Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 18:08, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On Jul 8, 2011, at 2:57, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'. The solution to the problem of We chose a licence and impose terms on contributors that's incompatible with most sources of data isn't to go to each source of data individually to try to get them to relicence. That's as ridiculous as choosing a GPL-incompatible software licence and then whining that you can't legally incorporate all those wonderful GPL licenced projects into yours. I wouldn't say we chose it. We were told by legal that cc didn't work, so we spent a lot of time evolving the odbl (originally started by cc folks) and the CTs. It might look from that side of the planet that it was a hand of god type decision, but that's not the case. It's been multiple years of work around every possible solution. Also, your frame of reference is with OSM up and running and having these kinds of relationships. When I started OSM we had no data at all and nobody wanted to give us data under any license, let alone cc. So those of us who climbed the mountain to get those people to give us data see asking people to switch (such as ordnance survey for example) as a far smaller problem. The difference now is the licensing debate has turned away many of the most enthusiastic contributors in Australia. It's now no longer just a technical or legal issue, but also one of community management. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty seems quite relevant as people are choosing to leave the community having seen their voices ignored. Arguably this is worse than how you started with organisations not giving you data, since it's people that change organisations. James Andrewartha ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 9 July 2011 02:10, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes because most of the community I'm familiar with, which is all of the EU and the US, consider government data a nice starting point but mappers on the ground as generally much better. Is the perception in Australia that you should just do whatever the government says you should do? Or that OSM should just be a host for government data? No, we also think the mappers on the ground are much better. But we can't upload the government data ourselves as we don't have the rights the CTs require. Why should we have to wait for government agencies to upload the data themselves (if they can even agree to the CTs themselves) when we could just do it ourselves with the data they release? Well by not being defeatest for a start. What I think I'm trying to get across is that we convinced our governments, in fact these days they want to be involved with OSM rather than OSM going to them to be involved. So, why is it different in australia? Is there a culture of submitting to the government (which would be the opposite of the US, but closer to the UK) or something? What are the sticking points, and how are they different from the sticking points we managed to go through in the EU and US? I haven't dealt with government agencies myself, but I can't say I've see any Australian ones wanting to be involved with OSM, as opposed to just releasing their data under liberal licenses in general. From their point of view, what does OSM offer them that they can't do with a PSMA license that they probably already have? James Andrewartha ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Sorry for the way he is treating you Liz. Liz is like the grandma of osm. She has been a tireless supporter, She spent months helping in OSM kosovo and flossk. She dontated laptops, gps devices and lots of love. I dont know if you follow that at all steve, but I am shocked how you are speaking to her. Steve, please be a little more respectful of your elders, thanks, mike On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: On 7/8/2011 2:01 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:05:28 -0700 Steve Coastst...@asklater.com wrote: If you go look at talk@ you'll find a lot of history from the people who now inhabit this list. In fact, several of them have either been banned or moderated. big snip of trash I've known them for a lot longer than you have it seems, and as I mention they've been kicked, banned or moderated before. I have not been kicked, banned or moderated, not on any list in my life. Don't you ever say Hello? Am I missing out on something here? Why am I discriminated against? Are such questions on your mind often? I can confirm that other mappers have received emails telling them that their views are well known, and don't require repeating. Likewise I can confirm that All Blokes is not a pseudonym of John Smith. I see. And to return to the topic I'm hardly mapping anything now - since the big argument blew up I have little interest and decided to do some other things. Did you come to me because you are hardly mapping anything now - since the big argument blew up you have little interest and decided to do some other things? __**_ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-auhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au __**_ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-auhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
At the time that I stopped, that's right, there was no other aerial imagery. I just checked again now and Bing actually seems pretty ok... Maybe I'll start again sometime...but honestly, I'm not really in the mood lately. Maybe after a steak dinner or two... :P On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: Why did you stop then? Is there no aerial imagery where you are other than nearmap? On 7/7/2011 8:03 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: ...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) Yup, I'm waiting... (I just wanted to point out why I have stopped contributing - it's not in protest, and not because I've been perverted by 80n. Thanks for your responses anyway.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7/7/2011 9:37 PM, James Andrewartha wrote: On 8 July 2011 11:26, SteveCst...@asklater.com wrote: This reads like you disagree with taxation or death. I do too, but there's not much I can do about it. The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the wrong place or a moral objection to various aspects of intellectual property law. While I agree that it's not perfect, I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who doesn't like his countries laws. Unless you have a reasonable solution or I have misunderstood? I am quite happy with my country's laws, which don't include database right, and don't want to promote such a concept. Right, and I agree with you. But, stopping contributing to OSM or not helping the project as a whole by refusing to move license with the rest of us is a poor way of protesting the promotion of these concepts. I don't like them either, but here we are. It would be difficult and complicated to carve out exceptions just for you or just for Australia. What do you mean by throw everything away? Who is throwing what away? I mean throw away the efforts of all the licensing work we've done because one guy doesn't like technical detail X or has moral objection Y. That is, that we have spent many man years on this and there is no way to make everyone happy. We tried hard and it's time to move on. Also, once we're switched it's much easier to make the kind of fixes you want as subsequent switches are orders of magnitude more easy. Thus, lets put our minor differences aside and work for the greater goals we have, like mapping the world. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Good to hear there is aerial now in your area, I hope you will continue to improve the map. Personally I've been adding lots of housenumbers lately. I find it weird that it's not as boring as I think it should be. Steve On 7/7/2011 11:13 PM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: At the time that I stopped, that's right, there was no other aerial imagery. I just checked again now and Bing actually seems pretty ok... Maybe I'll start again sometime...but honestly, I'm not really in the mood lately. Maybe after a steak dinner or two... :P On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote: Why did you stop then? Is there no aerial imagery where you are other than nearmap? On 7/7/2011 8:03 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote: ...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) Yup, I'm waiting... (I just wanted to point out why I have stopped contributing - it's not in protest, and not because I've been perverted by 80n. Thanks for your responses anyway.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: [ rubbish about Australians being led astray by some guy] It's hard to fix that, however I am resourceful. You're an immature brat who thinks shouting loudest and longest means you win the argument. That's not resourcefulness. It's impossible to carry on any kind of rational debate with someone who can't comprehend that others may disagree with them. The first step is to meet your clownmails message-for-message so you don't automatically have the loudest voice. By pointing out the simple facts and having you talk past them and get to the real issues (you want to rile people like me up, make us fret and worry) it is now clear to a rational observer what the intentions are. Here's what this rational and until now unengaged observer sees: You are a closed-minded person who assumes people who disagree with you are doing it for the lulz rather than because they genuinely have a different opinion. I don't know who 80n is or what he's done, so don't dismiss my opinion as just another rube being led astray. I think your nightmare scenario is that I fly to Australia and sit in the pub and discuss the real reasons you're so upset. Please do so. Your communication skills in this medium are atrocious, maybe in person you're not such an arse. -- 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] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Sam Underlaying your attacks is the notion that I dismiss people who disagree with me, or that I can't understand different points of view. I find that strange given my rational responses to several disagreements on this list and outlaying where I feel misunderstandings have come from. I have also agreed with the points of view of several people but still shared why I came to a different conclusion while still understanding their perspective. Thus, it's difficult to understand why you feel I'm being dismissive. Steve stevecoast.com PS - Your ad hominem attack, while not bad, isn't as piercing as the good old days on the talk@ list. If you go back over that list I'm sure you can find much stronger words than brat used. By using those old posts you should be able to construct far more cutting and personal jibes. Perhaps mention my mother, or the size of my genitalia. By doing so, I'm sure you will achieve your goals. PPS - I too was adolescent and used to attach PGP fingerprints to my e-mails. It's sad we don't use more encryption. On Jul 8, 2011, at 2:28, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: [ rubbish about Australians being led astray by some guy] It's hard to fix that, however I am resourceful. You're an immature brat who thinks shouting loudest and longest means you win the argument. That's not resourcefulness. It's impossible to carry on any kind of rational debate with someone who can't comprehend that others may disagree with them. The first step is to meet your clownmails message-for-message so you don't automatically have the loudest voice. By pointing out the simple facts and having you talk past them and get to the real issues (you want to rile people like me up, make us fret and worry) it is now clear to a rational observer what the intentions are. Here's what this rational and until now unengaged observer sees: You are a closed-minded person who assumes people who disagree with you are doing it for the lulz rather than because they genuinely have a different opinion. I don't know who 80n is or what he's done, so don't dismiss my opinion as just another rube being led astray. I think your nightmare scenario is that I fly to Australia and sit in the pub and discuss the real reasons you're so upset. Please do so. Your communication skills in this medium are atrocious, maybe in person you're not such an arse. -- Sam Couter | mailto:s...