subject:"\[talk\-au\] 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] 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] 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

2011-07-11 Thread Alex (Maxious) Sadleir

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] Going separate ways

2011-07-11 Thread Andrew Harvey

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] 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

2011-07-11 Thread James Livingston

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] 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] 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] 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] Going separate ways

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.

Steve and Sam might have between them put their finger on why it's 
different 
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-July/008268.html). I'm 
sure personalities also have something to do with it, as they do with 
any open source project. Regardless, it's unquestionable that it _is_ 
different in .au.


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.


cheers
Richard


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

2011-07-10 Thread Anthony

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:02 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.

[snip]

 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.

I'd say recognizing that the fork is not a bad thing is part of
reconciling the two sides in the debate.  And by reconciling, I don't
mean that one side is going to give in and exclusively use the license
of the other side.  But I still don't see why FOSM and OSMF can't work
together, despite the license (and governance) disagreement.

 OSM people needn't invade the FOSM mailing lists and vice versa.

Speaking as a moderator of the osm-fork mailing list (but without
having confirmed this with the other moderators), I invite anyone who
is willing to engage in productive discussion to join us, regardless
of their affiliation with any particular project.

And I hope the OSMF is not going to try to exclude FOSM from its OSM
mailing lists.  FOSM is a content fork, out of necessity (phase 4),
but it has no desire to fork the formats, the APIs, the rendering
software, the editing software, etc.  This will only happen if it
proves to be necessary, and with good communication and cooperation,
it shouldn't be.

The osm-fork mailing list is there for discussions which are outside
of the scope of (or otherwise undesired on) other OSM mailing lists.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

2011-07-10 Thread John Henderson


On 11/07/11 00:02, Richard Fairhurst wrote:


So please, let's stop hitting each other over the head with this.


That's a very unAustralian attitude.

John H

___
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 00:02, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Germany 90.1%
Great Britain 89.1%
France 96.8%
North America 96.4%
Russia 97.2%
Australia 48.4%

You didn't show Albania which has an even low acceptance rate, nor did
you comment on the fact that several import accounts of large amounts
of data are included in those numbers.

Also the Australia figure is lower than that, the QldProtectedAreas
should never have been imported with an account that had agreed with
the CT.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways


John Smith wrote:

On 11 July 2011 00:02, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net  wrote:

Germany 90.1%
Great Britain 89.1%
France 96.8%
North America 96.4%
Russia 97.2%
Australia 48.4%


You didn't show Albania which has an even low acceptance rate, nor did
you comment on the fact that several import accounts of large amounts
of data are included in those numbers.


Indeed, I was concentrating on the big guys. Albania isn't a big guy. 
Not sure what your point is about imports but neither GB nor Germany 
have particularly significant numbers of imports - the only major import 
we've ever had in Britain is a few counties' worth of bus-stops!


But this is rather the point, isn't it?

No matter what point I might make, you're going to read the From: line, 
see that it's from one of the ODbL guys, and argue against it. And 
yes, I'm sure some of us are guilty of that too.


The two sides are irreconcilable. There really isn't any need to keep 
sniping back and forth like this. Can we not just agree to differ: you 
go forward with FOSM-CC, we go forward with OSM-ODbL, and people 
contribute to whichever project they prefer?


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 07:54, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 Indeed, I was concentrating on the big guys. Albania isn't a big guy. Not
 sure what your point is about imports but neither GB nor Germany have
 particularly significant numbers of imports - the only major import we've
 ever had in Britain is a few counties' worth of bus-stops!

It was my understanding people were importing OS data into GB?

 No matter what point I might make, you're going to read the From: line, see
 that it's from one of the ODbL guys, and argue against it. And yes, I'm
 sure some of us are guilty of that too.

This is one of the points most people have continued to miss time and
time again no matter how often I've said it, it's the methods being
employed to try and get people to change is what I hate the most,
lying by omission is very common, people aren't being given all the
pertinent facts on the matter to make an actual judgment.

I've spoken to one person since they've agreed and gave some of the
cons and they were upset that they weren't informed better about the
situation, they felt some what cheated how they were corralled into
accepting, others have made similar comments in the last few days
about their own experiences.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways


John Smith wrote:

On 11 July 2011 07:54, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net  wrote:

Indeed, I was concentrating on the big guys. Albania isn't a big guy. Not
sure what your point is about imports but neither GB nor Germany have
particularly significant numbers of imports - the only major import we've
ever had in Britain is a few counties' worth of bus-stops!


