbL+CT in the way that other countries have. To take the count from odbl.de of nodes last edited by users who have accepted (which gives a rough summary of recent activity): Germany 90.1% Great Britain 89.1% France 96.8% North America 96.4% Russia 97.2% Australia 48.4% That's pretty stark. I think you are spot on here. If a country has 90% relicensable, and 50% support I can see why you would want to push ahead. On the same token if we in Australia have 50% relicensable and 50% support I can see why we locally wouldn't want to push ahead, that is regardless of whatever my thoughts of the actual licenses changes. In this case, I think it would benefit both parties to fork, ie. Australia keep with CC-BY-SA without CTs, and the other countries with high support to push ahead with the proposed changes. We were given plenty of warning this was coming, plenty of time to prepare both technically and non-technically to fork off. Us wanting to fork were given all the software to make it happen (as its free/open), and data in an open format to technically fork. The other missing pieces of the puzzle, was we weren't given any of the hardware/hosting resources to fork implement a fork or leadership to make it happen, which has lead to a scramble to find these. I think 80n has done a good job with these two though. So, I think, we need to get away from this idea that a fork is a bad thing. It isn't. There are two divergent communities, and it doesn't do either side any good to try and hold them together when they're so opposed. FOSM appears to be slowly becoming established, both technically and as a brand, and that's good. Benefiting from all the OSM code and ecosystem, plus the free gov.au data, is a pretty good headstart for a new forked project and I'd be amazed if it couldn't succeed given that. So please, let's stop hitting each other over the head with this. OSM can exist with ODbL, FOSM can exist with CC-BY-SA; people will choose which one to contribute to (or, indeed, both). OSM people can leave FOSM people alone without badgering them to agree; FOSM people can leave OSM people alone without criticism of the path they've chosen. OSM people needn't invade the FOSM mailing lists and vice versa. Let's concentrate on making a success of our own project, not on doing the other one down. I think it would be in both our interest to be on each others mailing lists. I think we should share the same tagging, same wiki, same editors, etc. We are all part of the same community, we just push to different branches of the data. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Bing
On 11 July 2011 10:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. We as a community can't verify this. http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all we have is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf which we can't verify as authentic. The official Bing blog: http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data. The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. Regards Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Irony...
Matt, I hope Nearmap continue to use OSM data. I only wish that they updated it a bit more often. That Way (for areas they cover that I don't get to regularly) I can spot new roads that need a visit to survey properly. Cheers Nick ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Bing
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The official Bing blog: http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager Oh, yes. That's right. I don't think it's perfect, but better than nothing. I think it could have been handled better at Microsoft's end though, i.e. directly posting the Terms PDF. But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data. The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. I can see that the assumption of tracing aerial photography to create a vector representation of the data is creating an entirely new work is potentially problematic. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that you would want the copyright holder to state that they disclaim any copyright on such traced data just to be sure. Just take a look at this case as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au
- Original Message - From: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com To: t...@openstreetmap.org; talk-au@openstreetmap.org Cc: p...@opengeodata.posterous.com Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 8:00 AM Subject: [OSM-talk] Hitting reset on talk-au [snip] Maybe you have a better option? Yes. Do nothing. Invariably these things settle down after a few days, and any knee jerk reaction is likely to be overkill. If people don't want to subscribe to talk-au they don't have to, so its not something that's likely to me a main concern of the majority of people on the main talk list. Either way, this is an ugly bridge to cross. We need to do something to make it clear this is not how things work in OSM. I think you have just made it clear. We need to make the message heard that this is not normal, this is not the reputation we want to be known by and we won't let it be this way. I think you might be giving undue prominence to the postings on talk-au. At the end of the day our reputation will be based on the quality of our data, the ease of use of contributing, and the ease of use of using our data, rather than a few days worth of postings to a country specific email list. Regards David Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 20:05, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.com wrote: What he's saying is there is no requirement under Australian Copyright law (or CC licence) for a whole compilation/database/document to have the same licence. It's the same way the Government can use Creative Commons for official documents but they exempt the Coat of Arms from that licence (because under Australian law, only officers of the Commonwealth can use the Coat of Arms and they use it to signify official documents/property). The CC licence calls a compilation of things a Collective Work and this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this Licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/au/legalcode Collective Works are not Derivative Works so this is okay! Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11/07/2011, at 8:47 PM, John Smith wrote: Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets... Because they were mixing the datasets. If you do something like render tiles within the .au boundaries from one database, and render tiles from outside the boundaries from a different dataset, then it's fine. Most useful things you can do with the data can be split up like this, besides producing a combined database. Routing? There aren't any roads between us and other countries, and so on. One of the advantages of being a island :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On 11 July 2011 20:53, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote: On 11/07/2011, at 8:47 PM, John Smith wrote: Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets... Because they were mixing the datasets. If you do something like render tiles within the .au boundaries from one database, and render tiles from outside the boundaries from a different dataset, then it's fine. Most useful things you can do with the data can be split up like this, besides producing a combined database. Routing? There aren't any roads between us and other countries, and so on. One of the advantages of being a island :) But will the ODBL actual make the situation better or worst? It seems to make everything more complicated, not better. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Hitting reset on talk-au
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: I'm speaking strictly personally here, posting to talk@ and opengeodata. OSM often crosses bridges in it's growth. Mostly they're technical, like introducing color maps, rendering new things or speeding up the system. We have a much more ugly bridge to cross in front of us. Would you want to be part of a community which includes people explicitly working to disrupt it, trolling it and breaking data? Would you want to be part of a community where people are literally scared for their jobs when thinking about helping run it? Over the last few days there has been a bunch of discussion on talk-au which you can read in the archives, though for your own sanity you might want to skip it. For the most part the posts revolve around the OSMF, the LWG and the license process. I considered my presence there over the last few days as both a last ditch attempt to salvage the data and more importantly the community that's there. As RichardF pointed out, their license acceptance rate is about half what most EU communities have achieved. I would say that the people on that list feel disaffected with the process and their representation in it. Despite multiple attempts at trying to have a reasonable dialog over both what happened and what we can do about it, mostly I've been met with extreme animosity. Most of that comes from people either banned from the main lists, been deleted/blocked from OSM or been moderated or who have publicly stated they're here to disrupt the project. I've tried to get many people involved posting there in what I thought was a worthwhile effort, in effect to save that list. Almost everybody declined to do so. Only RichardF braved it and was met with a predictable response. Frederik has given up and from my reading of his email considers talk-au dead (I think you should make that email public). I find that understandable. I've been trying to find someone to moderate the list along the Etiquette guidelines on the wiki. Mikel has given up, understandably, and he leads the main moderators. We found one native Australian to moderate but they backed out because they literally feared for their job safety, that the people who now inhabit the list would make life with their employer difficult. Thus, they declined to do so after initially accepting. I actually am convinced that was the right decision and the people on that list are capable of it. I don't think there is a need for moderation. It's not that bad. It is very easy to ignore/skip over posts, there is no need to block them. I haven't seen any abusive personal attacks or spamming (mind you I do skip over a lot of the quick back and forth messages...). I don't think anyone I know in OSM would want to be part of a community like that. I think it's a sad low point in what otherwise is a wonderful project to be involved in. Let me be more clear, *I* don't want to be part of a community that accepts this. Who in their right mind would want to be a part of a community run by people explicitly out to disrupt, fork and troll? In the best traditions of open projects our ideas and code are Free. It's not clear that our time and server resources should be. Unlike our ideas and code, they're finite and open to abuse. Make no mistake that our time and resources are being used explicitly to destabilize the very project which provides them. Used by mostly anonymous or pseudonymous people who as I say have been kicked, banned or explicitly stated they want to destabilize OSM. This is not about censorship. If you read the lists, you'll find we've made available repeatedly both the methods and the people to help resolve issues. These people are free to fork the project and the data, it's all available for download. They have their own mailing lists. Are there genuine questions about license, it's implementation and so on? Absolutely. But level-headed discussion is not welcome on talk-au for the most part. There are a few people who can discuss this stuff impersonally there but it's a small part of the list. Now - why are we at this point? The OSMF and the working groups, the apparatus of how a chunk of this project is set up, are unable to deal with direct threats like this, even if it's been going on for a year or more. One of the main forks of OSM (if you can call it main, it doesn't yet display a map) is run by an ex-board member. When you have someone like that working together with those who've explicitly declared they want to disrupt OSM, it's very hard for a young, open and democratic organization to deal with. For the most part we have no idea how many of these people are even real too, it's been suggested that a few of the pseudonyms are in fact just one person creating them on the fly. We simply don't have the tools for it. Until last week we had no
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-legal-talk] Bing
On 11 July 2011 11:30, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. I can see that the assumption of tracing aerial photography to create a vector representation of the data is creating an entirely new work is potentially problematic. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that you would want the copyright holder to state that they disclaim any copyright on such traced data just to be sure. Just take a look at this case as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues Richard Fairhurst wrote a good piece on the legals around aerial imagery in 2009 Aerial photography, cock fighting and vodka bottles - http://www.systemed.net/blog/legacy/100.html / Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Irony...
