Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:39 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 27 September 2011 12:09, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you, Andrew. I wonder if Grant received a similar answer but interpreted it in a different way. Grant? Hi 80n, yes the responses will be forthcoming. We are waiting on some further clarifications. LWG also now only meet fortnightly. Grant If you have explicit special permission why do you seek further clarification? Was it not explicit enough? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to publish the text of the permission you have received. We can then see for ourselves. Grant I'm still waiting for a response to this. Is there some reason why you cannot publish what you have? We've seen how wires get crossed with Richard's attempt to transcribe a message. Anything less than a verbatim copy of what you received has the potential to lead to confusion and misunderstand. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: [personal comments redacted] / Grant Grant You forgot to cc the lists. Could you please, for about the fifth time of asking, publish a verbatim copy the permission that you have received. If you have some reason that you can't then you need to explain yourself. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [sharedmapau] Re: ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote: Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: The answer from AGIMO (data.gov.au) will actually be irrelevant. I was hoping that the original communications would make clear exactly how relevant they are. At the moment we're all just guessing. Based on the reply that I received from Grant, he appears to have no intention of providing any information to back up his claims. It's over a month since he was asked to provide the supporting evidence. I think we can conclude that he doesn't have it. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 19:51, waldo000...@gmail.com waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: +1. Surely forwarding the emails is less work for you anyway than transcribing parts of the emails (?!). Did you consider why forwarding the full emails might be less than wise? - I have, and will share my thoughts: a number of people on this list are both vocal and vitriolic regarding OSMF. Making the licence negotiation details public could hand to those who do not have good intentions towards OSM, potential tools to try and damage the project. Scenario A: A person could cut and paste the detail along with a whiny cover letter to data.gov.au saying no fair, me want too - piggy backing on the work done by licence group for the benefit of OSM, all the while decrying anything OSMF does. Scenario B: Someone could nitpick over detail and then jeopardise the agreement by complaining vociferously to anyone who will listen about how it's illegal because a full stop is misplaced; maybe complaining to individual data owners e.g.: Look at this, data.gov.au just re-licenced your data If that were the case then I'm sure that the LWG is capable of making these points themselves. The fact is they haven't given any justification for not disclosing the original text of the statement. Copyright infringement is a serious business. Anyone who is encouraged to copy from some third party source without being able to refer to an authoritative permission is taking big risks. I'm not suggesting it will happen, but it could, especially given the historical (and breathtakingly non-sensical), level of animosity towards OSMF and it's work. Regardless of whether this could happen (and I am sure it wouldn't), it's not a good enough reason to not do the right thing. Clarity and transparency is essential if their efforts are to be trusted. Unless I misunderstand it, the licence group volunteer to sort this stuff out, project users can assume they act in good faith and applaud their successes. So why aren't we believing that this is what they have done, under the oversight of the OSMF (who are there to oversee)? *Never attribute to malice that which * ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:48 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew, that's great that you've had a response from AGIMO. Yes it is, I made sure to thank them for this. Would it be possible for you to share a copy of their response with this group? I've made a similar request to Grant about his explicit, express permission and it seems reasonable to ask you the same question. Sadly, we really need first hand documentary evidence for any claim, either way, to have any value. Below I quote the response from the data.gov.au team which I received: OpenStreetMap (OSM) are utilising datasets made available from data.gov.au under CC-BY 2.5 or CC-BY 3.0 only. They are required to attribute the authors correctly, which they now are through their Wiki. This provides an appropriate chain of attribution, in accordance with Creative Commons licensing, for any end user of OSM products. In the example you provided, you as end user would be obliged to attribute OSM when you used the extracted data. They, in turn, are obliged to attribute the original government dataset. We do not consider that what we are providing is “special permission” – we have only clarified our position on appropriate attribution. Thank you, Andrew. I wonder if Grant received a similar answer but interpreted it in a different way. Grant? Perhaps we'll never know 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: On 27 September 2011 12:09, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you, Andrew. I wonder if Grant received a similar answer but interpreted it in a different way. Grant? Hi 80n, yes the responses will be forthcoming. We are waiting on some further clarifications. LWG also now only meet fortnightly. Grant If you have explicit special permission why do you seek further clarification? Was it not explicit enough? Perhaps you'd be kind enough to publish the text of the permission you have received. We can then see for ourselves. 