It was my understanding people were importing OS data into GB?


Not importing as such, no. Tracing, generally, which means there aren't 
any single big import accounts. The UK is by and large sufficiently 
well-mapped that imports of roads are impractical: you'd have to do so 
much correlation with existing data that it's easier to work manually 
from the off. A few people have played around with small-scale imports 
of streams/rivers but it's pretty piecemeal - I've not seen a single 
import in the areas where I map, other than the NaPTAN bus stops.



No matter what point I might make, you're going to read the From: line, see
that it's from one of the ODbL guys, and argue against it. And yes, I'm
sure some of us are guilty of that too.


This is one of the points most people have continued to miss time and
time again no matter how often I've said it, it's the methods being
employed to try and get people to change is what I hate the most,
lying by omission is very common, people aren't being given all the
pertinent facts on the matter to make an actual judgment.

I've spoken to one person since they've agreed and gave some of the
cons and they were upset that they weren't informed better about the
situation, they felt some what cheated how they were corralled into
accepting, others have made similar comments in the last few days
about their own experiences.


Ok. That's your opinion, and you are of course perfectly entitled to it; 
others will have a different opinion and will argue vehemently that 
they're not lying by omission; and so on.


But do you not see that this isn't getting us anywhere, but merely 
poisoning the well?


If FOSM succeeds then it won't be by denigrating OSM. Likewise, OSM 
won't succeed by pretending FOSM doesn't exist.


I seriously think that the particular circumstances of Australia mean 
that you have a chance to make a CC fork _the_ dominant open map of the 
continent, if it's done right. But as several people (with no particular 
affiliation to either side of the argument) have posted, the endless 
arguing is just putting people off mapping, full stop. FOSM's prospects 
- and those of OSM, CommonMap and any other projects - are not best 
served by these arguments. For every one mapper attracted because you 
convince them OSM cheated them, five are put off because of the 
acrimony. (And, of course, the arguing takes up your and my and others' 
time that would be better spent on coding, evangelising and mapping!)


Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects, 
and making them as attractive as possible to users old and new, rather 
than knocking the other one?


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 08:16, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects, and
 making them as attractive as possible to users old and new, rather than
 knocking the other one?

But my comment before sets the scene for how OSM-F will look to future
users, they will be seen as devious in the methods employed, rather
than being seen as sticking to their moral guns.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways


John Smith wrote:

On 11 July 2011 08:16, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net  wrote:

Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects, and
making them as attractive as possible to users old and new, rather than
knocking the other one?


But my comment before sets the scene for how OSM-F will look to future
users, they will be seen as devious in the methods employed, rather
than being seen as sticking to their moral guns.


I guess that's a no then. :( :(

Richard


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

2011-07-10 Thread Anthony

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 John Smith wrote:

 On 11 July 2011 08:16, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net  wrote:

 Can we not - both sides - agree to work on building up our own projects,
 and
 making them as attractive as possible to users old and new, rather than
 knocking the other one?

 But my comment before sets the scene for how OSM-F will look to future
 users, they will be seen as devious in the methods employed, rather
 than being seen as sticking to their moral guns.

 I guess that's a no then. :( :(

Well, eventually one of you two is going to stop responding to the other.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

2011-07-10 Thread David Murn

On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 15:02 +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
 I think it's reasonably obvious by now that the two sides in this debate 
 aren't ever going to be reconciled.

I guess that depends on your definition of 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.
 ... [ODbL figures] ...
 That's pretty stark.
 
 Steve and Sam might have between them put their finger on why it's 
 different 
 (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-July/008268.html). I'm 
 sure personalities also have something to do with it, as they do with 
 any open source project. Regardless, it's unquestionable that it _is_ 
 different in .au.

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.

 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.

It doesnt do either side any good to cut ties and drift our separate
ways either.  Just because you dont get along with someone on a desert
island, it doesnt mean you isolate yourself on the other side, your
strength together will be much more than your individual strength.

 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.

The problem for OSM will be when all the incompatible CCBYSA data is
removed, and that 'headstart' is more like fosm being a late starter in
the race while the other runner is contemplating cutting his foot off at
around the time the two racers are level.