@couter.id.au OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05 5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'. The solution to the problem of We chose a licence and impose terms on contributors that's incompatible with most sources of data isn't to go to each source of data individually to try to get them to relicence. That's as ridiculous as choosing a GPL-incompatible software licence and then whining that you can't legally incorporate all those wonderful GPL licenced projects into yours. So while no doubt nearmap is a great resource and it's a shame they no longer want to be involved, it's clear that the majority do - even large sclerotic government institutions are being agile and helpful about this. I don't think you understand the depths of recalcitrance when it comes to the Australian government. Having data released under CC licences at all was a huge leap, there's effectively zero chance of OSM being able to licence the data under ODbL. The federal and state governments just don't care. -- 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] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Jul 8, 2011, at 2:57, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote: Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'. The solution to the problem of We chose a licence and impose terms on contributors that's incompatible with most sources of data isn't to go to each source of data individually to try to get them to relicence. That's as ridiculous as choosing a GPL-incompatible software licence and then whining that you can't legally incorporate all those wonderful GPL licenced projects into yours. I wouldn't say we chose it. We were told by legal that cc didn't work, so we spent a lot of time evolving the odbl (originally started by cc folks) and the CTs. It might look from that side of the planet that it was a hand of god type decision, but that's not the case. It's been multiple years of work around every possible solution. Also, your frame of reference is with OSM up and running and having these kinds of relationships. When I started OSM we had no data at all and nobody wanted to give us data under any license, let alone cc. So those of us who climbed the mountain to get those people to give us data see asking people to switch (such as ordnance survey for example) as a far smaller problem. So while no doubt nearmap is a great resource and it's a shame they no longer want to be involved, it's clear that the majority do - even large sclerotic government institutions are being agile and helpful about this. I don't think you understand the depths of recalcitrance when it comes to the Australian government. I think I have an idea, I used to campaign around issues like identity cards and encryption in Britain. Having data released under CC licences at all was a huge leap, there's effectively zero chance of OSM being able to licence the data under ODbL. The federal and state governments just don't care. Im confused that I was discussing nearmap but you jumped to the government, what am I missing? In any case, as someone who built this project and has convinced many organizations and government agencies to open up, I urge you to have a longer timeframe outlook. These types of agencies tend to get with it in the end. Even the ordnance survey has, for example. -- Sam Couter | mailto:s...@couter.id.au OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05 5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Jul 8, 2011, at 3:10, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote: SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Sam Underlaying your attacks is the notion that I dismiss people who disagree with me, or that I can't understand different points of view. I find that strange given my rational responses to several disagreements on this list and outlaying where I feel misunderstandings have come from. I have also agreed with the points of view of several people but still shared why I came to a different conclusion while still understanding their perspective. Thus, it's difficult to understand why you feel I'm being dismissive. You blame misunderstandings on trolls instead of genuine disagreement, No, John smith and friends are a separate issue, they troll many different discussions. you have stated multiple times there's no reason to decline the CT's, Actually no, I've said im unaware of any reasons not to accept (given we fixed near map, we fixed ordnance survey...) which is not the same as saying there aren't any. you have denied any problems with licence incompatibility. Where did I do that? I think I mention multiple times how many problems we have had in many areas. These aren't rational responses of someone who accepts that others have differring opinions. PS - Your ad hominem attack, while not bad, isn't as piercing as the good old days on the talk@ list. If you go back over that list I'm sure you can find much stronger words than brat used. By using those old posts you should be able to construct far more cutting and personal jibes. Perhaps mention my mother, or the size of my genitalia. By doing so, I'm sure you will achieve your goals. I hate to sound like a third-grader, but you started the ad hominem. I did, where? I don't like to do it and I definitely wasn't going for piercing. PPS - I too was adolescent and used to attach PGP fingerprints to my e-mails. It's sad we don't use more encryption. 8/10. I nearly bit. -- Sam Couter | mailto:s...@couter.id.au OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05 5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
I like Andrew's message below as I am Interested in what others are doing and why. So below is what effects the licence has had on me and I hope I might encourage others to share what they will be doing. Hopefully this might help us all make more informed decisions, knowing what Australians plan to do and why. I know whatever I admit I am doing some people will disagree (very strongly in some cases). I don't intend to argue my position. Frankly I see no enjoyment or profit in such arguments. My silence on any rebuttal does not imply I am convinced with an excellent argument only that I have chosen not to reply. Now the effect the licence change has made to me. One sentence overview: On the whole I have become disillusioned and have stopped adding to any database and have vastly curtailed my use of open map data. Why? Well I did use CC-BY-SA OSM data in three areas and no project fills all those needs for me anymore. Area 1. Creating maps for internal web based applications in a mid-sized listed Australian company. As soon as it was discovered that OSM was moving from the familiar CC-BY-SA licence to an unfamiliar licence I was instructed to use a Microsoft product instead. The reason being that the legal cost of reviewing any unfamiliar licence would far exceed the cost of a Microsoft product we were being offered. (CC-BY-SA was easy. We went to our in-house council and they passed on to us a free document from one of the big legal firms going over the pros, cons and risks.) The time and money has been invested now so there will be no coming back from the decision in the near term. Area 2. my own little mapping applications .and preventing my contributions being exploited Same unfamiliar licence issue as above. I could read the licence myself but I am not a lawyer. I could pay a lawyer but I have better uses for my money. FOSM is probably the best alternative. Area 3. Maps on various Garmin GPSrs Sites such as www.osmaustralia.org enable me to easily use OSM maps on my GPSrs. These maps tend to be much better for bush trails and I can of course help improve them. OSM is still the best for these. On the whole I have put mapping out of my mind to come back to later. I have done similar things with other hobbies. Maybe I will come back to it like I did wargaming or maybe it will still be sitting (metaphorically) in the garage in 20 years like my model trains have been. Mark (aka NilbogAus) From: Andrew Harvey Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2011 9:30 PM To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes Since the ban on all contributors who didn't sign the CTs, and ban on all new contributors from using NearMap and other CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources, I'm no longer actively contributing to the OSM database. Instead I am now actively contributing to the fosm database. I am interested to hear what other active Australian OSM contributors will be doing now. Just looking through the list at http://odbl.de/australia.html we have a fair amount of people who have been locked out, and also people who ticked the CTs who have used CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources in the past who may want to keep this data and continue using these sources in the future. So, active Australian OSM contributors, are you staying with the OSM db? If so how are you going to do edits going forward, because any CC-BY-SA derived data you add may be removed if OSM abandons CC-BY-SA at some point in the future (or may even be conflicting with your agreed CTs now...). Are you moving to the fosm db? If so, great! Less problems with trying to merge your data into fosm, and we can all get back to mapping. Do you have any concerns over the switch? Are you going to stop contributing data altogether? Or are you putting you efforts on hold at the moment. I'm interested in Australia wide, but I'm personally most interested to hear from Franc, behemoth14, rrankin, Zhent, Ebenezer, swanilli, inas, Diego, good2010, dexgps. (these are just those that come to mind from looking over recent edits in the Sydney area) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I wouldn't say we chose it. We were told by legal that cc didn't work, so we spent a lot of time evolving the odbl (originally started by cc folks) and the CTs. It might look from that side of the planet that it was a hand of god type decision, but that's not the case. It's been multiple years of work around every possible solution. I didn't mean that you and some secret cabal conspired in secret, I meant that OSM-F chose it by whatever process. I also understand that the process was quite long and involved. The end result of the licence being chosen was the important part for my comment, not the process by which it was chosen. Also, your frame of reference is with OSM up and running and having these kinds of relationships. When I started OSM we had no data at all and nobody wanted to give us data under any license, let alone cc. So those of us who climbed the mountain to get those people to give us data see asking people to switch (such as ordnance survey for example) as a far smaller problem. I don't see it as a small problem. Australian government data is mostly released under CC licences, which are widely compatible with most open uses. They've hit the 99% mark, so there's not a lot of motivation to change further. OSM-F has placed OSM in the remaining 1%. Im confused that I was discussing nearmap but you jumped to the government, what am I missing? The bit where you mentioned large sclerotic government institutions. I think we've just about covered Nearmap, and the government sources in Australia are collectively the next biggest potential