80n, why the interest in Australian gov data licensing? Or maybe we'll never know. ;-) I'm interested in all matters relating to OSM licensing. Particularly statements that might encourage contributors to damage the provenance of OSM by submitting content that infringes other people's rights. As you know the value of OSM is that it is (largely) unencumbered by contributions from sources that reserve copyright. While some people may have lower standards than others, anything that increases the amount of infringing material in OSM needs to be resisted. Your unattributed statements are likely to be damaging unless you provide the documentary evidence to back them up. At first you claim to have explicit special permission but now you are back pedalling and seeking clarification. It would have been much better, and would *still* be much better, if you were to just publish what you received verbatim. Is there some reason why you are unwilling or unable to do this? 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: The Licensing Working Group has obtained explicit special permission Hi Grant, are you there? Can you please provide a link to this explict special permission that you've obtained? I'd particularly like to know what they think they've granted as a right, rather than what permissions you think they've given. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote: Righto, I've got a response from the AGIMO. They have clarified that they have not granted any additional license to OSM. OSM can only use the data under the existing licenses (i.e. the existing CC licenses). Andrew, that's great that you've had a response from AGIMO. Would it be possible for you to share a copy of their response with this group? I've made a similar request to Grant about his explicit, express permission and it seems reasonable to ask you the same question. Sadly, we really need first hand documentary evidence for any claim, either way, to have any value. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: The Licensing Working Group has obtained explicit special permission to incorporate geographic datasets from data.gov.au Grant Would you be kind enough to provide a link to this explicit special permission please? 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 September 2011 19:49, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: That reminds me.. I've just updated the name of the Princess Highway through Engadine based on the signed name via ground survey. I've made the change in fosm, http://api.fosm.org/api/0.6/changeset/102770/download feel free to mirror such change in OSM if you like (this changeset is licensed CC0). Should the changeset have a tag to indicate this? license=CC0 perhaps? In such a case it is definitely useful to keep the Princess Highway route relation as that road, even though it has a different name, is still part of the Princess Highway, the signs say so. In Engadine, yes. In Sutherland, Wollongong, and numerous other places on the way to Adelaide, no. I've got pretty extensive imagery on the road from Engadine to Kirrawee. I'll post it to Panoramio, and reference it to the relevant ways/relations in OSM. Ian. ___ 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] What A Day
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote: I personally cannot seem to be able to get any joy from fosm.org, at the moment I am just getting a 500 Internal Server Error message. Me too. Previous efforts were more successful (no error messages), but I've never seen a map, just a blank grey box where a map probably goes. It has had some outages. Two things: 1) fosm.org was unavailable for 12 hours today. I think it went down just as I stepped onto a plane, so I was unaware and unable to do anything about it until back on terra firma. 2) It's clear that some people cannot access fosm.org even when it is up. I think this is because some browsers don't support xslt. More information would be helpful. I will switch to server-side xslt if that is indeed the cause. 3) (ok, three things), there is no map hosted as fosm.org at the moment, there are people working on rendering (such as bigtincan) and I'm happy to encourage such diversity as it makes the project stronger. I'm trying to keep the core of fosm small and tight. I don't want to create features like user dairies else I'd be accused of forking the community. We all have the same goals, some people just want to license them differently. The default layer on http://maps.bigtincan.com/ is rendering from fosm data. ___ 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] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote: The more who contribute directly to fosm rather than OSM, the less the work there will be for fosmers dealing with duplicated data resulting from merges. If it becomes a big problem, I think we should be able to do manual merges of OSM data into fosm, assuming we have the volunteers. Otherwise we can just leave OSM data behind if no one is longer to merge it into fosm. The probability of collisions is quite small in practice. We are able to automatically sync all OSM updates into fosm.org in near real time. Consequenly fosm.org already has more content than OSM and the gap will continue to widen. It will become a massive gulf if OSM ever has the courage to mass delete all non-ODbL licensed content, but I can't see that happening any time soon. The worst case for a collision is an edit in OSM that conflicts with an earlier edit made to the same element in the fosm database. In this case we place the OSM edit in a conflict log and preserve the fosm edit. Other kinds of conflict include the same feature being added to both OSM and fosm independently. This will result in the feature being duplicated in fosm, but it's easy to manually delete such artifacts when they are noticed, retaining whichever is the best one. My largest concern is with piecemeal replacement of non-ODbL licensed content in OSM with inferior quality tracing. This will appear as legitimate edits to the fosm sync process and will result in fosm being degraded needlessly. We've talked about mechanisms for watching areas where this might happen and for users who might be doing this. We can revert such edits in fosm and get the good stuff back providing we notice that it has happened. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: FOSMs not going anywhere for some simple reasons. The people running it are ineffective, the data will be incompatible when OSM switches, fosm doesn't have any of the agreements to derive data from aerial imagery. I could go on, but those are the big ticket items. Everyone should be aware of the theater show that 80n is running merely to disrupt the community, and it's very sad that so far he's been successful. You seem worried, Steve. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tragedy of the commons...