 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).

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?

The fact that you might lose 100 mappers, might not really affect the
project, the fact of losing a whole country of consumers, might.

David


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

2011-07-10 Thread Steve Coast


On Jul 10, 2011, at 6:22 PM, 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'.

Can you point to that in any minutes or mailing list posts?

We looked around for all the people claiming that we've been ignoring them and 
can't actually find any posts by them on the legal lists or to the LWG for many 
of the people involved. Of course, with so many fake names being used it's hard 
to be sure they weren't raised under a different pseudonym. From what I've 
seen, the LWG took all of the concerns very seriously and spent an awful lot of 
time, on an individual basis, trying to resolve them. Nearmap of course being a 
good example.

 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.
 
 It doesnt do either side any good to cut ties and drift our separate
 ways either.  Just because you dont get along with someone on a desert
 island, it doesnt mean you isolate yourself on the other side, your
 strength together will be much more than your individual strength.

You're absolutely right, however the volunteers and democratically elected 
people who've tried to have rational discussions with most of the people here 
get shot down. Therefore Richard I think is expressing the view that we tried 
hard, we then tried to reconcile, we're still not getting anywhere, so what's 
the next step? Going our own ways in a suboptimal but available step.

I urge you to contrast and compare that with other countries/communities who 
also have derived from CC data or have imports that need relicensing and so on. 
Most of them have worked it out. What we're scratching our heads about is how 
-au is different. I think we've been thinking pretty hard and not come up with 
anything other than trolls taking over the sentiment of the community.

 The fact that you might lose 100 mappers, might not really affect the
 project, the fact of losing a whole country of consumers, might.

Agreed.

The question is, if you were a volunteer (and we all are) who's been working on 
this what would you do?

We could work on this imported data issue. Well, we have. We've asked multiple 
times for outlines of where the data is, who imported it and so on. To the best 
of my knowledge nobody has raised this substantially with the LWG, please 
correct me if I'm wrong. I don't attend every single meeting.

We could work on making the LWG meetings more accessible to people in the -au 
timezone. Well, we have. Several times we've shifted the meeting hours (for 
example to speak with nearmap) and tried other ways to engage.

We could spend time meeting in person. Well, we've tried a bit there though of 
course it's expensive and hard. The threat of violence hasn't made me want to 
come to -au despite having the means to do so, and we've made attempts to get 
people to come to SOTM.

We could work on making the mailing lists a better place to be. Well, we have. 
In fact we've approached people about moderating this list but one of them 
won't do it because - get this - the person fears for his job. They're worried 
that if they moderate this list the trolls will start phoning their employer. 
That's quite something. Clearly, things are very unhealthy. If you'd like to 
help moderate, please get in touch. We don't think an outsider should do it, or 
anyone who operates under a pseudonym or has been moderated off another list.

Of course we're not perfect. But I think we can say we're trying, even with 
people who traditionally we no longer have time for or who have been moderated 
off the main lists. You can jump in and say what we should have done in 2009 or 
something, and I'm sure we made mistakes. But without being personal, and 
understanding that everyone is a volunteer, what would you do in my position 
that's reasonable to change things? I'm sure if it was rational we'd attempt it.

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 11:55, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
 We looked around for all the people claiming that we've been ignoring them 
 and can't actually find any posts by them on the legal lists or to the LWG 
 for many of the people involved. Of course, with so many fake names being 
 used it's hard to be sure they weren't raised under a different pseudonym. 
 From what I've seen, the LWG took all of the concerns very seriously and 
 spent an awful lot of time, on an individual basis, trying to resolve them. 
 Nearmap of course being a good example.

Nearmap is about the only example I can think of that was actually
even attempted to be addressed, everyone else just got told to pester
what ever government department to relicense under odbl, but even if
we had that wouldn't have been compatible with the CTs.

What difference does it make who the concerns come from if they are
valid, this is your posts the other day all over again, you find
something difficult to answer so you try to find ways to weasel out of
answering them, which pretty much sums up most of the other concerns
you've dismissed out of hand.

 I urge you to contrast and compare that with other countries/communities who 
 also have derived from CC data or have imports that need relicensing and so 
 on. Most of them have worked it out. What we're scratching our heads about is 
 how -au is different. I think we've been thinking pretty hard and not come up 
 with anything other than trolls taking over the sentiment of the community.