data source. In any case, as someone who built this project and has convinced many organizations and government agencies to open up, I urge you to have a longer timeframe outlook. These types of agencies tend to get with it in the end. Even the ordnance survey has, for example. You've mentioned Ordnance Survey many times. Are they the only success story? Australian agencies have already gotten with it. We have data available under various open licences. How are Australians supposed to go to the Australian government agencies (individually, of course) and explain that while it's exactly what we've been asking for for a long time, it's not good enough because one specific project chose a licence based on concerns that they needed to protect rights that don't exist in Australia or even in the majority of the world? -- 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] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: No, John smith and friends are a separate issue, they troll many different discussions. Who are and friends? I only watch talk-au so if there's trolling going on elsewhere I haven't seen it. What I have seen is you dismissing others as being deliberately disruptive or as having hidden agendas, instead of addressing what they actually say. Actually no, I've said im unaware of any reasons not to accept (given we fixed near map, we fixed ordnance survey...) which is not the same as saying there aren't any. Many reasons have been given. I'll give you my two biggest right now: Eternal, irrevocable rights grant and indeterminate future licencing. For my own contributions using my own GPS traces and survey work, that's one thing. I haven't yet decided if I'll create a new OSM account and click Accept, I've clicked Decline for my existing OSM account because of the sources I've used in the past. But I can't agree to the CTs when I'm using CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Nearmap isn't the problem and doesn't need fixing, ODbL is. Maybe it can't be fixed any time soon, but denying that it's a problem doesn't help. you have denied any problems with licence incompatibility. Where did I do that? I think I mention multiple times how many problems we have had in many areas. You seem to think that all the Australian CC-BY and CC-BY-SA data that has been imported can either be kept, which seems unlawful to me, or deleted without considering it any real loss. [Sam:] I hate to sound like a third-grader, but you started the ad hominem. I did, where? The first message I replied to. Accusing others of hidden agendas or riling you up for no reason other than enjoyment. -- 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] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
I was quietly reading this list until I saw my name, so here's my reply about what I plan to do. I only map from my traces and therefore the change of license doesn't affect me (does it?) so my plan is to keep mapping OSM. I'll keep checking fosm.orgevery now and then but so far I can't reach it. Anyway, these days I'm holidaying in Asahikawa, a town mostly uncharted, a paradise for mappers :-) what you see is virtually my own: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.763190507lon=142.38959312439zoom=14 Diego From: Andrew Harvey Sent: Wednesday, 6 July 2011 9:30 PM To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes Since the ban on all contributors who didn't sign the CTs, and ban on all new contributors from using NearMap and other CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources, I'm no longer actively contributing to the OSM database. Instead I am now actively contributing to the fosm database. I am interested to hear what other active Australian OSM contributors will be doing now. Just looking through the list at http://odbl.de/australia.html we have a fair amount of people who have been locked out, and also people who ticked the CTs who have used CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources in the past who may want to keep this data and continue using these sources in the future. So, active Australian OSM contributors, are you staying with the OSM db? If so how are you going to do edits going forward, because any CC-BY-SA derived data you add may be removed if OSM abandons CC-BY-SA at some point in the future (or may even be conflicting with your agreed CTs now...). Are you moving to the fosm db? If so, great! Less problems with trying to merge your data into fosm, and we can all get back to mapping. Do you have any concerns over the switch? Are you going to stop contributing data altogether? Or are you putting you efforts on hold at the moment. I'm interested in Australia wide, but I'm personally most interested to hear from Franc, behemoth14, rrankin, Zhent, Ebenezer, swanilli, inas, Diego, good2010, dexgps. (these are just those that come to mind from looking over recent edits in the Sydney area) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: I mean throw away the efforts of all the licensing work we've done because one guy doesn't like technical detail X or has moral objection Y. That is, that we have spent many man years on this and there is no way to make everyone happy. We tried hard and it's time to move on. Also, once we're switched it's much easier to make the kind of fixes you want as subsequent switches are orders of magnitude more easy. Thus, lets put our minor differences aside and work for the greater goals we have, like mapping the world. I for one think a partnership between FOSM and OSMF would be a great thing. We *are* both trying to map the world. I've made this invitation before but I'd like to make it again: Work with us to help preserve, and keep up to date, the CC-BY-SA data which otherwise would be left to rot in a static final dump. If you believe, as you say, that CC-BY-SA might work out the problems (which you say are minor) in the 4.0 license, then you'll be especially glad you have FOSM to help you switch back. There's no reason that FOSM and OSMF have to have a hostile relationship. We're both trying to map the world, under the license we deem most appropriate. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7/8/2011 5:04 AM, Sam Couter wrote: SteveCst...@asklater.com wrote: No, John smith and friends are a separate issue, they troll many different discussions. Who are and friends? I only watch talk-au so if there's trolling going on elsewhere I haven't seen it. What I have seen is you dismissing others as being deliberately disruptive or as having hidden agendas, instead of addressing what they actually say. Ah, you need some context. If you go look at talk@ you'll find a lot of history from the people who now inhabit this list. In fact, several of them have either been banned or moderated. Actually no, I've said im unaware of any reasons not to accept (given we fixed near map, we fixed ordnance survey...) which is not the same as saying there aren't any. Many reasons have been given. I'll give you my two biggest right now: Eternal, irrevocable rights grant and indeterminate future licencing. Well the eternal right thing applies to CC and most other licenses, so I suspect that you don't like who the licensee is, OSMF? That's the reason it's shaped that the OSMF immediately license it back. From what I remember, our legal advice was there has to be a licensing party that things are assigned to in order to make it work. As for future licensing, do you have a better idea? As I've said, if we gave a more strict definition then a whole lot more people would complain, if it was more loose then more would complain. So the line has to be drawn somewhere and the LWG chose that balance. I doubt very much we could draw the line anywhere else without more, not less, problems. For my own contributions using my own GPS traces and survey work, that's one thing. I haven't yet decided if I'll create a new OSM account and click Accept, I've clicked Decline for my existing OSM account because of the sources I've used in the past. But I can't agree to the CTs when I'm using CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Nearmap isn't the problem and doesn't need fixing, ODbL is. Maybe it can't be fixed any time soon, but denying that it's a problem doesn't help. You keep repeating that I am deny all these problems. Could you go back and read, as above, where I point out all sorts of problems and it's about finding a balance? Whatever we do, there will be problems. you have denied any problems with licence incompatibility. Where did I do that? I think I mention multiple times how many problems we have had in many areas. You seem to think that all the Australian CC-BY and CC-BY-SA data that has been imported can either be kept, which seems unlawful to me, or deleted without considering it any real loss. You keep doing this too. Where do I say anything of the sort? I have no idea what this data is you're referring to, or what license it's under. Why do you assume I do know all about it? Of course you can't just relicence data without permission, and of course we want to minimize deletion. Why don't you start at the beginning and explain what, where and when this data was imported? Did you ever bring it up with the LWG? [Sam:] I hate to sound like a third-grader, but you started the ad hominem. I did, where? The first message I replied to. Accusing others of hidden agendas or riling you up for no reason other than enjoyment. I've known them for a lot longer than you have it seems, and as I mention they've been kicked, banned or moderated before. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7/8/2011 4:28 AM, Sam Couter wrote: Also, your frame of reference is with OSM up and running and having these kinds of relationships. When I started OSM we had no data at all and nobody wanted to give us data under any license, let alone cc. So those of us who climbed the mountain to get those people to give us data see asking people to switch (such as ordnance survey for example) as a far smaller problem. I don't see it as a small problem. Australian government data is mostly released under CC licences, which are widely compatible with most open uses. They've hit the 99% mark, so there's not a lot of motivation to change further. OSM-F has placed OSM in the remaining 1%. Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes because most of the community I'm familiar with, which is all of the EU and the US, consider government data a nice starting point but mappers on the ground as generally much better. Is the perception in Australia that you should just do whatever the government says you should do? Or that OSM should just be a host for government data? Im confused that I was discussing nearmap but you jumped to the government, what am I missing? The bit where you mentioned large sclerotic government institutions. I think we've just about covered Nearmap, and the government sources in Australia are collectively the next biggest potential data source. So they're only a potential source, things have not been imported? In any case, as someone who built this project and has convinced many organizations and government agencies to open up, I urge you to have a longer timeframe outlook. These types of agencies tend to get with it in the end. Even the ordnance survey has, for example. You've mentioned Ordnance Survey many times. Are they the only success story? No, we have lots, just read the LWG minutes. Australian agencies have already gotten with it. We have data available under various open licences. How are Australians supposed to go to the Australian government agencies (individually, of course) and explain that while it's exactly what we've been asking for for a long time, it's not good enough because one specific project chose a licence based on concerns that they needed to protect rights that don't exist in Australia or even in the majority of the world? Well by not being defeatest for a start. What I think I'm trying to get across is that we convinced our governments, in fact these days they want to be involved with OSM rather than OSM going to them to be involved. So, why is it different in australia? Is there a culture of submitting to the government (which would be the opposite of the US, but closer to the UK) or something? What are the sticking points, and how are they different from the sticking points we managed to go through in the EU and US? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Anthony The reason we have a hostile relationship is because of all your spamming and trolling. You were kicked from the legal list, the only person I'm aware of to have managed that. I suspect the real reason you want a nice relationship is funding and other benefits we've worked hard for, while refusing to help with the community process to switch licenses. At this point really the positive gestures need to come from you, for example helping us switch so we can all (including FOSM) move on. Steve On 7/8/2011 6:23 AM, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Steve Coastst...@asklater.com wrote: I mean throw away the efforts of all the licensing work we've done because one guy doesn't like technical detail X or has moral objection Y. That is, that we have spent many man years on this and there is no way to make everyone happy. We tried hard and it's time to move on. Also, once we're switched it's much easier to make the kind of fixes you want as subsequent switches are orders of magnitude more easy. Thus, lets put our minor differences aside and work for the greater goals we have, like mapping the world. I for one think a partnership between FOSM and OSMF would be a great thing. We *are* both trying to map the world. I've made this invitation before but I'd like to make it again: Work with us to help preserve, and keep up to date, the CC-BY-SA data which otherwise would be left to rot in a static final dump. If you believe, as you say, that CC-BY-SA might work out the problems (which you say are minor) in the 4.0 license, then you'll be especially glad you have FOSM to help you switch back. There's no reason that FOSM and OSMF have to have a hostile relationship. We're both trying to map the world, under the license we deem most appropriate. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: Anthony The reason we have a hostile relationship is because of all your spamming and trolling. I'm not FOSM, so that's rather irrelevant, even if it were true. I also thought that relationship had been mended, as the previous conversation we had was cordial. You were kicked from the legal list, the only person I'm aware of to have managed that. I was placed on moderation on the legal list. I have no idea if I am unique in that respect. I suspect the real reason you want a nice relationship is funding and other benefits we've worked hard for, while refusing to help with the community process to switch licenses. I'm not interested in your funding. Not in the least. You're right that I think I would benefit from a nice relationship, though. And you're right that I don't want to help the community switch licenses, as I don't agree with the new license (I explained that to you last time we emailed, which apparently you've forgotten). As you say that the license disagreement is a minor difference, I'm not sure why you're harping on it. I agree with you that we both have much more in common in our greater goals of mapping the world. At this point really the positive gestures need to come from you, for example helping us switch so we can all (including FOSM) move on. If the only way you are willing to have a mutually beneficial relationship is if I/we/FOSM/CommonMap agree to help you switch to a license that I/we/FOSM/CommonMap do not approve, then it's not going to happen. I cannot support a switch to the ODbL. But I am very much willing and interested in supporting OSMF in its larger goal of mapping the world. Anthony On 7/8/2011 6:23 AM, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Steve Coastst...@asklater.com wrote: I mean throw away the efforts of all the licensing work we've done because one guy doesn't like technical detail X or has moral objection Y. That is, that we have spent many man years on this and there is no way to make everyone happy. We tried hard and it's time to move on. Also, once we're switched it's much easier to make the kind of fixes you want as subsequent switches are orders of magnitude more easy. Thus, lets put our minor differences aside and work for the greater goals we have, like mapping the world. I for one think a partnership between FOSM and OSMF would be a great thing. We *are* both trying to map the world. I've made this invitation before but I'd like to make it again: Work with us to help preserve, and keep up to date, the CC-BY-SA data which otherwise would be left to rot in a static final dump. If you believe, as you say, that CC-BY-SA might work out the problems (which you say are minor) in the 4.0 license, then you'll be especially glad you have FOSM to help you switch back. There's no reason that FOSM and OSMF have to have a hostile relationship. We're both trying to map the world, under the license we deem most appropriate. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: At this point really the positive gestures need to come from you, for example helping us switch so we can all (including FOSM) move on. If the only way you are willing to have a mutually beneficial relationship is if I/we/FOSM/CommonMap agree to help you switch to a license that I/we/FOSM/CommonMap do not approve, then it's not going to happen. I cannot support a switch to the ODbL. But I am very much willing and interested in supporting OSMF in its larger goal of mapping the world. Anthony In case you missed my previous email to explaining this (and for the benefit of those who didn't receive it), my main sticking point is this: If you publicly use any adapted version of this database, or works produced from an adapted database, you must also offer that adapted database under the ODbL. I find that to be completely infeasible from a technical standpoint. I don't keep around copies of my adapted databases after I create a produced work from it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:05:28 -0700 Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: If you go look at talk@ you'll find a lot of history from the people who now inhabit this list. In fact, several of them have either been banned or moderated. big snip of trash I've known them for a lot longer than you have it seems, and as I mention they've been kicked, banned or moderated before. I have not been kicked, banned or moderated, not on any list in my life. Am I missing out on something here? Why am I discriminated against? I can confirm that other mappers have received emails telling them that their views are well known, and don't require repeating. Likewise I can confirm that All Blokes is not a pseudonym of John Smith. And to return to the topic I'm hardly mapping anything now - since the big argument blew up I have little interest and decided to do some other things. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7/8/2011 2:01 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:05:28 -0700 Steve Coastst...@asklater.com wrote: If you go look at talk@ you'll find a lot of history from the people who now inhabit this list. In fact, several of them have either been banned or moderated. big snip of trash I've known them for a lot longer than you have it seems, and as I mention they've been kicked, banned or moderated before. I have not been kicked, banned or moderated, not on any list in my life. Don't you ever say Hello? Am I missing out on something here? Why am I discriminated against? Are such questions on your mind often? I can confirm that other mappers have received emails telling them that their views are well known, and don't require repeating. Likewise I can confirm that All Blokes is not a pseudonym of John Smith. I see. And to return to the topic I'm hardly mapping anything now - since the big argument blew up I have little interest and decided to do some other things. Did you come to me because you are hardly mapping anything now - since the big argument blew up you have little interest and decided to do some other things? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: Well the eternal right thing applies to CC and most other licenses, so I There's a difference between an irrevocable licence and an irrevocable, all-encompassing rights grant. CC and most other open licences are the former, OSM's CTs require the latter. suspect that you don't like who the licensee is, OSMF? That's the reason it's Don't care who. The Free Software Foundation requires a copyright assignment for contributions to GNU projects and I'm uncomfortable with that too, even though I feel I can trust FSF way more than OSMF. shaped that the OSMF immediately license it back. From what I remember, our legal advice was there has to be a licensing party that things are assigned to in order to make it work. The contributor can be the licencing party, there's no requirement for OSM to take that role. As for future licensing, do you have a better idea? Yes. Stick with CC-BY-SA and don't demand a rights grant. Why don't you start at the beginning and explain what, where and when this data was imported? Did you ever bring it up with the LWG? Australian government data, and this has been the main sticking point in the licencing debate since the start. Are you seriously going to claim ignorance on this? -- 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] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: Perhaps we're talking at cross purposes because most of the community I'm familiar with, which is all of the EU and the US, consider government data a nice starting point but mappers on the ground as generally much better. Is the perception in Australia that you should just do whatever the government says you should do? Or that OSM should just be a host for government data? Mappers on the ground are much better, but government data is *already collected*. It also has stuff that's difficult or impossible to collect on the ground (or water), like marine park and national park boundaries. Also, Australia is incredibly remote. When the US talk about remote locations and low populated areas, we've got 'em beat. So they're only a potential source, things have not been imported? Some has, but it's not compatible with ODbL and will probably be deleted. I don't think anything has been imported for a while because of that. -- 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] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Hello,
Firstly let me say that I have no alliances with either side of the debate. I
have been trying to sit on the fence throughout the entire process.
Until the recent Nearmap announcement I was unable to legally accept the
change; Now I can.
I agree with those who state that the license change is actually a fork of OSM.
Instead of forking they are forcing everyone else to fork. This is very messy.
Based on the performance of Steve Coast on this list in recent times I have
decided to stop contributing to OSM. This is not the sort of community I want
to be associated with. The approach lacks respect. It is dismissive of
alternate opinions without good reason. All that was wrong with the process of
the license change (read that clearly; the process not the actual license) has
been repeated by Steve Coast on this list in the last few days.
I was particularly appalled at the treatment of All Blokes whose opinion was
completely dismissed to the point of suggesting he is not even a real person.
This is not a healthy community. As Steve is a representative at the highest
level I hold little hope for improvement.