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:49 AM, 4x4falcon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: On 24/04/11 19:54, John Smith wrote: Once upon a time it used to be almost a race to map out new areas from Nearmap coverage, now whole areas of coverage go untouched for months or longer... Even from bing there is not much activity. What was once a source of pride in the community can now only be described as a 'tragedy of the commons' now that the death knell is being tolled on the OSM-F... I have restarted mapping in earnest, but uploading to fosm.org, I'd forgotten how enjoyable it was just to get on and map large areas that are blank and to make the map slightly more complete, knowing that I wasn't wasting my time to only have my edits reverted later. I've taken the opposite approach, I'm still adding to osm from nearmap, gps and bing as those edits will go into fosm.org as fosm is doing minutely updates from osm. When we are locked out completely and all my edits are removed from osm they will still be in fosm without duplication and I will they start adding to fosm then. This is a very sensible approach and one that I would expect most people to follow. That said, I do need people to use fosm and give me feedback if they encounter any issues. There's no tileserver yet, that's a priority, there's no gratification if things are rendered. After that there are all the window dressing bits on the fosm.org website, although I'm not intending to implement any user diaries, GPX uploads or other peripheral functionality at the moment. That will come later if there's sufficient demand. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OSMF elections
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:48 PM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 15:12 -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote: OSMF is a democratically elected body. Candidates welcome. I guess 2011's elections will take place at the start of July as usual. (Last year's election: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM10/Election_to_Board ) Out of interest, how come only 3 names are shown as 'elected' on that page, but the foundation page lists 7 members? Is the entire board required to stand down every year, before elections are held? In 2010, OSMF transitioned from chair serves two year term and others serve one-year terms, to 1/3 of board stands for election each year. Ulf, Mike and Andy chose to step down and not to run again. Six new candidates stood and three were elected to the three vacancies. Hmmm, according to the articles of association The members of the Board to retire shall be those who have been longest in office since their last election or appointment. So if I'm reading your table correctly then SteveC, Mikel and Andy should have retired and, if they wished, stood for re-election. The fact that other board members wished to retire does not appear to be relevant. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM09 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM08 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM07 FYI, and because I love ASCII-(ch)art, here is the history of the OSMF board elections. (monospace font required.) 07|08|09|10| Y |- | Y |- | Steve Coast Y | Y | Y | - | Andy Robinson Y | Y | N | - | George James (Etienne) Y | Y | Y | - | Michael Collinson Y | Y | Y |- | Mikel Maron Y | - | - | - | Richard Fairhurst Y | - | - | - | Corey Burger - | Y | N | - | Nick Black - | Y | Y |- | Henk Hoff - | N | - | - | Grant Slater - | N | Y |- | Simone Cortesi - | N | - | - | Richard Weait - | - | Y | - | Ulf Möller - | - | N | - | Peter Miller - | - | N | - | Hurricane Coast (nee McEwen) - | - | - | Y | Emilie Laffray - | - | - | Y | Iván Sánchez Ortega - | - | - | Y | Oliver Kühn - | - | - | N | Lars Franke - | - | - | N | Thea Clay - | - | - | N | Kate Chapman [ ... ] Interestingly, I notice the number of foundation members is dropping over previous years, 2009 numbers were over 250, where 2010 numbers were only 130. Has any effort been made to find out why so many former members decided not to rejoin? Those numbers surprise me. Where did you get them? 145 valid votes were cast for the most recent election, so your 130 does not match the election results found here. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2010-August/000975.html I do remember the AGM10 report from the membership secretary mentioning the number of paid members (but I don't recall the number). Perhaps I can find that report. [ ... ] Do the various working groups publish their own minutes or decisions, [ ... ] Steve Bennett showed us the location of the minutes. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes There is also an unofficial summary of Board and Working Group activities that is published periodically at http://blog.osmfoundation.org/ ___ 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] NearMap
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: On 15 September 2010 23:46, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 September 2010 08:38, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Sure. Aren't there AU gov't sources that would be nice to have permission to use? You keep seeming trying to divert attention from the major issue, the CTs won't allow anything other than PD data, almost no AU govt will accept anything less than guaranteed attribution, the 2 goals are completely in conflict. Point 4 of the Contributor Terms provides a guaranteed mechanism for Attribution. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms Is the ODbL attribution viral? For produced works the only requirement is to include the following text: Contains information from DATABASE NAME, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL). How does this constrain a recipient of the produced work to keep the attribution intact? It's not a license for the recipient and if the produced work was published as PD, for example, then the recipient can do whatever they like. I don't understand how that binds the recipient or even how that satisfies the claim in the CTs that OSMF agrees to attribute You. Can you explain please? 80n Regards Grant ___ 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] NearMap