You mean most of them have ended up agreeing to the changes regardless
if they were able to or not, there is several imports that people went
ahead with in good faith, such as QldProtectedAreas, that were given
the impression that it was ok, however without major changes to the
CTs this data isn't allowed to be imported unless you are planning to
stay under a CC-by or CC-by-SA license.

 We could work on this imported data issue. Well, we have. We've asked 
 multiple times for outlines of where the data is, who imported it and so on. 
 To the best of my knowledge nobody has raised this substantially with the 
 LWG, please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't attend every single meeting.

 We could work on making the LWG meetings more accessible to people in the -au 
 timezone. Well, we have. Several times we've shifted the meeting hours (for 
 example to speak with nearmap) and tried other ways to engage.

or you could do better at dealing with them, rather than saying you
will do something and hope people go away so you can quietly drop them
later.

 We could spend time meeting in person. Well, we've tried a bit there though 
 of course it's expensive and hard. The threat of violence hasn't made me want 
 to come to -au despite having the means to do so, and we've made attempts to 
 get people to come to SOTM.

I must have missed the threats to you or anyone else involved, because
the only previous mention was you expression concern over your safety,
what changed in the last 3 days?

 We could work on making the mailing lists a better place to be. Well, we 
 have. In fact we've approached people about moderating this list but one of 
 them won't do it because - get this - the person fears for his job. They're 
 worried that if they moderate this list the trolls will start phoning their 
 employer. That's quite something. Clearly, things are very unhealthy. If 
 you'd like to help moderate, please get in touch. We don't think an outsider 
 should do it, or anyone who operates under a pseudonym or has been moderated 
 off another list.

Perhaps you should have better rules for everyone, because I have been
threated to be dobbed into my employer to the point that I actually
brought him up to speed on all the nonsense going on, and he turned
round and asked me if I thought it was worth airing to newspapers but
I felt it was a matter to be dealt with internally. Frankly Steve you
really need to try harder on implying pen names mean something
nefarious is going on other than openly outing your BS.

 Of course we're not perfect. But I think we can say we're trying, even with 
 people who traditionally we no longer have time for or who have been 
 moderated off the main lists. You can jump in and say what we should have 
 done in 2009 or something, and I'm sure we made mistakes. But without being 
 personal, and understanding that everyone is a volunteer, what would you do 
 in my position that's reasonable to change things? I'm sure if it was 
 rational we'd attempt it.

You keep making the same mistakes, and of course nothing is being
resolved because you stick your head in the sand and try and pretend
it will just magically take care of itself, all you are achieving
lately is showing how arrogant you can be and how poorly you can spin
things.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

2011-07-10 Thread Steve Coast


On Jul 10, 2011, at 7:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
 You keep making the same mistakes, and of course nothing is being
 resolved because you stick your head in the sand and try and pretend
 it will just magically take care of itself, all you are achieving
 lately is showing how arrogant you can be and how poorly you can spin
 things.

John

It's not worth my time responding to messages like this.

I wrote a completely rational, neutral and open email outlining the things 
we've tried and asking for ideas of how to make it better.

If you write back that I'm just arrogant and put my head in the sand, even if 
you're right, all you're doing is making an ad hominem attack that's not worth 
responding to.

I'm very glad Anthony and I have been having reasonable conversations back and 
forth recently. If you were able to take a step back, assume good faith and 
reply again then I'm sure I would look in detail at the points you make[*].

Steve

[*] - With the caveat that because there are so many pseudonyms being used, it 
would both be helpful, pragmatic and a sign of respect if you guys would start 
to identify yourselves. Unfortunately it's become known that some are puppet 
accounts and we don't know which is which and who's just doing this for fun.
___
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 12:30, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
 It's not worth my time responding to messages like this.

 I wrote a completely rational, neutral and open email outlining the things 
 we've tried and asking for ideas of how to make it better.

Yes and didn't respond to a single query, but of course politicans do
the same thing, they change the question into something they can
answer.

 If you write back that I'm just arrogant and put my head in the sand, even if 
 you're right, all you're doing is making an ad hominem attack that's not 
 worth responding to.

Commenting on your perceived lack of action isn't an attack on you
personally or your mother etc, no matter how much you'd like it to be,
and you just confirmed my observations.