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Matt White mattwh...@iinet.com.au wrote: Is it just me, or is there a certain amount of irony in Nearmap not allowing OSM to use their aerials to trace from, but being quite happy to use OSM as their street layer? (Don't get me wrong - I think Nearmap have a very tidy product, but it's just a pity that a compromise couldn't be worked out.) I don't see irony in NearMap's decision to use OSM data. We want people / companies to use our data. And I think that their decision to allow OSM to continue to use data derived earlier from their aerial imagery is generous. They didn't have to allow that. NearMap and OpenStreetMap are two separate entities. Obliging one to adapt to the goals of the other isn't required. It was nice that there was an intersection of interests for a while. Now both entities move on. Perhaps there will be another intersection in future, perhaps not. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
- Original Message -
From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
To: David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Murn wrote:
I think the biggest problem people in .au had was that there were some
issues which were specific to the Australian usage of OSM (imports of
gov data, etc). Those who sought to change the licence claimed to be
listening to people, but when Australian mappers raised issues, we were
simply told 'bad luck youre only a tiny percentage of the data'.
Part of the problem that has arisen is that our data would be affected
more than most by the removal of CCBYSA imported data. Some people
looked at this as simply a data loss in a remote part of the world, the
same way most of us wouldnt care if a big import from Africa was due to
be removed for the same reason.
The OSMF has always accepted that some users wont accept the licence
(whether on principle or because of the sources they wish use) and this
loss of mappers will be acceptable for the future progression of OSM.
From the OSMF perspective, they feel this is a required step to move
on. From the Aussie perspective, it feels like its acceptable to lose
our contributions, or at least easier to remove them than to work to
resolve any minor attribution issues that we ('we' meaning a few
users knowledgable about the licence) have raised.
Those last two paragraphs are a fair summary, certainly.
I think OSMF (and I'm not part of OSMF, of course) would disagree with
your bad luck characterisation, and would say that other parts of the
world have engaged with the process (so we now have an agreement with
Ordnance Survey, for example) whereas Australia hasn't.
But that's water under the bridge. The current discussion has shown that
the rift between the two is now too strong. I think the priority now is to
make sure that each project can continue without adversely affecting the
other.
[...]
You are covering one point of the equation, the contributors. What
about the map users? Sure, its great to have a massive network of
contributors, but if the data being contributed isnt being used or isnt
complete enough to be used, then you'll lose the masses. The masses
dont want to add nodes and new roads, they want to replace garmin maps
with OSM maps, so they can drive for their job or their holiday. They
dont care about what licence is on the maps, they just want the most
complete maps they can get. If that means a choice of OSM or OSM - 52%
who in their right mind would choose the smaller dataset?
Absolutely - so if OSM doesn't attract enough new contributors
post-changeover, FOSM becomes the dominant map for Australia (or
CommonMap, or...). I don't have a problem with that at all.
But also: Australia has a great advantage. You're both a whole continent
and an island. There is therefore no reason why data users can't use FOSM
for Australia and OSM for the rest of the world - and even combine the two
into one dataset.