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:20 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 September 2010 08:15, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: It will take forever if you never start the discussion. ;-) I was under the impression the LWG was already talking to Nearmap, Sure. Aren't there AU gov't sources that would be nice to have permission to use? however I don't have a problem with the current license, so I don't see a point in wasting it to further the agenda of commercial entities... This bogeyman again? Which commercial entities? What agenda? Moving to and Open Data License from an Open Creative Content License is the right thing to do for an Open Data Project. Using CT to make adapting to the future easier for the future OSM community is the right thing to do for our future selves. That will vary by publisher. The permission from the Canadian government took a couple of days but others might be faster. I'm suspicious that the data is going to be compatible with the CTs, but of course these little details are swept under the rug... Nope. Explicit permission to contribute to OSM with CTs. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2010-August/003292.html Richard, can you explain how section 4 of the Geogratis license [1] works with respect to the CTs please? My understanding is that 4.3 requires the Licensee to indemnify Canada against damages etc? Is this compatible with section 6.2 of the Contributor Terms? If I understand it right 6.2 excludes any liability. Isn't this contrary to Geogratis's stipulation in 4.3? Can you explain please? 80n [1] http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/en/licence.jsp ___ 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] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:12 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 29 July 2010 13:57, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: What should I do? Can I unagree to the CTs? I doubt you can unagree, although you won't get an answer even if you asked, the whole process is very opaque and poorly communicated. There has been talk about exceptions for large data providers, but there is no disclosure of what constitutes a large data provider or how to get an exception. In short I have no idea what you should do, *if* we were to stick to OSM's whiter than white approach to copyright, the data you derived should be removed from the database due to breach of Nearmap terms. I'm not advocating that data actually be removed from the database for this reason, however the current CTs put a lot of new users in a very awkward position, and this is bound to blow up in someone's face at some point. If a new user, who has agreed to the contributor terms, makes a contribution that this derived from work that is *only* licensed under CC-BY-SA do they have the right to allow that contribution to be licensed under ODbL. I don't think they do. All existing new users need to be very careful about modifying existing CC only licensed work, which includes almost everything that is already in OSM, don't they? 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: On 23 July 2010 00:08, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog *snip* Grant What's the lower limit for inclusion on this list? It says rather vaguely more than a few hundred nodes. 80n Those that imported the data, they make the decision. We have to ask everyone anyway, so it does not matter how many are on the list. / Grant That gives everyone a veto over relicensing since they needn't agree to the contributor terms. What is the purpose of the contributor terms if everyone can bypass them? 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:50 PM, ed...@billiau.net wrote: On 21 July 2010 05:36, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure how complete it is, but there is a list of data sets and the licenses: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog If there are any known entries missing, please add them. LWG has put out a request for this earlier, but it may not have reached talk-au shores. Grant What's the lower limit for inclusion on this list? It says rather vaguely more than a few hundred nodes. 80n Regards Grant This page is more complete with regard to data sources, but doesn't list the data we got from ABS (our largest donor). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Imports ___ 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] Fwd: [OSM-talk] That license change link
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:35 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: This also has me concerned, that there isn't a predefined level that would trigger a change over... or there is, but they aren't telling anyone what it is... -- Forwarded message -- From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com Date: 7 July 2010 04:23 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] That license change link To: Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz On 7 July 2010 03:56, Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: - When enough contributors have agreed, we cut over to licensing the current database under ODbL, (And a static snapshot of the database is also made forever under CC-BY-SA). If for some reason this event never happens, the fail safe is that licensing of all contributions under CC-BY-SA simply continues. How many is enough? 50%? 95%? Not only is the threshold not specified, but the timescale is also undefined. This is designed to win by attrition. No matter how slow the uptake eventually the CC-BY-SA content will be insignificant. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Database licence
