Re: [talk-au] Plea to Australian decliners
- Original Message - From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com To: Jack Burton j...@saosce.com.au Cc: talk-au talk-au@openstreetmap.org; osm-f...@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 6:32 AM Subject: Re: [talk-au] Plea to Australian decliners On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Jack Burton j...@saosce.com.au wrote: On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 15:54 +0100, Grant Slater wrote: Australian Decliners, As a mapper, contributor and member of the project's sysadmin team I kindly ask you to please reconsider your declined status. Time is about to run out. I am a decliner, and contributed substantial amounts of data to the map (mainly in Adelaide, Melbourne Geelong) back in the early days of OSM (late 2007 to mid 2009), although I haven't made any edits in almost 2 years now (that's not OSM's fault -- I just haven't had the time recently). Whilst I'd prefer that my old contributions remained in use by the community, as originally intended, I still have reservations about the open-ended relicensing provisions of the new CTs. I've just re-read the CTs, and must admit they do look less objectionable to me now than when I first read them -- outside of the future reclicensing provisions (clause 3), I don't have any problem with them. Re those provisions, I still have one question, which I'm hoping someone on the list can address. Clause 3 talks about or such other free and open licence. I'm curious as to how free and open license is defined in this context. Both the FSD and the OSD speak specifically to software, not data. In the software world, there have been instances in the past of licenses claiming to be free or open source, without actually adhering to the FSD or OSD. I suspect the same will be true in years to come with respect to licensing of data. To agree to such a future relicensing provision, I think the parameters around it would need to be fairly well defined (not so open-ended). In the absence of a definition in the CTs themselves, that would mean a well-recognised definition of free and open license (with respect to data) existing somewhere else (like the FSD OSD do in the software domain). Can anyone point me to such a definition? Richard I am surprised that you did not mention the formal clarification that LWG gave on 19 July 2011 [1] In response to community requests, the LWG formally clarifies as follows: The intent of the Contributor Terms as regards contributions that come from or are derived from third parties is: 1) To ask the contributor to be *reasonably* certain that such data can be distributed under the specific specific licenses, as explicitly listed in clause 3 of the contributor terms: CC-BY-SA 2.0 and ODbL 1.0. We also stress reasonably certain rather than must because we recognise that most contributors are not lawyers and do not have access to one. If in doubt, consult the wiki or mailing lists to see what the community thinks or knows. 2) To give the OSM community and the OSMF the ability to remove data that should not be distributed as part of the OSM database. Should the license change in the future, continued distribution of some data that comes from or is derived from third parties may no longer be possible. If this happens, it will have to be removed. This will be the responsibility of OSMF and the OSM community at that time. It is not necessary for current contributors to make guesses. Can I check with you that the LWG still stand by that clarification, since that clarification severely limits the impact of CT clause 3. Regards David [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_123cdchck62 Sure. As listed in the terms, the Open Knowledge Foundation has their Open Knowledge Definition. http://opendefinition.org/okd/ Which takes an approach similar to FSD / OSD, but with attention to data, rather than software. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Plea to Australian decliners
Australian Decliners, As a mapper, contributor and member of the project's sysadmin team I kindly ask you to please reconsider your declined status. Time is about to run out. The strength of the project is mappers (bonus points to GPS mappers) and other contributors. If you have decided to move onto FOSM.org, CommonMap or other fork I wish you luck and morn the loss of you as an OSM mapper. Declining hurts fellow Australian mappers who have in good faith build data on-top of your contributions and will leave animosity between our projects. Thanks Grant Mapper and overworked volunteer OpenStreetMap sysadmin. This message is all mine. I am not some cheap rent boy paid by OSMF, Bing / Microsoft, MapQuest / AOL, Lizard-People or any other group. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Plea to Australian decliners
On 30 March 2012 21:43, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 March 2012 01:54, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Australian Decliners, As a mapper, contributor and member of the project's sysadmin team I kindly ask you to please reconsider your declined status. Time is about to run out. You and others didn't care about us, told us to go away as we were insignificant and our issue were unimportant and now you come begging for us to reconsider. Bull. Michael Collinson spent months trying to get approval from data.gov.au for approval... finally did. Pity the importer refuses to relicence even if the data is OK. LWG spent months negotiation with NearMap and got approval, but not exactly how we hoped. OSM(F) is not some nefarious organisation... I'm like everyone else in the project it doing it for fun, interesting and for the making something great... I have a real day job that is not related to osm. Mr John Anonymous Smith... the community will be better without you. Glad the license change is nearly over and we can get back to what we enjoy... Mapping and building the bloody best map (data) of the world. Regards Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Plea to Australian decliners
Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: OSM(F) is not some nefarious organisation... Incompetence is often difficult to distinguish from malice. I'm like everyone else in the project it doing it for fun, interesting and for the making something great... I have a real day job that is not related to osm. So am I, so do I, and that's exactly why you're way out of line for blaming me for OSM rejecting the data I created in good faith. I created it thinking it'd be useful for me and others. If you don't want it, that's annoying but it's your right. If you want to blame me for your rejection, you can shove it up your arse. I owe you nothing. Mr John Anonymous Smith... the community will be better without you. Nice attitude. You wonder why we continue to be disappointed at your behaviour and that of OSMF? Glad the license change is nearly over and we can get back to what we enjoy... Mapping and building the bloody best map (data) of the world. It won't be as good as it can be if you continue to reject contributions, drive people away from the project and fracture the community. -- 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] Plea to Australian decliners
On 31 March 2012 01:54, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Australian Decliners, As a mapper, contributor and member of the project's sysadmin team I kindly ask you to please reconsider your declined status. Time is about to run out. You and others didn't care about us, told us to go away as we were insignificant and our issue were unimportant and now you come begging for us to reconsider. Perhaps the whole license issue should be reconsidered, after all you are the one throwing out the baby with the bath water, you are choosing to do this, not us, perhaps you should choose to call the whole thing off. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Plea to Australian decliners
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Markus mark...@adam.com.au wrote: The approval for my acceptance of the new licence was only being stopped due to imports I have done from data.gov.au. and the original CC. When Michael received approval I agreed to the licence. Thankyou Michael. Even though I still don't agree we needed to chance the licence I still agreed to the improved CC. I have now moved across to FOSM due to living in Australia and wanting to continue to use Nearmap. I still might share my future GPS tracks with both projects. I'm doing this too. Mapping in FOSM in Australia with nearmap, agri (in the future for non-nearmap areas), surveyed data, gps tracks... I don't want to go backwards with the current data, and am quite happy with CC-BY-SA (I would prefer CC0, but I'm willing to compromise), I would like to keep using nearmap, decliners data and CC-BY data hence I'm uploading to FOSM. Also I want to minimise disruption to others since I've observed a larger number of constructive edits going into FOSM in Sydney than OSM, I'm going to keep contributing to FOSM as a service to others. I still support OSM though. For instance I recently visited Vancouver and collected a small amount of data. Since I'm not aware of a large fosm presence there and because I only used my own data sources I uploaded those edits to OSM rather than FOSM. I don't support a global FOSM. I support FOSM where there is a large active community of people who wish to keep using CC-BY-SA, but I support OSM if there isn't much fosm activity but lots of OSM activity in that area. On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.com wrote: For what it's worth, Nearmap seems to have suspended free imagery for personal use. It is now $49-99/month. I get redirected to this page when I try to access the website https://www.nearmap.com/packages I'm not surprised, and I could see they were heading down this path a long time ago. Since they abandoned the original founders idea of a media company (like Google) and instead turned the company in an imagery sales company trying to squeeze every dollar right now (like AAMHatch). Still not good news, lets see where this goes. Hopefully Ben can provide some insight. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Plea to Australian decliners
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Jack Burton j...@saosce.com.au wrote: On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 15:54 +0100, Grant Slater wrote: Australian Decliners, As a mapper, contributor and member of the project's sysadmin team I kindly ask you to please reconsider your declined status. Time is about to run out. I am a decliner, and contributed substantial amounts of data to the map (mainly in Adelaide, Melbourne Geelong) back in the early days of OSM (late 2007 to mid 2009), although I haven't made any edits in almost 2 years now (that's not OSM's fault -- I just haven't had the time recently). Whilst I'd prefer that my old contributions remained in use by the community, as originally intended, I still have reservations about the open-ended relicensing provisions of the new CTs. I've just re-read the CTs, and must admit they do look less objectionable to me now than when I first read them -- outside of the future reclicensing provisions (clause 3), I don't have any problem with them. Re those provisions, I still have one question, which I'm hoping someone on the list can address. Clause 3 talks about or such other free and open licence. I'm curious as to how free and open license is defined in this context. Both the FSD and the OSD speak specifically to software, not data. In the software world, there have been instances in the past of licenses claiming to be free or open source, without actually adhering to the FSD or OSD. I suspect the same will be true in years to come with respect to licensing of data. To agree to such a future relicensing provision, I think the parameters around it would need to be fairly well defined (not so open-ended). In the absence of a definition in the CTs themselves, that would mean a well-recognised definition of free and open license (with respect to data) existing somewhere else (like the FSD OSD do in the software domain). Can anyone point me to such a definition? Sure. As listed in the terms, the Open Knowledge Foundation has their Open Knowledge Definition. http://opendefinition.org/okd/ Which takes an approach similar to FSD / OSD, but with attention to data, rather than software. http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