Because you can just cut out Australia and place it in a new database
with no linkage, it can be a Collective Database, not a Derivative
Database - so they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously
works with ODbL (4.5a):
Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database in
unmodified form as part of a collection of independent databases ..'.
Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part of a collective
database, because it is not the whole database in an unmodified form.
In fact, given the wording of the ODbL is difficult to see that there will
ever be anything which is a collective database.
Regards
David
whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for data
licensing, but it's likely that it does (after all, there are CC-licensed
Wikipedia pages which contain non-CC-licensed photographs, as Collective
Works).
So a data user could work from planet-combined.osm, which contains OSM
rest-of-the-world and FOSM Australia. Such a file could legally be
distributed by a mirror site as a Collective Database/Work. Best of both
worlds for data users.
Richard
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: You're both a whole continent and an island. There is therefore no reason why data users can't use FOSM for Australia and OSM for the rest of the world - and even combine the two into one dataset. CC-BY-SA doesn't allow you to combine the two into one dataset unless that one dataset is CC-BY-SA. Because you can just cut out Australia and place it in a new database with no linkage, it can be a Collective Database, not a Derivative Database - so they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously works with ODbL (4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for data licensing, but it's likely that it does I'm not sure why non-clarity makes it a moot point. If you don't clearly have a license, then you shouldn't use the work at all. But as long as you release the combined dataset under CC-BY-SA, there shouldn't be a problem. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Groom wrote: Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an unmodified form. I am sure, yes. You would be making planet-combined.osm out of two databases: osm-without-australia.osm (ODbL) and fosm-australia-only.osm (CC-BY-SA). As it happens, osm-without-australia.osm is a Derivative Database of planet.osm, and fosm-australia-only.osm is a Derivative Work of planet.fosm. But that's immaterial - planet.osm is probably a Derivative of some other databases, too. It being a Derivative doesn't restrict your rights under ODbL. Once you have the Derivative Database, you are free to use it under the full provisions of ODbL, and that includes doing whatever you like with an unmodified version of it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Going-separate-ways-tp6567842p6570839.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 6:53 AM, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote: On 11/07/2011, at 8:47 PM, John Smith wrote: Then why was there such a big fuss made over Haiti edits should be PD so that the UN could mix the data with other datasets... Because they were mixing the datasets. If you do something like render tiles within the .au boundaries from one database, and render tiles from outside the boundaries from a different dataset, then it's fine. Most useful things you can do with the data can be split up like this, besides producing a combined database. That's not what he said, though. He said combine the two into one dataset. And I don't see how you're going to make the tiles without doing this. Some of them will overlap. And even if they don't overlap, once you combine them into a single map you've got a problem. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: David Groom wrote: Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an unmodified form. I am sure, yes. You would be making planet-combined.osm out of two databases: osm-without-australia.osm (ODbL) and fosm-australia-only.osm (CC-BY-SA). And what is planet-combined.osm? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: David Groom wrote: Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an unmodified form. I am sure, yes. You would be making planet-combined.osm out of two databases: osm-without-australia.osm (ODbL) and fosm-australia-only.osm (CC-BY-SA). And what is planet-combined.osm? [quote] “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the Database, and includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new Database. [/quote] And now, for emphasis: This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new Database. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
- Original Message - From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways David Groom wrote: Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an unmodified form. I am sure, yes. You would be making planet-combined.osm out of two databases: osm-without-australia.osm (ODbL) and fosm-australia-only.osm (CC-BY-SA). As it happens, osm-without-australia.osm is a Derivative Database of planet.osm, and fosm-australia-only.osm is a Derivative Work of planet.fosm. But that's immaterial - planet.osm is probably a Derivative of some other databases, too. It being a Derivative doesn't restrict your rights under ODbL. Once you have the Derivative Database, you are free to use it under the full provisions of ODbL, and that includes doing whatever you like with an unmodified version of it. Which seems to me to that you are agreeing with my point, that these are derivative databases, not collective databases as you first argued. Regards David cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Going-separate-ways-tp6567842p6570839.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bing
Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: That is, if OSM were as rigorous as Debian we wouldn't allow this as it is in violation of point 8 of the DFSG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines I'm glad somebody has mentioned Debian. You want to see information freedom done right, a functioning do-ocracy and most importantly a transparent, democratic decision-making process, you don't need to look any further than Debian. -- Sam Couter | mailto:s...@couter.id.au OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05 5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:11 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways David Groom wrote: Are you sure? ODbL defines 'Collective Database Means this Database in unmodified form as part of a collection of independent databases ..'. Therefore if you cut out Australia it cant be part of a collective database, because it is not the whole database in an unmodified form. I am sure, yes. You would be making planet-combined.osm out of two databases: osm-without-australia.osm (ODbL) and fosm-australia-only.osm (CC-BY-SA). As it happens, osm-without-australia.osm is a Derivative Database of planet.osm, and fosm-australia-only.osm is a Derivative Work of planet.fosm. But that's immaterial - planet.osm is probably a Derivative of some other databases, too. It being a Derivative doesn't restrict your rights under ODbL. Once you have the Derivative Database, you are free to use it under the full provisions of ODbL, and that includes doing whatever you like with an unmodified version of it. Which seems to me to that you are agreeing with my point, that these are derivative databases, not collective databases as you first argued. osm-without-australia.osm and fosm-australia-only.osm are not derivatives of each other (*), but planet-combined.osm is a derivative of both osm-without-australia.osm and fosm-australia-only.osm. (*) Although in this case they are both derived from planet-110706.osm. But pretending that OSMF starts OSM over from scratch to come up with osm-without-australia.osm. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
Anyway, I think what Richard is trying to say is this: 1) Create osm-without-australia.osm by removing australia from the OSMF database. 2) Create fosm-australia-only.osm by removing everything but australia from the FOSM database (for both of these extracts, use a boundary definition that's PD. 3) Make a zip file planet-combined.zip with the two files. *That* would be a collective database. 4) Render tiles from osm-without-australia.osm and make them CC-BY-SA. (*) 5) Render tiles from fosm-australia-only.osm and make them CC-BY-SA. 6) Delete tiles so that remaining tiles in australia come from 5, and remaining tiles outside of australia come from 4. For tiles which overlap (mostly water and zoomed out tiles), pick one (randomly, from one or the other, based on whether it is geographically more in/out of Australia, based on which tile contains more elements, whatever). (*) I'm not 100% sure 4 is allowed by the ODbL. But most people claim it is. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Groom wrote: Which seems to me to that you are agreeing with my point, that these are derivative databases, not collective databases as you first argued. No: one is a Derivative Database (ODbL) and the other a Derivative Work (CC-BY-SA), but the combination of the two is a Collective Database or Work. Derivatives have to be licensed under the licence of the original. Therefore, they have all the freedoms afforded by that licence. Therefore, they can be incorporated into Collective Works. I don't think this would work for most countries. You couldn't usefully make a Collective Work from CC-Germany and ODbL-France, for example, because you'd want cross-border routing and that would mean the two databases are no longer separate and independent. But Australia is an island, intire of itself, so the issue doesn't arise. It doesn't even have a Channel Tunnel to worry about. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Going-separate-ways-tp6567842p6570979.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: No: one is a Derivative Database (ODbL) and the other a Derivative Work (CC-BY-SA), but the combination of the two is a Collective Database or Work. Depends on how you combine them. If you just put the files next to each other on the hard drive, that's a collective database/work. If you combine them into a single database, that's a derivative database / derivative work. ODbL is quite explicit about that. Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new Database makes a Derivative Database, not a Collective Database. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: No: one is a Derivative Database (ODbL) and the other a Derivative Work (CC-BY-SA), but the combination of the two is a Collective Database or Work. Depends on how you combine them. If you just put the files next to each other on the hard drive, that's a collective database/work. If you combine them into a single database, that's a derivative database / derivative work. ODbL is quite explicit about that. As is CC-BY-SA. A collective work requires that the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions. To combine the databases into one database, you must modify them. To stick them next to each other on a hard drive (including in a tarball, or in a zip file), you don't. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
