On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:55 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
But that doesn't mean that their content won't show up in a future ODBL
On 2011-07-08 16:14, Anthony wrote:
You're all missing the point, though. My contention is not that OSM
is a database of non-geographical facts (*). My contention is that it
consists of the *expression* of facts.
Just do be sure that I don't misunderstand you again:
This way:
way
On 2011-07-09 18:02, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Andreas Perstinger
This way:
way id=115031489 timestamp=2011-05-26T23:47:10Z uid=74617
user=JohnSmith visible=true version=1 changeset=8258292
nd ref=1300468480/
nd ref=1301344689/
nd ref=1301344690/
and one of the
So there won't be a problem if on day X the version of John Smith will
be removed from the database and on day X+2 I would enter one of the
versions I've shown, right?
Right, under the assumption both cannot be copyrighted,
not even under OdBL, being *fact*.
If they *are* copyrighted, no you
On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote:
The idea that the OSM database just reproduces geographical facts
is, quite frankly, laughable.
I would like to join the laughter so please show me an example of a
non-geographical fact in the database.
Bye, Andreas
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote:
The idea that the OSM database just reproduces geographical facts
is, quite frankly, laughable.
I would like to join the laughter so please show me an example of a
non-geographical fact in the
Geo-referenced facts?
And, all of your examples other even less potential to be a protected
work than your typical way.
Simon
Am 08.07.2011 09:10, schrieb Maarten Deen:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote:
The idea that the OSM
tags. The one major exception in the OSM database is administrative
boundaries.
cheers
Richard
[1] ok, and also the fact I get shouted at when I cycle up it the wrong way
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-license-change-effect-on-un-tagged-nodes
On 2011-07-08 09:10, Maarten Deen wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote:
The idea that the OSM database just reproduces geographical facts
is, quite frankly, laughable.
I would like to join the laughter so please show me
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 02:18:46 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Maarten Deen wrote:
Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value
of the highway tag is not a geographical fact.
Sure they are.
If I walk about 20 yards from my front door, there's a no entry
sign at a
On 08/07/11 10:31, Maarten Deen wrote:
IMHO that's stretching the geographic bit very far. Sure, the fact
that there is a sign is a geographic fact, but the fact that that
signifies something for the road or object that's there is just convention.
And highway value is certainly not
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 02:18:46 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Maarten Deen wrote:
Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value
of the highway tag is not a geographical fact.
Sure they are.
If I walk about 20 yards from my front door, there's a no entry
sign at a
On 08/07/11 13:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about
the location or presence of a road that makes it motorway or
tertiary. That is only because it is designated as such. That
designation can change
On 2011-07-06 23:31, John Smith wrote:
On 7 July 2011 07:25, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone retraces
a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at the current OSM
map or by just moving
On 7 July 2011 16:16, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
That's why I prefer PD because I believe there is no protection and so why
bother about licenses at all?
Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like
that, however morality often drives laws and
On 2011-07-07 08:24, John Smith wrote:
On 7 July 2011 16:16, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
That's why I prefer PD because I believe there is no protection and so why
bother about licenses at all?
Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like
Simon,
Andreas,
all,
when discussing these things with the person who goes by the
pseudonym of John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of
time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork.
The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of
motivations, the most
On 7 July 2011 16:58, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
While they started out wishing OSM to suffer the least possible damage,
their ego now forces them to demand the most rigid - even absurd - data
deletion policies for the license change lest they look like idiots for
starting a fork
Frederik, I'm fully aware of JS motives and tactics and normally avoid
getting sucked in to his endless threads.
But it was 2 am and I was just finishing tax returns and associated
book keeping. John Smith is a tiny bit more entertaining than that and I
needed a short break :-)
Simon
Am
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Simon,
Andreas,
all,
when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym of
John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time
building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork.
The forkers, as
cetest @ fosm.org
Van: 80n [mailto:80n...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:36 AM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
Simon
On 2011-07-07 08:58, Frederik Ramm wrote:
when discussing these things with the person who goes by the
pseudonym of John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of
time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork.
I know who John Smith and his fellows are and I even read their
On 2011-07-07 08:39, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Andreas Perstinger
No (see above). But I think it's more a question of morality and adhering to
community guidelines. Legally I don't see any problems using informations
from any map (or aerial imagery).
But using
On 2011-07-07 09:35, 80n wrote:
Data loss is your problem not ours. I see people doing thought experiments
about how they can get around the wishes of contributors who have, in good
faith, provided their content under the CC license. Those people who have
not agreed to the CT have not
On 2011-07-07 08:48, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2011-07-07 08:24, John Smith wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like
that, however morality often drives laws and they tend seem
On 2011-07-07 19:55, John Smith wrote:
On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
But that doesn't mean that their content won't show up in a future ODBL
map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but
perhaps you would: How far away
+1
Gert
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 7 juli 2011 19:55
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger
On 07/07/11 20:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
+1
/2
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Sorry for replying late but I had to leave for the night shift yesterday.
On 2011-07-05 15:28, John Smith wrote:
On 5 July 2011 23:04, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
What do you consider as same result? How far away do I have to place a node?
If I put one additional
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 9:17 PM
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 02:49, ce-test, qualified testing
On 02/07/2011 17:15, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags
on it. Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not
accepted the CT, while B has.
Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of the license
change?
Hi,
Dave F. wrote:
I must be missing something, because I believe this discussion is a
complete waste of time.
It is good that you have the modesty to assume that you're missing
something rather than 10 others are completely wasting their time ;) in
this case you are indeed missing (or I
On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I
started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792,
152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the
On 7 July 2011 04:20, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I
started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792,
On 06/07/2011 18:29, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Dave F. wrote:
I must be missing something, because I believe this discussion is a
complete waste of time.