 [*] - With the caveat that because there are so many pseudonyms being used, 
 it would both be helpful, pragmatic and a sign of respect if you guys would 
 start to identify yourselves. Unfortunately it's become known that some are 
 puppet accounts and we don't know which is which and who's just doing this 
 for fun.

For all you know every person on this list is using a pen name, it
doesn't mean there is a person posting under multiple names although
you wish someone ways so you could use it.

___
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 12:42, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:

 On Jul 10, 2011, at 7:34 PM, John Smith wrote:

 On 11 July 2011 12:30, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
 It's not worth my time responding to messages like this.

 I wrote a completely rational, neutral and open email outlining the things 
 we've tried and asking for ideas of how to make it better.

 Yes and didn't respond to a single query, but of course politicans do
 the same thing, they change the question into something they can
 answer.

 I didn't, you are correct. I said I would however, if it was an email 
 assuming good faith and free of personal attacks. This is common is western 
 societies. Or at least polite societies :-)


So you decide to make radical changes to the OSM community and then
refuse to answer questions cause it upsets your delicate nature?

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

2011-07-10 Thread Steve Coast


On Jul 10, 2011, at 7:45 PM, John Smith wrote:

 On 11 July 2011 12:42, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
 
 On Jul 10, 2011, at 7:34 PM, John Smith wrote:
 
 On 11 July 2011 12:30, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
 It's not worth my time responding to messages like this.
 
 I wrote a completely rational, neutral and open email outlining the things 
 we've tried and asking for ideas of how to make it better.
 
 Yes and didn't respond to a single query, but of course politicans do
 the same thing, they change the question into something they can
 answer.
 
 I didn't, you are correct. I said I would however, if it was an email 
 assuming good faith and free of personal attacks. This is common is western 
 societies. Or at least polite societies :-)
 
 So you decide to make radical changes to the OSM community and then
 refuse to answer questions cause it upsets your delicate nature?

Not at all, I've been having delicate and difficult conversations for many 
years. Of course, I loose my temper sometimes like any human being but in 
general it's precisely because I can have those conversations (and the 
technical talent and community building) that I'm where I am today.

Another point of order is that it wasn't somehow my exclusive decision.

As I say, if at any point you want to ask me those questions again in an email 
that assumes good faith and is free of personal attack (I'll even allow you the 
implied personal attack above) then I will be happy to answer them.

Steve
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

2011-07-10 Thread rran...@ihug.com.au

I have only rarely made contributions to this list and never to the legal or LWG lists because I prefer to do things rather than talk about it. I have been contributing to OSM for over 5 years and, last I looked, I was about 800th in number of nodes and ways edited world wide. These contributions have been a result of surveys, fixing validation errors (often with the aid of Nearmap) and tracing ways from Nearmap. None of my work was due to data import.

Despite this my opinion on the license change was never asked for and it was only on 6 Feb 2011 that anyone from OSM bothered to inform me of the change and ask why I had not accepted the CT. Of course I had seen mostly second hand information on the talk-au list.

What has spurred me into this e-mail is the comment that resolving the issue with Nearmap was a good example of OSM-F addressing AU concerns. The resulting resolution with Nearmap is, in fact, why I am no longer contributing to OSM. I do not trust BING from a license and location accuracy prospective, and it does not have the resolution to do some of the things I could do with Nearmap such as picking up speed zones and traffic lights. Also it was about the same time that OSM-F stopped edits from those who had not agreed to the new CT that Nearmap announced the Nearmap users could agree to the CT but could no longer map with it.

Perhaps I have been spoiled by Nearmap, but I do not want to have a second best mapping experience without it, along with the provision to change licensing in the CT that, it is with deep regret, that I have stopped contributing to OSM_F. I plan to contribute to FOSM instead, but with a lost enthusiasm.

I hope I am wrong, but I see the splits caused by the license and CT change as a huge setback to both the building and use of open mapping.