Regards,
Neal
From The Antipodes
So long and thanks for all the fish. So sad that it has come to this
On 09/07/2011, at 7:48 AM, Steve Coast wrote:
{so many wrong things I have lost count and in such a way as to be offensive
many times}
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
snip A whole lot of angst /snip I don't often email the list, but I've been kicking around OSM for maybe four years, and done a bit of mapping here and there, as well as generating the odd Garmin map for people to use. This email is a bit rambly, so I apologise in advance. To be honest, I'm over it. People have been beating each other over the head with CC-by and ODbL for so long now that we've all been pretty much brain damaged. All the posts degenerate into slanging matches inside of three replies, and the level of discourse as plummeted. So, here's my take on this: Mapping (both creating and using the maps) should be fun. But the fun has gone for me. The license debate has unfortunately slowly destroyed the community feel of the project, pissing off a lot of existing contributors, and no doubt making it less welcoming for new ones. The talk-AU list is dominated by a handful of people with very strong opinions, which is intimidating to any new comers, and off putting to the rest. That's not to say that the opinions expressed are wrong, but they do tend toward the 'fanatic' end of the spectrum. The silent majority who subscribe but don't post must wonder where the fun went. And everything just muddies the water. I've accepted the new CT's, but that's probably a bit moot as I haven't contributed much recently. Personally, I think the license debate is a bit of a furphy - contracts and licenses are important from a moral standpoint, but only practically worthwhile if you are prepared to police and enforce them. It's not really about license enforcement, it's about respect for the project. Any project that expends all its energy trying the control the usage of the project, rather than actually improving the content of the project, will eventually fall of a cliff as people move on. I guess my question is 'what is the goal of OSM?', and also 'what are the goals of the contributors?'. Weren't we trying to make a map that people could use in many and varied ways? Have we now lost sight of that goal - to make OSM accessible to all - and turned on ourselves and started eating our young? I don't care about attribution for my contributions - that's not why I was mapping in the first place. I just wanted a map I could use, and a project that was both enjoyable to contribute, and fun to be a part of. The license has changed, and I'm not sure what that means for the garmin maps I make - do I have to change the attribution, or do different things to meet the license requirements? I don't know, and to be honest I don't care. If I'm doing something wrong or incorrectly, maybe I'll get round to fixing it, maybe I won't. But the problem is I've become disillusioned - the fun and community has gone. And that's the sad part about the whole thing. Matt osmaustralia.org ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: Wow, you infer a lot from my four word sentence. Do you have any evidence to back any of it up? You mean other than the message you affirmed pretty strongly? Maybe it's a difference between Australian English and British English, but I'd think those four words in the context that you uttered them carry exactly the same meaning as the message you affirmed. Said message was dismissive of project forks, the reasons for them, the people who start them, and the importance of licences that people choose to make contributions available under. It was specifically dismissive of people with agendas which has become a commonly used passive-aggressive label (especially on this list) for those who voice concerns. So I don't think I inferred much at all, I think instead you were quite explicit. -- 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] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Thanks for the responses. So it seems there will be some fragmentation. Some are moving to fosm, some are moving elsewhere, some are staying with OSM, some have stopped actively contributing and are on hold... I wrote this mail for two reasons, to get a sense of where local contributors stand, but also to raise some awareness for anyone with their head still in the sand who may have been ignoring the issue or holding out for everything to magically fix itself. For those whom will be staying with OSM, I still value your contributions; fosm tries to merge your changes in. In the future as the branches become feather apart it may prove more difficulty (i.e. more duplicated work), but I guess we'll have to deal with that as it comes. On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: and the multiple forks of OSM may have ignored the advice to only fork When you have exhausted all other options. I believe we have exhausted all other options. there have been multitudes of debate to try to resolve the issue mostly going nowhere. Forks are not a guaranteed success. They may have good reasons, ideals and differing opinions, but the parent project has a brand, and for OSM it's a powerful one. As an example everyone has heard of MySQL, but what about Maria? Mysql - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysql#Forks_of_MySQL I don't see this as a problem. OSM is much more than just the database (it's the schema, the reputation, the software and tools, the API/data format), and we are just replacing the database contents. The more mainstream, well known and used OSM as a whole project becomes, the better off and OSM database forks will be because the shared parts will improve for both of us. Personally I don't care about the licence. I feel that the forks and this resulting dilution of effort will become a drain on all the projects (united we stand/divided etc etc), and have become a shouting match where the 'political' goals of the forked projects are trumpeted over the stated reason for the thing being there - an open map. Cries of We're more open don't help when you can't rustle up the hosting fees or development volunteers. So a fork must become popular. More popular than other forks or the parent project. Was this the real reason for your post with mention of FOSM (and no other OSM spin-offs), and seeding fear uncertainty and doubt regarding *possible* data deletion.. you were recruiting? I mention fosm because it is the only CC-BY-SA fork I am aware of. A CC-BY-SA fork is a defensive action, preserving the current state. Any other forks are pro-actively changing the status quo. Such forks can happen any time and are independent of the current change of terms of OSM. I'd like to think all this rather dull licence bickering will play out and OSM will continue and strengthen. It's sad that people with agendas are talking up the 'possible' deletion of data, and rushing off to fork. That energy could have been used towards working on ways of keeping or replacing the data in OSM. A satisfactory local example where things turned out well is where Nearmap made it's generous offer to allow pre-existing data to remain under the new licence. However on this list there was little rejoicing, there was a lot of picking over the actual wording of their offer; looking at the legal-eze, hairsplitting terminology or imagined loopholes in order to justify the fork projects existence. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:06 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: On 7 July 2011 07:54, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: How could I add CC-BY-SA derived data if I use GPS traces, audio recordings of names, or imagery like Yahoo or Bing? The only way I could see this happening would be if I was to deliberately go out of my way to add a Actually it's potentially trivial to use CC-by-SA data, since anyone that supplied contributions under cc-by-sa are still in the database and you only have to modify previous data to then have data derived from cc-by-sa Yes, if you modified or built upon any data already in OSM. The data is CC-BY-SA, hence your modifications must be CC-BY-SA also, unless of course you know the data to be public domain, or have obtained it under a different license elsewhere. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:10 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: 3) Ive made a couple of edits, but really am feeling like theres so much duplicated work now that its almost just not worth bothering The more who contribute directly to fosm rather than OSM, the less the work there will be for fosmers dealing with duplicated data resulting from merges. If it becomes a big problem, I think we should be able to do manual merges of OSM data into fosm, assuming we have the volunteers. Otherwise we can just leave OSM data behind if no one is longer to merge it into fosm. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote: The more who contribute directly to fosm rather than OSM, the less the work there will be for fosmers dealing with duplicated data resulting from merges. If it becomes a big problem, I think we should be able to do manual merges of OSM data into fosm, assuming we have the volunteers. Otherwise we can just leave OSM data behind if no one is longer to merge it into fosm. The probability of collisions is quite small in practice. We are able to automatically sync all OSM updates into fosm.org in near real time. Consequenly fosm.org already has more content than OSM and the gap will continue to widen. It will become a massive gulf if OSM ever has the courage to mass delete all non-ODbL licensed content, but I can't see that happening any time soon. The worst case for a collision is an edit in OSM that conflicts with an earlier edit made to the same element in the fosm database. In this case we place the OSM edit in a conflict log and preserve the fosm edit. Other kinds of conflict include the same feature being added to both OSM and fosm independently. This will result in the feature being duplicated in fosm, but it's easy to manually delete such artifacts when they are noticed, retaining whichever is the best one. My largest concern is with piecemeal replacement of non-ODbL licensed content in OSM with inferior quality tracing. This will appear as legitimate edits to the fosm sync process and will result in fosm being degraded needlessly. We've talked about mechanisms for watching areas where this might happen and for users who might be doing this. We can revert such edits in fosm and get the good stuff back providing we notice that it has happened. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
FOSMs not going anywhere for some simple reasons. The people running it are ineffective, the data will be incompatible when OSM switches, fosm doesn't have any of the agreements to derive data from aerial imagery. I could go on, but those are the big ticket items. Everyone should be aware of the theater show that 80n is running merely to disrupt the community, and it's very sad that so far he's been successful. Steve On 7/7/2011 7:01 AM, 80n wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: The more who contribute directly to fosm rather than OSM, the less the work there will be for fosmers dealing with duplicated data resulting from merges. If it becomes a big problem, I think we should be able to do manual merges of OSM data into fosm, assuming we have the volunteers. Otherwise we can just leave OSM data behind if no one is longer to merge it into fosm. The probability of collisions is quite small in practice. We are able to automatically sync all OSM updates into fosm.org http://fosm.org in near real time. Consequenly fosm.org http://fosm.org already has more content than OSM and the gap will continue to widen. It will become a massive gulf if OSM ever has the courage to mass delete all non-ODbL licensed content, but I can't see that happening any time soon. The worst case for a collision is an edit in OSM that conflicts with an earlier edit made to the same element in the fosm database. In this case we place the OSM edit in a conflict log and preserve the fosm edit. Other kinds of conflict include the same feature being added to both OSM and fosm independently. This will result in the feature being duplicated in fosm, but it's easy to manually delete such artifacts when they are noticed, retaining whichever is the best one. My largest concern is with piecemeal replacement of non-ODbL licensed content in OSM with inferior quality tracing. This will appear as legitimate edits to the fosm sync process and will result in fosm being degraded needlessly. We've talked about mechanisms for watching areas where this might happen and for users who might be doing this. We can revert such edits in fosm and get the good stuff back providing we notice that it has happened. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: FOSMs not going anywhere for some simple reasons. The people running it are ineffective, the data will be incompatible when OSM switches, fosm doesn't have any of the agreements to derive data from aerial imagery. I could go on, but those are the big ticket items. Everyone should be aware of the theater show that 80n is running merely to disrupt the community, and it's very sad that so far he's been successful. You seem worried, Steve. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7/7/2011 7:15 AM, 80n wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote: FOSMs not going anywhere for some simple reasons. The people running it are ineffective, the data will be incompatible when OSM switches, fosm doesn't have any of the agreements to derive data from aerial imagery. I could go on, but those are the big ticket items. Everyone should be aware of the theater show that 80n is running merely to disrupt the community, and it's very sad that so far he's been successful. You seem worried, Steve. You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the community, Australia being a good example as the checks and balances of normal community communication are harder because of the timezone differences and costs of flying. Essentially, people in Australia don't get to hear from the rest of us on the phone or in the pub and we let you spam the lists for a long time. So to an outsider it can look like you're this rational guy who used to be on the board and so on. I've heard about the various conspiracy theories you've been peddling personally off-list too. It's hard to fix that, however I am resourceful. The first step is to meet your clownmails message-for-message so you don't automatically have the loudest voice. By pointing out the simple facts and having you talk past them and get to the real issues (you want to rile people like me up, make us fret and worry) it is now clear to a rational observer what the intentions are. I think your nightmare scenario is that I fly to Australia and sit in the pub and discuss the real reasons you're so upset. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the community, Australia being a good example ... Steve, please don't underestimate the ability of Australia to filter bullshit. I just want to: 1) be able to contribute with the confidence that my data will never be deleted. 2) continue using nearmap, which is insanely awesome. Give me that, and you'll have me back. :-) P.S. Don't feed the trolls. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7/7/2011 7:40 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote: You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the community, Australia being a good example ... Steve, please don't underestimate the ability of Australia to filter bullshit. I just want to: 1) be able to contribute with the confidence that my data will never be deleted. We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'. 2) continue using nearmap, which is insanely awesome. Not being a shareholder I can't influence them directly. As far as I'm aware, their issue is that they don't like the fact that we can change license later even though it's restricted to a free and open license. For all practical purposes I doubt we will ever change again unless and until CC release 4.0 which is mooted that it will contain provisions for data licensing. It's a simple balance between making sure the data remains open but also not going through this horrific license process again in the future if, for example, CC is suddenly better in 3-5 years time. We could have drawn that line a bit more to one side and defined the license or we could have drawn it a bit the other way and said that every single contributor has to accept again. Either way there will be detractors. The LWG is a bunch of volunteers and they spent a ton of time making that judgement and whatever they chose it would be imperfect. I prefer the LWG making a careful decision to the opposite extreme of do whatever nearmap says (not that they ever made demands to my knowledge) as it would be short sighted to deflect the project for one company. If you look at Bing on the other hand, I believe we're entirely happy giving imagery derivation rights under the future direction outlined above. So, I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) given Bing's enlightened example rather than bowing to their short-term goals. Even Ordnance Survey have been great to work with through these issues. Even OS! So while no doubt nearmap is a great resource and it's a shame they no longer want to be involved, it's clear that the majority do - even large sclerotic government institutions are being agile and helpful about this. The door, as ever, is open should nearmap every change their minds. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: ...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) Yup, I'm waiting... (I just wanted to point out why I have stopped contributing - it's not in protest, and not because I've been perverted by 80n. Thanks for your responses anyway.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7 July 2011 15:09, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: FOSMs not going anywhere for some simple reasons. The people running it are ineffective, the data will be incompatible when OSM switches, fosm doesn't have any of the agreements to derive data from aerial imagery. I could go on, but those are the big ticket items. Everyone should be aware of the theater show that 80n is running merely to disrupt the community, and it's very sad that so far he's been successful. Some background... 80n was an original founding member of the OSM Foundation (OSMF). 80n failed to be re-elected to the OSMF board in 2009 [1]. 80n and SteveC fell out awhile back... FOSM is hosted on server resources provided for running OpenStreetMap XAPI [2], all code is written by 80n (or his employees) in GT.M / MUMPS Massachusetts General Hospital Utility Multi-Programming System (not a fork of the OSM.org codebase as has been claimed). The source code is not (yet) available. After approaching 1 year of operation FOSM has had ~153 account signups. [3] 1: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM09 2: UC San Diego hosted server provided by Telascience.org and OSGeo. 3: http://groups.google.com/group/osm-fork/msg/730068be892ea034 Regards Grant ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Why did you stop then? Is there no aerial imagery where you are other than nearmap? On 7/7/2011 8:03 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com mailto:st...@asklater.com wrote: ...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) Yup, I'm waiting... (I just wanted to point out why I have stopped contributing - it's not in protest, and not because I've been perverted by 80n. Thanks for your responses anyway.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 00:55, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'. He said he wanted to keep using Nearmap, Nearmap have said you can't... What clarification did you get from OS? I've not see anything definite posted... Not being a shareholder I can't influence them directly. As far as I'm aware, their issue is that they don't like the fact that we can change license later even though it's restricted to a free and open license. For What does free mean? What does open mean? all practical purposes I doubt we will ever change again unless and until CC release 4.0 which is mooted that it will contain provisions for data licensing. It's a simple balance between making sure the data remains open but also not going through this horrific license process again in the future if, for example, CC is suddenly better in 3-5 years time. What specifically does CC need to change in their current licenses to be more useful? It's my understanding that ODBL doesn't require produced work be attributed which makes all CC licenses (except CC0) incompatible as you would be breaking the chain of attribution. We could have drawn that line a bit more to one side and defined the license or we could have drawn it a bit the other way and said that every single contributor has to accept again. Either way there will be detractors. The LWG is a bunch of volunteers and they spent a ton of time making that judgement and whatever they chose it would be imperfect. The problem isn't just the new license or the CTs for that matter, it's how this were carried out, how our concerns were dismissed out of hand. I prefer the LWG making a careful decision to the opposite extreme of do whatever nearmap says (not that they ever made demands to my knowledge) as it would be short sighted to deflect the project for one company. Nearmap was merely a sign of bigger issues and problems that the LWG or anyone else pushing for change didn't deal with properly and still haven't otherwise you wouldn't be trying to claim to be the victim here. If you look at Bing on the other hand, I believe we're entirely happy giving imagery derivation rights under the future direction outlined above. So, I Some doubt your claims since Bing hasn't official published anything on one of their websites, others are worried the use of Bing imagery will cause grief for OSM-F later. believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) given Bing's enlightened example rather than bowing to their short-term goals. Even Ordnance Survey have been great to work with through these issues. Even OS! So things are great as long as you get your way? So while no doubt nearmap is a great resource and it's a shame they no longer want to be involved, it's clear that the majority do - even large sclerotic government institutions are being agile and helpful about this. The door, as ever, is open should nearmap every change their minds. They didn't decide to change things, you did so at least man up and take responsibility for your actions instead of trying to blame others. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 08/07/11 00:01, 80n wrote: The probability of collisions is quite small in practice. We are able to automatically sync all OSM updates into fosm.org http://fosm.org in near real time. Consequenly fosm.org http://fosm.org already has more content than OSM and the gap will continue to widen. It will become a massive gulf if OSM ever has the courage to mass delete all non-ODbL licensed content, but I can't see that happening any time soon. I opened a new OSM account (for new contributions) when it became clear that the data I'd already entered was in danger of being deleted. As it transpired, I was able to accept the new conditions for my earlier data thanks to Nearmap's resolution of the sticking point. What particularly turns me off fosm.org is that I am unable to see a map when I go to the site. Using Firefox on Linux, I click on Maps and get redirected to http://fosm.org/poly/tah.html#2.00/34.4/-5.9 which is a blank screen for me. My other two Linux browsers (Arora and Konqueror) come up with a completely blank home page at http://fosm.org/ When I boot into Windows XP, neither Explorer nor Firefox fare any better. What do I have to do to see an fosm map? John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 06:46, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote: What particularly turns me off fosm.org is that I am unable to see a map when I go to the site. Using Firefox on Linux, I click on Maps and get FOSM based tiles are being uploaded to archive.org: http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2 Although I'm still working to get expired tiles re-rendered in near real time. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 08:11 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: Why did you stop then? Is there no aerial imagery where you are other than nearmap? Theres this thing in Australia called loyalty. You seem to understand very little about Australian culture. Its almost the height of rudeness after someone sets up a business to donate goods to your project, to then turn around and say 'unless you change your business model, we dont want anything to do with you anymore'. With the amount of effort that has been gone to to secure the data used in Australia to be suitable for OSM, only to have some UK mob make changes to spit in the face of all our donors, its very little wonder why the masses here have little respect for those who cause trouble after we'd gone to such lengths to ask everyone to be compatible with OSM. David On 7/7/2011 8:03 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: ...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) Yup, I'm waiting... (I just wanted to point out why I have stopped contributing - it's not in protest, and not because I've been perverted by 80n. Thanks for your responses anyway.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Hi John, At low zoom I see lots of broken tiles. I was looking at Hobart. Any Ideas? Neal - Original Message - From: John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com To: John Henderson snow...@gmx.com Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, 8 July, 2011 6:53:00 AM Subject: Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes On 8 July 2011 06:46, John Henderson snow...@gmx.com wrote: What particularly turns me off fosm.org is that I am unable to see a map when I go to the site. Using Firefox on Linux, I click on Maps and get FOSM based tiles are being uploaded to archive.org: http://www.archive.org/download/SharedMap2 Although I'm still working to get expired tiles re-rendered in near real time. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