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: There has been a great number of mails on osmf-talk about an upcoming vote on the database licence. But no notice on the site or wiki. I suppose it isn't official discussion. It is official. The vote is for members of the OSM Foundation, not for ordinary contributors. The OSM Foundation can't force anyone to relicense their existing data but... ...the OSM Foundation owns the servers that run the site and if the change is approved then they will stop accepting contributions on that site unless you agree to the new terms (the OSMF Contributor Terms). This is likely to be disruptive. 80n Sadly, I'd like to say that I will not be supporting the proposed new licence. It is designed around European law, and gives database protection which is not a legal concept which is likely to apply here, after the recent High Court case Nine vs IceTv, when the database was not afforded protection. Certainly we should make this case clear to the OSM community. Database protection always seemed to be a euro-centric ideal and not one that the new licence analysis seemed to respond to adequately. However, I believe that the ODbL constitutes both a licence and a contract (especially in jurisdictions where copyright protection is insufficient). So while you might not have a claim for copyright infringement in protecting OSM data, you would still be able to assert a breach of contract under one of the clauses such as the obligation to Share Alike. I've been thinking about the imports from ABS and the Qld government. That data is licensed CC-by-SA and would have to be *removed* from OSM as we cannot negotiate with ABS and Qld for the new, non-existent licence with no basis in Australian law. This would make a whacking hole in our data and make our map look like an empty shell. If we're working on the assumption that Nine vs. IceTV applies to geographical databases and there's no copyright protection for them, why do we have to care about licences at all in Australia anymore? Certainly, there was some discussion about those licences even being appropriate for releasing those databases (it was suggested that CC0 or public domain might be better). I wouldn't bet on Nine vs. IceTV applying to every collection of raw data and I agree that I would oppose a licence change that would lead us to have to renegotiate every data import... Only those who belonged to OSMF in Oct 09 will get a vote. Those who are 'merely' contributors will only get to be asked if they will relicense their data or not. Only data from people who agree to relicensing will go forward into the new licence. Oh dear. I thought it was going to be an active contributor vote (you had to have X edits in the last Y months) but looking at the threads on osmf-talk it looks like that disappeared. ___ 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] posters/banners
That looks good, but... penStreetMap It's not obvious to the layman that the magnifying glass is supposed to be an O. And because pen is a common word many people will misread this as penStreetMap which makes about as much sense as OpenStreetMap if you've never heard of either. I'd strongly discourage using the magnifying glass as an O, it can fail too easily. Matt Amos is the original designer of the logo, perhaps he has a view on this. I'm copying him. Etienne On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:44 AM, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: I had a play around wit Inkscape and 5mins later had come up with this: http://www.overclockers.com.au/pix/st7vm The link is to a transparent png so it doesn't look right with the dark blue background of the hosting service but such is life. I can't post the svg to the list without moderator approval as it makes the message body exceed 40kb. If anybody wants it just ask and I'll shoot it through to you personally. Feedback is welcomed. Having the two Map words on the right hand side kinda bugs me. Does OSM have any other slogans we could put on it? -Brent ___ 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] Wild guess surveying
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Darrin Smith bel...@beldin.org wrote: On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:35:01 +0900 Andrew Laughton laughton.and...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, very easy to fix, and I have fixed other roads that were also wrong, the worry is, how many others need fixing and where are they. Maybe a polite message could solve the problem, or maybe a rough position is better than no position, and there is no problem. I think there's actually 2 issues you've hit on in this. One you outline here and the other is the issue of what the original author used as a source for the estimation. On the issue you have listed here I'd suggest at some level it would be a good thing to have rough estimations drawn in, at least for major features (which landsat can provide if nothing else), an empty block of map just doesn't help anyone at all really. Data can always get more accurate as time goes by as someone with more specific information refines the paths, much like you are doing in this case. When new data obviously over-rides older data in the map people should not have hesitation correcting things. Incremental improvement is the wiki-way. And even what we consider to be good mapping at the moment will get improved over time as better technology and better sources come along. A straight line between two places is better than no line. 80n The other issue is a potentially nastier one, especially given that landsat supports something approximating the traces you made in this case, I worry that your suspicions may be correct, or perhaps that the person who drew it in based it upon personal experience from a long time ago (dodgy source at best ;). I think a polite message suggesting that you are concerned about the source of his data might not go astray in this case. -- Darrin Smith s...@salseast.org ___ 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] How to extract street names from OSM data