- Original Message - From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 2:49 PM Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways David Groom wrote: Which seems to me to that you are agreeing with my point, that these are derivative databases, not collective databases as you first argued. No: one is a Derivative Database (ODbL) and the other a Derivative Work (CC-BY-SA), but the combination of the two is a Collective Database or Work. But as I said earlier, the ODbL seems quite clear that you cant make a Collective Database from anything other than the original database in unmodified form. Since neither of the two individual items are the original database in unmodified form, then I cant see how you could claim the resulting combination is a Collective Database as defined by the ODbL . Regards David Derivatives have to be licensed under the licence of the original. Therefore, they have all the freedoms afforded by that licence. Therefore, they can be incorporated into Collective Works. I don't think this would work for most countries. You couldn't usefully make a Collective Work from CC-Germany and ODbL-France, for example, because you'd want cross-border routing and that would mean the two databases are no longer separate and independent. But Australia is an island, intire of itself, so the issue doesn't arise. It doesn't even have a Channel Tunnel to worry about. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Going-separate-ways-tp6567842p6570979.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
- Original Message - From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways David Groom wrote: But as I said earlier, the ODbL seems quite clear that you cant make a Collective Database from anything other than the original database in unmodified form. Since neither of the two individual items are the original database in unmodified form Yes, they are. This is a general principle of any open content licence: a Derivative always enjoys the same freedoms as the works from which it was made. I don't think we need to concern ourselves too much with general principles, lets stick with the actual ODbL. Although I suppose if you start from the position of what the general principles are it might be easier to read into the ODbL things which are not there. ODbL makes this absolute in 4.8: Each time You communicate [a] Derivative Database, [...] the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Database on the same terms and conditions as this License. Your reading would break this. Well for a start 4.8 only comes into play when you communicate a derivative database, whereas the definitions are always in force. So assuming I did not communicate the derivative database then surely I would have to look at what the definitions say rather than clause 4.8 which is not relevant? Irrespective of the point above, my reading of the terms would not break clause 4.8. The derivative database would be offered under ODbL, and you would still have to comply with all the requirements of the ODbL which relate to derivative databases. What is broken? Rather, in unmodified form in this instance is clarifying independent. Exactly how to you come to the conclusion that unmodified does not mean unmodified , but means independent? Regards David That is, you cannot make non-ODbL-licensable changes in order to mix the ODbL- and non-ODbL-licensed parts of the collective. This is why you cannot take ODbL-France and CC-Germany and link them. This would require modifying the ODbL data _outwith_ what ODbL permits you to do. In unmodified form is making it clear that you can't do that: you have no additional permissions to modify the ODbL-licensed part of the database (which is, after all, all ODbL is concerned about) for the purpose of forming a Collective Database. But in the Australia case, you are not modifying the ODbL-licensed part of the database. Every item in the database remains 100% ODbL-licensed. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Going-separate-ways-tp6567842p6571535.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Bing
On 7/11/2011 6:13 AM, Sam Couter wrote: Andrew Harveyandrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: That is, if OSM were as rigorous as Debian we wouldn't allow this as it is in violation of point 8 of the DFSG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines I'm glad somebody has mentioned Debian. You want to see information freedom done right, a functioning do-ocracy and most importantly a transparent, democratic decision-making process, you don't need to look any further than Debian. Debian's extremely open and democratic as you say. The problem is for years it went nowhere and the Shuttleworth went on his Antarctic cruise, figured out who was actually doing anything and created Ubuntu. Slightly less democratic but vastly better at shipping an OS anyone would want to use. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