Regards,
Roy Rankin

On Mon Jul 11 11:55 , Steve Coast sent:

We looked around for all the people claiming that we've been ignoring them and can't actually find any posts by them on the legal lists or to the LWG for many of the people involved. Of course, with so many fake names being used it's hard to be sure they weren't raised under a different pseudonym. From what I've seen, the LWG took all of the concerns very seriously and spent an awful lot of time, on an individual basis, trying to resolve them. Nearmap of course being a good example.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

2011-07-10 Thread Sam Couter

Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
 I didn't, you are correct. I said I would however, if it was an email 
 assuming good faith and free of personal attacks. This is common is western 
 societies. Or at least polite societies :-)

Calling people trolls and puppets doesn't demonstrate an assumption of
good faith. In fact, it's the opposite.
-- 
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

2011-07-10 Thread Mike Dupont

[SNIP] Flames [/SNIP]

Hi, Sorry to get involved in this discussion. But it has been filling up my
inbox again.

Besides all the flames and smoke, what are the real issues here? I think
that we dont need to continue this endless discussion. Lets just stop the
fighting and do something more productive.

Can we make a list of real issues to be resolved and stick with them. There
are some issues that wont be resolved, such as hurt feelings and lost trust.
But we dont need to have a fight to the death over them.

I find that now we have the fosm going, there should be less reasons to
fight, everyone has basically what they need. Of course it could be better.

mike
___
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 14:53, Mike  Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Can we make a list of real issues to be resolved and stick with them. There
 are some issues that wont be resolved, such as hurt feelings and lost trust.
 But we dont need to have a fight to the death over them.

I'd like to know if OSM-F are planning to take the moral high ground
or not, that is will they respect the wishes of content authors or
not.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] Going separate ways

2011-07-10 Thread Nick Hocking

Mark wrote

Out of interest - the greatest contributor to Australia-Oceania
according to http://odbl.de/australia-oceania.html is the accound used
for the suburb boundary / postcode boundary import. Once this is
excluded, does the figure for Australia improve a lot or only
marginally? (Is there even an easy way to find out?)

Hi Mark,

Yes if we were to revert out the non compliant imports, the bot that just
added the maxspeed tag on a HUGE number of ways,
and also the maxspeed:source tag, and also revert out the bot that modified
that last tag to be source:maxspeed, then
the numbers may be completly different.

cheers
Nick
___
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 15:09, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote:
 Mark wrote

 Out of interest - the greatest contributor to Australia-Oceania
 according to http://odbl.de/australia-oceania.html is the accound used
 for the suburb boundary / postcode boundary import. Once this is
 excluded, does the figure for Australia improve a lot or only
 marginally? (Is there even an easy way to find out?)

 Hi Mark,

 Yes if we were to revert out the non compliant imports, the bot that just
 added the maxspeed tag on a HUGE number of ways,
 and also the maxspeed:source tag, and also revert out the bot that modified
 that last tag to be source:maxspeed, then
 the numbers may be completly different.

That takes care of ways, but what about the 1.7million nodes attributed to me?

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

2011-07-10 Thread David Murn

On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 06:53 +0200, Mike Dupont wrote:

 Besides all the flames and smoke, what are the real issues here? I
 think that we dont need to continue this endless discussion. Lets just
 stop the fighting and do something more productive. 

I think a main issue here, comes down to what services do we need to
fork away from the ODbL OSM but still retain the community that exists.

Both groups can utilise the same community (mailing lists, IRC, even
mapping parties) for discussions regarding tagging or international
mapping variances, infact I think they are some of the most interesting
discussions here.

Both groups can pretty much share the same toolsets. ie just because you
favour fosm over osmf or vice versa, that doesn't mean you should stop
using and contributing to things like mapnik, osmosis and mkgmap.

I think there needs to be a clear statement made by one of the
'democratically elected' members that despite any forks in the licence,
the project and community share a common goal and can share some
resources, even if we're unable to share data.

I also think that a lot of the arguers on these lists need to understand
this too.

 I find that now we have the fosm going, there should be less reasons
 to fight, everyone has basically what they need. Of course it could be
 better.

I only hope with time that feelings will ease and each branch of the
fork will become successful on its own strength.  I think both projects
serve their own market of users and will continue to build on their
individual strengths.

David


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways

2011-07-10 Thread David Murn

Hi Nick,

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

On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 15:09 +1000, Nick Hocking wrote:
  
 Hi Mark,
  
 Yes if we were to revert out the non compliant imports, the bot that
 just added the maxspeed tag on a HUGE number of ways,
 and also the maxspeed:source tag, and also revert out the bot that
 modified that last tag to be source:maxspeed, then
 the numbers may be completly different.
  
 cheers
 Nick
 
 
 ___
 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