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM, David Groom [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: You could use OSMXapi http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Osmxap something like: http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/[bbox=lefthttp://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/%5Bbbox=left, bottom,right,top]way[highway=*] David Or even http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/wayhttp://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/%5Bbbox=lefthttp://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/%5Bbbox=left [bbox=left,bottom,right,top]http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/%5Bbbox=left [name=*] http://xapi.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/%5Bbbox=left - Original Message - *From:* Paul Zagoridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* Talk-au@openstreetmap.org *Sent:* Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:21 AM *Subject:* [talk-au] How to extract street names from OSM data Can I use the API or some other easy way to extract a subset of OSM data? Specifically I want to get a list of street names in Sydney Metro to double check addresses in a database. Suggestions? Regards Paul -- Paul Zagoridis email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] blog: http://wealthesteem.org Wealth is created between your ears personal blog: http://zagz.com mobile: +61 414 707 343 skype: paul.zagoridis -- Join me on your network of choice LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/paulzag Xing: http://www.xing.com/go/invite/3306344.2a5ab0 Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul_Zagoridis/815205625 ecademy: http://www.ecademy.com/user/paulzagoridis -- ___ 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 image001.png___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tracing items.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, Just a general comment and a couple of suggestions. Having been adding items into osm for the last year I've noticed people spending a lot of time tracing roads from landsat, yahoo, etc. While this is admirable work is this really a useful exercise. Someone will eventually drive along this road with a gps upload it and then erase the traced road. Or worse still will not bother to drive down that road as it's already in osm and not tagged as survey and therefore not sure should they replace it. So it never gets surveyed accurately. So my suggestion is instead of tracing roads, trace things that can not be easily surveyed. eg railway lines, rivers, powerlines. IMHO Yahoo tracers should focus on lakes (and other bodies of water), parks and buildings. After that maybe roads with no public access. Tracing public roads should be a last resort, they'll get done much sooner using GPS if they are not already traced from Yahoo. I'm not saying that Yahoo tracers should not do roads, but please do lakes and buildings and stuff first. Give the GPS guys a chance to do the roads. It's a big planet we are not going to run out of unmapped space any time soon. 80n Or fix the coastline. There's still lots of areas where the coastline is not accurate and needs to be fixed up. Anyway just my 2c's. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Copyright in Australia (Was: Tagging questions)
I don't really understand why you guys are wanting so much to get a free ride. The really important thing about OSM is to create a map that we can be sure does not infringe anyone else's copyright. It really doesn't matter how long that takes. In my mind, if there's the slightest doubt about any particular source then it should discounted out of hand. If people have to visit every single street on the planet, then so be it - that's the fun part of the project anyway. 80n On Feb 11, 2008 9:29 PM, Ian Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I reckon the multi source approach should also be valid for street name sourcing - that way you aren't relying on a single companies *substantial effort* required be careful here. if copyright subsists, because of substantial effort, then copyright subsists. you can't argue that copyright doesn't subsist for a work used in one way, but does for a work used in another. once copyright is shown to subsist, it only then matters whether you are using within the bounds of what is permitted for a copyrighted work. it is likely copyright subsists in a street directory list of street names. the only question then is what amounts to permitted use under the copyright provisions. Is looking up a street directory by multiple people to confirm an address before travelling there fair use? It is easy to argue in favour of this. The street directory was intended for this purpose. Is looking up a street directory to validate a competing street directory, rather than paying for or otherwise putting effort into verifying the source? I wouldn't like to be in court arguing that case.. Also - don't forget there are contractual terms of use in google maps, etc which prohibit this. This really only leaves a couple of sources of this street name data. (in Australia, and apparently only Australia, we have to wear the consequences of the DtMS v Telstra judgement which in essence says that factual items can be copyrighted in a substantial effort was required to collate and present them). The court in Desktop Marketing v Telstra, certainly believed they were disregarding US precedent, and following UK precedent. The issue will probably never be argued in a UK court, because they have strong protections in the form of a database right legislation, and will likely never have to rely on copyright to protect factual information. I would strongly suggest not referring to a copyrighted work when working on OSM. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