David Groom wrote: Well for a start 4.8 only comes into play when you communicate a derivative database Which you are doing, as part of a Collective Database. Incorporating a Derivative Database into a Collective Database does not absolve you of ODbL's requirements, or remove its freedoms, for the Derivative portion. (4.5a: this License still applies to this Database or a Derivative Database as a part of the Collective Database.) Irrespective of the point above, my reading of the terms would not break clause 4.8. The derivative database would be offered under ODbL, and you would still have to comply with all the requirements of the ODbL which relate to derivative databases. What is broken? You have broken 3.1c/d/e: the freedom to offer an ODbL-licensed database within a Collective Database. Exactly how to you come to the conclusion that unmodified does not mean unmodified , but means independent? I don't, but evidently I have a different understanding of unmodified to you. How do you come to the conclusion that on the same terms and conditions as this License means ...except for the one about Collective Databases? Clearly you and I are not going to agree on this and it's beginning to get snarky rather than informative, so let's leave it there. If you wish to sue anyone for inclusion of your ODbL-licensed content in a Collective Database then I recommend you talk to a lawyer first. Otherwise it's largely immaterial. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Going-separate-ways-tp6567842p6571861.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] talk-au moderation
Hi talk-au, In an effort to cool some heads this list will be on full moderation for a bit. This is not an ideal way to run a mailing list for an open project and it is unlikely to be a permanent change. For the next while[1], all posts will have to be explicitly released by a moderator to get to talk-au. Moderators will approve posts based on the etiquette guidelines. Other changes and announcements will follow in the next 24 hours or so. Ideally, heads will cool[2] and those interested in progress and participation will become frequent contributors to talk-au, and moderation will no longer be required. Best regards, Richard [1] starting a few minutes ago. [2] many heads. I'm not pointing fingers. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Fw: [OSM-talk] Scholarship program to State of the Map 2011
Hi The OpenStreetMap conference, State of the Map, is offering scholarships. Details below. Note that nominations close on Sunday, June 25th. We are also fundraising to help more mappers than our current minimum of 8. If you'd like to help, get in touch with scholars...@stateofthemap.org Thanks! Mikel == Mikel Maron == +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron - Forwarded Message From: Coast, Hurricane hurricane.co...@mapquest.com To: t...@openstreetmap.org t...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wed, June 1, 2011 11:35:03 PM Subject: [OSM-talk] Scholarship program to State of the Map 2011 The State of the Map Committee is excited to announce a program to cover full travel and accommodations costs for mappers to attend State of the Map 2011 in Denver, Colorado (United States). We’re seeking nominations from the community for potential mappers. We are seeking people from places where costs would prohibit attendance, developing countries, and places that are “interesting” geopolitically. The ideal candidates for funding are from countries with a small OSM community, perhaps just a few mappers in total. They have made a significant start at mapping their city, either through imagery or with their own GPS, and are directly familiar with the process of OSM. They may have started communicating among themselves, and made plans and scoped out the process for their local district. But, the community is nowhere near critical mass, and they need the inspiration and support to take OSM to the next level. We need to act fast! State of the Map is just over 3 and a half months away, tickets and visas need to be arranged. In order to allow enough time for all the arrangements, the nomination period will be short, and ending at Sunday, June 25th. The number of scholarships rewarded will be based on the success of fund-raising. From the nominations received, we’ll review and invite scholars in late June. Please send your nominations to scholars...@stateofthemap.org. For each nomination, include the mappers name, OSM user name, email address, location, and a paragraph or two on why they’d be great to have at SOTM. Self nominations are accepted. Please forward this message to other relevant local OSM and mapping lists and social media! As for regions, here are a few regions that seem to fit the bill, but nominations are not limited to these places at all. * Eastern and Southern Europe: Belarus, Kosovo, Bulgaria * Arab States: Tunisia, Bahrain, Jordan * Asia: Nepal, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Indonesia * Latin America: Argentina, Bolivia, Guatemala * Africa: Liberia, Ivory Coast, Swaziland Sponsor-a-Mapper In previous years there has been a scholarship program to help mappers who wouldn’t otherwise be able to attend get to State of the Map. This year we are announces an “Sponsor-A-Mapper” program. There are plenty of deserving individuals from all of the world that can’t afford to attend SotM. To help them be able to come join the community in person in Denver why don’t you consider paying to cover a portion of the cost of their ticket? We are attempting to raise an average of $2,500 USD per mapper in order to be sure to cover their costs. This will vary slightly by transportation costs depending from where the select scholarships are traveling. The more money we raise the more mappers we can sponsor! To Sponsor-a-Mapper please email scholars...@stateofthemap.org Thank you!___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] talk-au moderation