It is good that you have the modesty to assume that you're missing
something rather than 10 others are completely wasting their time ;)
On 2011-07-06 20:23, John Smith wrote:
On 7 July 2011 04:20, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I
started JOSM, opened a new layer, added
On 7 July 2011 06:12, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
But even if I'm just one person the question still remains: Do you consider
any of these 4 versions a violation of your copyright?
Are you planning to try and replace all my work one way at a time like this?
Which is of
On 2011-07-06 22:17, John Smith wrote:
Are you planning to try and replace all my work one way at a time like this?
No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone
retraces a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at
the current OSM map or by just moving
On 7 July 2011 07:25, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone retraces
a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at the current OSM
map or by just moving randomly some nodes.The same goes for
IMHO
On 7 July 2011 08:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Google in addition have their ToS.
So one person copies tiles and breaches contract and gives them to
another person who is only bound by copyright ...
___
legal-talk mailing list
On 06/07/2011 21:04, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote:
Dave F. wrote:
If one of these gets moved then the whole way gets updated,
No.
Substantively, that is what happens, but technically, in the database,
it is not.
In the database, we
Am 06.07.2011 20:31, schrieb John Smith:
On 6 July 2011 18:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
[GG] I was not talking about copyright. Copyright laws are of no use
in the digital era,
You were talking about databases, however databases can still store
On 7 July 2011 09:34, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in
the data they
contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on
jurisdiction and so
on, and my take on it would be: probably not. For all
Am 06.07.2011 23:25, schrieb Andreas Perstinger:
BTW I've just found some high court decisions which clearly state that
a map (and its content) isn't protected by copyright automatically
here in Austria. You have to prove individual creativity. Just
reproducing geographical facts like
On 7 July 2011 09:47, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Normally none of them lead to a protected work and nobody would confuse it
for creativity
I'm not sure if I'm more amused that you have to try and scale things
down to the size of a brick or the fact that even you state it's the
morally
Am 07.07.2011 01:40, schrieb John Smith:
On 7 July 2011 09:34, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote:
That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in
the data they
contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on
jurisdiction and so
on, and my take
Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection,
which are rather recent
and had nothing to do with morals.
Simon
Am 07.07.2011 01:54, schrieb John Smith:
On 7 July 2011 09:47, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote:
Normally none of them lead to a protected work and
On 7 July 2011 10:04, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection,
which are rather recent
and had nothing to do with morals.
I didn't know the late 1800s was considered rather recent
___
Am 07.07.2011 01:56, schrieb Anthony:
...
There certainly is creativity involved in making a brick wall.
Choosing a herringbone bond vs. a stretcher bond, for instance. And in
some cases it can be copyrightable - not if it's just a herringbone or
a stretcher bond, but if the pattern is
In terms of laws, sure.
Am 07.07.2011 02:08, schrieb John Smith:
On 7 July 2011 10:04, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote:
Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection,
which are rather recent
and had nothing to do with morals.
I didn't know the late 1800s was
Well 300 to 400 years earlier (as in printing press with movable
letters) which doesn't make it recent,
but still twice as old as copyright law.
The main point however is that copyright law has a economic motivation,
not moral as you imply.
Simon
Am 07.07.2011 02:12, schrieb John Smith:
On 7 July 2011 10:20, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
Well 300 to 400 years earlier (as in printing press with movable letters)
which doesn't make it recent,
but still twice as old as copyright law.
The main point however is that copyright law has a economic motivation, not
moral as you
- Original Message -
From: Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM
John Smith deltafoxtrot256@... writes:
On 5 July 2011 05:42, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaakko@... wrote:
But nevertheless _I_ would say that copyright/IPR-wise there's 0% left of
anything protectable if (1) someone's e.g. traced a road from imagery, but
has only marked it with, say,
:37:51
To: Licensing and other legal discussions.legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
- Original Message -
From: Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa
On 6 July 2011 02:49, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
I doubt if any effort in re-creating a map database of the real world
can be classified as creative work,
as the mapper inevitably tries to copy reality to the best of his
effort, and any deviation is
Hi,
John Smith writes:
On 4 July 2011 22:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO the node position is never a derived work when it is updated. So
for the case of the untagged node (if isolated an not part of a way,
i.e. unlikely) we could keep the whole object.
The
Hi,
John Smith wrote:
In both cases, either tagging something as clean or deleting and
re-adding assumes good faith, we already know people copy data from
incompatible sources, what's to stop someone simple cutting and
pasting data or mass tagging ways as clean?
Nothing. But assuming good
2011/7/2 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
Hi,
suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags on it.
Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not accepted the CT,
while B has.
Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of the license
On 4 July 2011 22:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO the node position is never a derived work when it is updated. So
for the case of the untagged node (if isolated an not part of a way,
i.e. unlikely) we could keep the whole object.
The position of nodes are often
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com
wrote:
The position of nodes are often derived from the position of other nodes.
Nothing of me is original. I am the combined effort of everyone I've ever
known. (1)
and hence the secret of
Creativity is knowing how to hide
Frederik,
On a related note, what if
Mapper A has traced a road from (now) uncompliant imagery.
Mapper B has surveyed the road but had decided to leave A's hard work in
place and just add the road's name.
Mapper A now decides to withdraw from the OSM project and not relicence his
Hi,
suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags
on it. Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not
accepted the CT, while B has.
Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of the license
change?
You could say: yes, because version 2 is
On 3 July 2011 02:15, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags on it.
Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not accepted the CT,
while B has.
Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of
64 matches
Mail list logo