... There is also a large backlog of messages held for moderation (spam, fishing and non-subscribed), I'm going through that now. Apologies if I take a while to get to your messages. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Fw: [OSM-talk] Scholarship program to State of the Map 2011
It would be wonderful if people from talk-au were able to apply for this, and come to SOTM. It's a super fun event. Steve On 6/19/2011 2:35 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: Hi The OpenStreetMap conference, State of the Map, is offering scholarships. Details below. Note that nominations close on Sunday, June 25th. We are also fundraising to help more mappers than our current minimum of 8. If you'd like to help, get in touch with *scholars...@stateofthemap.org *Thanks! Mikel == Mikel Maron == +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron - Forwarded Message *From:* Coast, Hurricane hurricane.co...@mapquest.com *To:* t...@openstreetmap.org t...@openstreetmap.org *Sent:* Wed, June 1, 2011 11:35:03 PM *Subject:* [OSM-talk] Scholarship program to State of the Map 2011 The State of the Map Committee is excited to announce a program to cover full travel and accommodations costs for mappers to attend State of the Map 2011 in Denver, Colorado (United States). We're seeking nominations from the community for potential mappers. We are seeking people from places where costs would prohibit attendance, developing countries, and places that are interesting geopolitically. The ideal candidates for funding are from countries with a small OSM community, perhaps just a few mappers in total. They have made a significant start at mapping their city, either through imagery or with their own GPS, and are directly familiar with the process of OSM. They may have started communicating among themselves, and made plans and scoped out the process for their local district. But, the community is nowhere near critical mass, and they need the inspiration and support to take OSM to the next level. We need to act fast! State of the Map is just over 3 and a half months away, tickets and visas need to be arranged. In order to allow enough time for all the arrangements, the nomination period will be short, and /ending at Sunday, June 25th/. The number of scholarships rewarded will be based on the success of fund-raising. From the nominations received, we'll review and invite scholars in late June. Please send your nominations to *scholars...@stateofthemap.org*. For each nomination, include the mappers name, OSM user name, email address, location, and a paragraph or two on why they'd be great to have at SOTM. Self nominations are accepted. Please forward this message to other relevant local OSM and mapping lists and social media! As for regions, here are a few regions that seem to fit the bill, but nominations are not limited to these places at all. * Eastern and Southern Europe: Belarus, Kosovo, Bulgaria * Arab States: Tunisia, Bahrain, Jordan * Asia: Nepal, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Indonesia * Latin America: Argentina, Bolivia, Guatemala * Africa: Liberia, Ivory Coast, Swaziland Sponsor-a-Mapper In previous years there has been a scholarship program to help mappers who wouldn't otherwise be able to attend get to State of the Map. This year we are announces an Sponsor-A-Mapper program. There are plenty of deserving individuals from all of the world that can't afford to attend SotM. To help them be able to come join the community in person in Denver why don't you consider paying to cover a portion of the cost of their ticket? We are attempting to raise an average of $2,500 USD per mapper in order to be sure to cover their costs. This will vary slightly by transportation costs depending from where the select scholarships are traveling. The more money we raise the more mappers we can sponsor! To Sponsor-a-Mapper please email *scholars...@stateofthemap.org* Thank you! ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Bring all hats!
Hi Steve, Yes, I've got my tickets to SOTM and I hope you bring all your hats with you. In my spare time I develop some specialised applications for various sports/pastimes and I think OSM can be useful for some of these. I develop in Basic4PPC but the creators of this product can't make it work with Windows Phone 7. I'd like to upgrade my phones from Windows mobile 6.5 but won't until I can run the stuff I've already written and can develop new programs with Basic4ppc. There are already some useful BASIC4ppc programs that download OSM data and display in real time on a gps unit. Really usefull for mapping new areas (to see what has already been mapped recently). I'll talk to you at Denver about this and some other matters where I think Bing and OSM can be really usefull in Australia. Cheers Nick ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