I wonder if people would mind keeping their unconstructive comments for some other medium than this list. On Jul 8, 2011 9:24 AM, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: Theres this thing in Australia called loyalty. You seem to understand very little about Australian culture. Its almost the height of rudeness after someone sets up a business to donate goods to your project, to then turn around and say 'unless you change your business model, we dont want anything to do with you anymore'. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: Since the ban on all contributors who didn't sign the CTs, and ban on all new contributors from using NearMap and other CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources, I'm no longer actively contributing to the OSM database. Instead I am now actively contributing to the fosm database. I am interested to hear what other active Australian OSM contributors will be doing now. I'm pretty much contributing to OSM as I always have. I don't have much interest in a fringe fork populated mainly by the disgruntled. It reminds me a bit of Citizendium - the fork of Wikipedia you've probably never heard of. Of course, my continuing with OSM is not a vote of confidence in the licence chance process - I really resent many parts of the way it's been handled, particularly Frederik Ramm's dismissive attitude. I really wish OSM had someone of Jimmy Wales' calibre as a community leader. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7 July 2011 22:55, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: On 7/7/2011 7:40 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the community, Australia being a good example ... Steve, please don't underestimate the ability of Australia to filter bullshit. I just want to: 1) be able to contribute with the confidence that my data will never be deleted. We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'. As I said in an email to you, I disagree with the concept of a database right, or using contract law to emulate it, which has no precedent in Australia. Also, I dislike contributor agreements in free software projects, and the CTs are a similar concept. They restrict the use of data from governments and other third parties. Now, there is an argument over whether that data should be kept separate as layers, but I haven't seen that discussed at all. Finally, as I read it the Nearmap grant doesn't let me relicense my existing CC-BY-SA contributions as ODbL as I hadn't signed the CT when I made them. 2) continue using nearmap, which is insanely awesome. Not being a shareholder I can't influence them directly. As far as I'm aware, their issue is that they don't like the fact that we can change license later even though it's restricted to a free and open license. For all practical purposes I doubt we will ever change again unless and until CC release 4.0 which is mooted that it will contain provisions for data licensing. It's a simple balance between making sure the data remains open but also not going through this horrific license process again in the future if, for example, CC is suddenly better in 3-5 years time. Disclosure: I am a shareholder; I bought shares partly because they used OSM for their maps. So while no doubt nearmap is a great resource and it's a shame they no longer want to be involved, it's clear that the majority do - even large sclerotic government institutions are being agile and helpful about this. The door, as ever, is open should nearmap every change their minds. However, due to the CT governments have to contribute their data directly rather than letting even more agile citizens do it for them. James Andrewartha ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 6 July 2011 21:29, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: and also people who ticked the CTs who have used CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources in the past who may want to keep this data and continue using these sources in the future. Indeed. Number 9 on the list is QldProtectedAreashttp://www.openstreetmap.org/user/QldProtectedAreas, which I'd assume is an account created specifically to upload CC-BY data, is marked as having accepted the CTs. So, active Australian OSM contributors, are you staying with the OSM db? If so how are you going to do edits going forward, because any CC-BY-SA derived data you add may be removed if OSM abandons CC-BY-SA at some point in the future (or may even be conflicting with your agreed CTs now...). Are you moving to the fosm db? If so, great! Less problems with trying to merge your data into fosm, and we can all get back to mapping. Do you have any concerns over the switch? Are you going to stop contributing data altogether? Or are you putting you efforts on hold at the moment. I've not been mapping very much recently, mostly waiting to see how the whole things plays out (apart from a few posts here and on legal-talk). -- James ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
This reads like you disagree with taxation or death. I do too, but there's not much I can do about it. The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the wrong place or a moral objection to various aspects of intellectual property law. While I agree that it's not perfect, I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who doesn't like his countries laws. Unless you have a reasonable solution or I have misunderstood? Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 7, 2011, at 19:10, James Andrewartha tr...@student.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 7 July 2011 22:55, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: On 7/7/2011 7:40 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: You've been very successful at perverting certain sections of the community, Australia being a good example ... Steve, please don't underestimate the ability of Australia to filter bullshit. I just want to: 1) be able to contribute with the confidence that my data will never be deleted. We've gone to insanely long lengths to make that the case, including getting clarifications from Ordnance Survey, Nearmap and many others. As far as I'm aware there are no remaining issues as to why you can't click 'accept'. As I said in an email to you, I disagree with the concept of a database right, or using contract law to emulate it, which has no precedent in Australia. Also, I dislike contributor agreements in free software projects, and the CTs are a similar concept. They restrict the use of data from governments and other third parties. Now, there is an argument over whether that data should be kept separate as layers, but I haven't seen that discussed at all. Finally, as I read it the Nearmap grant doesn't let me relicense my existing CC-BY-SA contributions as ODbL as I hadn't signed the CT when I made them. 2) continue using nearmap, which is insanely awesome. Not being a shareholder I can't influence them directly. As far as I'm aware, their issue is that they don't like the fact that we can change license later even though it's restricted to a free and open license. For all practical purposes I doubt we will ever change again unless and until CC release 4.0 which is mooted that it will contain provisions for data licensing. It's a simple balance between making sure the data remains open but also not going through this horrific license process again in the future if, for example, CC is suddenly better in 3-5 years time. Disclosure: I am a shareholder; I bought shares partly because they used OSM for their maps. So while no doubt nearmap is a great resource and it's a shame they no longer want to be involved, it's clear that the majority do - even large sclerotic government institutions are being agile and helpful about this. The door, as ever, is open should nearmap every change their minds. However, due to the CT governments have to contribute their data directly rather than letting even more agile citizens do it for them. James Andrewartha ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 13:26, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at What about the 50 odd percent of people that haven't responded? I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who doesn't like his countries laws. So you're planning to hold onto as much data as possible regardless of copyright laws and respecting content authors wishes? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:26 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who doesn't like his countries laws. There are more countries without sui generis database rights laws than with it. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 13:26, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at From what I've read on ML posts, and from what was reported about the last SotM meeting (I wasn't there), the vast majority of people don't care and would be happy with the status quo, would be happy with CTs+OdBL, and quite a decent fraction would be happy with PD too. I'm not saying that the anti-ODbL group is larger than the pro-ODbL one, but that most people are neutral and will go with whatever happens. and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the wrong place or a moral objection to various aspects of intellectual property law. I don't really see how a group of people complaining about things in the CTs or ODbL (some of which are moral objections, some are technical objection) is really that different from a group of people complaining that CC-BY-SA isn't suitable. I think about all we can say is that not everyone agrees, and people also have different opinions on how many people are in each camp. -- James ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
I would phrase it that the vast majority aren't lawyers and don't want to become one, therefore don't know the implications of the problems with cc. That is all this is predicated upon, lawyers say that cc doesn't work for data. If they didn't say that then we would never have gone down this road. I guess for your second paragraph - there are objections to the CTs but we are at a point where I believe there would be objections to however the CTs turned out. They're as reasonable a balance as we can make, I think. The next step is to switch, and then if and when CC 4 comes out and is applicable to data then it's a simple process to change to that. Of course, in theory its a simple to change to switch from our current cc to the future one, but then we have this big gap where it doesn't apply. Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 7, 2011, at 20:41, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote: On 8 July 2011 13:26, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at From what I've read on ML posts, and from what was reported about the last SotM meeting (I wasn't there), the vast majority of people don't care and would be happy with the status quo, would be happy with CTs+OdBL, and quite a decent fraction would be happy with PD too. I'm not saying that the anti-ODbL group is larger than the pro-ODbL one, but that most people are neutral and will go with whatever happens. and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the wrong place or a moral objection to various aspects of intellectual property law. I don't really see how a group of people complaining about things in the CTs or ODbL (some of which are moral objections, some are technical objection) is really that different from a group of people complaining that CC-BY-SA isn't suitable. I think about all we can say is that not everyone agrees, and people also have different opinions on how many people are in each camp. -- James ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
What you say mike is mostly reasonable apart from the control bit. It's a democratically elected nonprofit, so it's hard to cast that as a dictatorship. Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 7, 2011, at 20:47, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: Personally I don't care about the licence. I feel that the forks and this resulting dilution of effort will become a drain on all the projects (united we stand/divided etc etc), and have become a shouting match where the 'political' goals of the forked projects are trumpeted over the stated reason for the thing being there - an open map. Cries of We're more open don't help when you can't rustle up the hosting fees or development volunteers. So a fork must become popular. More popular than other forks or the parent project. Was this the real reason for your post with mention of FOSM (and no other OSM spin-offs), and seeding fear uncertainty and doubt regarding *possible* data deletion.. you were recruiting? My reasons for helping out are simple, because there are more chances to develop software if there is a not a monolithic database. There are more possibilities for OSM if everything is not in the control of a few people. The only way to be able to negotiate is to be in a position to negotiate, so being able to fork is an important part in not having to fork. Already we have developed new and innovative solutions and more. I am also willing to work with osm as much as possible. A fork does not have to be anything bad, and to be honest I see the new license as a fork, a forced one. what we are doing is just setting up the tools and resources for people to continue, and these tools and technologies are needed by everyone and everyone will benefit. mike ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 13:54, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I would phrase it that the vast majority aren't lawyers and don't want to become one, therefore don't know the implications of the problems with cc. It's a false assumption, the only way it would be geo factual data is if you copied 1:1 from raster imagery, making maps is a creative enterprise, regardless if it's stored in a database or not, just like wikipedia content is copyrightable even though it's stored in a database. I believe CC has since changed their stance, possibly due to all the discussion over it. The next step is to switch, and then if and when CC 4 comes out and is applicable to data then it's a simple process to change to that. Of course, in theory its a simple to change to switch from our current cc to the future one, but then we have this big gap where it doesn't apply. AFAIK all you have to do is use a european ported license to cover database rights and there is no issue with upgrades since all CC licenses I've read include an upgrade clause. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:54 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I would phrase it that the vast majority aren't lawyers and don't want to become one, therefore don't know the implications of the problems with cc. That is all this is predicated upon, lawyers say that cc doesn't work for data. Lawyers also say that cc does work for data. You can generally find a lawyer who will say just about anything. The next step is to switch, and then if and when CC 4 comes out and is applicable to data then it's a simple process to change to that. CC 2 and CC 3 are already applicable to data. If what you mean is that you're hoping that CC 4 is going to try to override the laws of jurisdictions which says that facts can't be owned, well, that ain't gonna happen. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Actually, the license process has been known about for a long, long time so it's not this new turnaround you cast it as. In addition, everyone else (bing, ordnance survey...) has worked with us very reasonably. In fact it's hard to say near map have been unreasonable, just that they were not quite as happy as all our other contributors of similar data. As for this 'uk mob' thing, that too is unreasonable. As a democratically elected board, we have members from many countries and you are invited to get involved or run for election. Its certainly difficult to integrate the eu, us and au communities when the timezones are so hard to overlap. I am all ears on how we could fix that. It would be wonderful if someone from au could make it to SOTM. In fact they are running a video competition to pay for the costs of someone to attend. Lastly, I'll say that I fell out with the last person to ask for my loyalty rather than my integrity or honesty. There is a big distinction. Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 7, 2011, at 16:24, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 08:11 -0700, Steve Coast wrote: Why did you stop then? Is there no aerial imagery where you are other than nearmap? Theres this thing in Australia called loyalty. You seem to understand very little about Australian culture. Its almost the height of rudeness after someone sets up a business to donate goods to your project, to then turn around and say 'unless you change your business model, we dont want anything to do with you anymore'. With the amount of effort that has been gone to to secure the data used in Australia to be suitable for OSM, only to have some UK mob make changes to spit in the face of all our donors, its very little wonder why the masses here have little respect for those who cause trouble after we'd gone to such lengths to ask everyone to be compatible with OSM. David On 7/7/2011 8:03 AM, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: ...I believe we should spend energy enlightening aerial providers (or wait for them to catch up) Yup, I'm waiting... (I just wanted to point out why I have stopped contributing - it's not in protest, and not because I've been perverted by 80n. Thanks for your responses anyway.) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
The control seems to be good, but I have no personal say in it. The new license maybe good, but I dont want to accept it if I dont understand it 100%. With the new distributed system we are building I can : 1. Host my own maps without begging or asking for permissions. 2. Commit my own code to my own repositories 3. Own my own edits without having them deleted by someone for some reason 4. Develop new tools that work with osm that everyone can use and benefit from. The more forks there are, the more possibilities are there for software developers. Kinda like arms dealers. So as long as there is war and conflict, you will need weapons (and maps). As long as there is conflict in the OSM, you will need more software developers, At least my work seems to be more appreciated in the forks. Also I am still working on my new kestrel distributed rendering system, and when that has enough cpus we will be able to do alot more than osm has ever done, because we will have a flexible and reusable decentralized processing system. That is the biggest problem with mindset of the people who are controlling osm, the mindset monolithic and too over controlled. We need to change the mindset to distributed and federated. mike On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:56 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: What you say mike is mostly reasonable apart from the control bit. It's a democratically elected nonprofit, so it's hard to cast that as a dictatorship. Steve stevecoast.com On Jul 7, 2011, at 20:47, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com cbar...@pobox.com wrote: Personally I don't care about the licence. I feel that the forks and this resulting dilution of effort will become a drain on all the projects (united we stand/divided etc etc), and have become a shouting match where the 'political' goals of the forked projects are trumpeted over the stated reason for the thing being there - an open map. Cries of We're more open don't help when you can't rustle up the hosting fees or development volunteers. So a fork must become popular. More popular than other forks or the parent project. Was this the real reason for your post with mention of FOSM (and no other OSM spin-offs), and seeding fear uncertainty and doubt regarding *possible* data deletion.. you were recruiting? My reasons for helping out are simple, because there are more chances to develop software if there is a not a monolithic database. There are more possibilities for OSM if everything is not in the control of a few people. The only way to be able to negotiate is to be in a position to negotiate, so being able to fork is an important part in not having to fork. Already we have developed new and innovative solutions and more. I am also willing to work with osm as much as possible. A fork does not have to be anything bad, and to be honest I see the new license as a fork, a forced one. what we are doing is just setting up the tools and resources for people to continue, and these tools and technologies are needed by everyone and everyone will benefit. mike ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 14:06, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Actually, the license process has been known about for a long, long time so it's not this new turnaround you cast it as. In addition, everyone else (bing, ordnance survey...) has worked with us very reasonably. In fact it's hard to say near map have been unreasonable, just that they were not quite as happy as all our other contributors of similar data. Was the OS given all pertinent facts about ODBL and how it doesn't require a minimum level of attribution on produced works? AFAIK OS requires attribution and ODBL doesn't require it down stream. This is a big show stopped for most government agencies I've heard about in Australia. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 14:06, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: As for this 'uk mob' thing, that too is unreasonable. As a democratically elected board, we have members from many countries and you are invited to get involved or run for election. Is it true that you had to do a lot of rule fiddling so you didn't have to retire to give others a chance on the board? Its certainly difficult to integrate the eu, us and au communities when the timezones are so hard to overlap. I am all ears on how we could fix that. It would be wonderful if someone from au could make it to SOTM. In fact they are running a video competition to pay for the costs of someone to attend. Especially so when you don't bother to listen to any feed back. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 8 July 2011 11:26, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: This reads like you disagree with taxation or death. I do too, but there's not much I can do about it. The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the wrong place or a moral objection to various aspects of intellectual property law. While I agree that it's not perfect, I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who doesn't like his countries laws. Unless you have a reasonable solution or I have misunderstood? I am quite happy with my country's laws, which don't include database right, and don't want to promote such a concept. What do you mean by throw everything away? Who is throwing what away? James Andrewartha ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:37 AM, James Andrewartha tr...@student.uwa.edu.au wrote: On 8 July 2011 11:26, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: This reads like you disagree with taxation or death. I do too, but there's not much I can do about it. The vast majority of people are happy with where we are at and now it's down to people holding out because of a comma in the wrong place or a moral objection to various aspects of intellectual property law. While I agree that it's not perfect, I don't see how it's reasonable to throw everything away for one guy who doesn't like his countries laws. Unless you have a reasonable solution or I have misunderstood? I am quite happy with my country's laws, which don't include database right, and don't want to promote such a concept. What do you mean by throw everything away? Who is throwing what away? OSMF is throwing away the data of people who don't relicense under ODbL. They're doing this because they don't like the laws of countries like Australia and the US. That must be what he means :). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote: Since the ban on all contributors who didn't sign the CTs, and ban on all new contributors from using NearMap and other CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources, I'm no longer actively contributing to the OSM database. Instead I am now actively contributing to the fosm database. I am interested to hear what other active Australian OSM contributors will be doing now. I swapped to fosm when the lockout happened cheers Just looking through the list at http://odbl.de/australia.html we have a fair amount of people who have been locked out, and also people who ticked the CTs who have used CC-BY/CC-BY-SA sources in the past who may want to keep this data and continue using these sources in the future. So, active Australian OSM contributors, are you staying with the OSM db? If so how are you going to do edits going forward, because any CC-BY-SA derived data you add may be removed if OSM abandons CC-BY-SA at some point in the future (or may even be conflicting with your agreed CTs now...). Are you moving to the fosm db? If so, great! Less problems with trying to merge your data into fosm, and we can all get back to mapping. Do you have any concerns over the switch? Are you going to stop contributing data altogether? Or are you putting you efforts on hold at the moment. I'm interested in Australia wide, but I'm personally most interested to hear from Franc, behemoth14, rrankin, Zhent, Ebenezer, swanilli, inas, Diego, good2010, dexgps. (these are just those that come to mind from looking over recent edits in the Sydney area) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au -- Franc ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote: Are you going to stop contributing data altogether? Or are you putting you efforts on hold at the moment. My efforts are on hold at the moment. Still disillusioned... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Hi Andrew, On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 21:29, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: snip Are you moving to the fosm db? If so, great! Less problems with trying to merge your data into fosm, and we can all get back to mapping. Do you have any concerns over the switch? I have concerns. The FAQ here gives valid reasons to fork an open source project: http://fossfaq.com/questions/52/what-does-it-mean-to-fork-an-open-source-project and the multiple forks of OSM may have ignored the advice to only fork When you have exhausted all other options. Forks are not a guaranteed success. They may have good reasons, ideals and differing opinions, but the parent project has a brand, and for OSM it's a powerful one. As an example everyone has heard of MySQL, but what about Maria? Mysql - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysql#Forks_of_MySQL Personally I don't care about the licence. I feel that the forks and this resulting dilution of effort will become a drain on all the projects (united we stand/divided etc etc), and have become a shouting match where the 'political' goals of the forked projects are trumpeted over the stated reason for the thing being there - an open map. Cries of We're more open don't help when you can't rustle up the hosting fees or development volunteers. So a fork must become popular. More popular than other forks or the parent project. Was this the real reason for your post with mention of FOSM (and no other OSM spin-offs), and seeding fear uncertainty and doubt regarding *possible* data deletion.. you were recruiting? I'd like to think all this rather dull licence bickering will play out and OSM will continue and strengthen. It's sad that people with agendas are talking up the 'possible' deletion of data, and rushing off to fork. That energy could have been used towards working on ways of keeping or replacing the data in OSM. A satisfactory local example where things turned out well is where Nearmap made it's generous offer to allow pre-existing data to remain under the new licence. However on this list there was little rejoicing, there was a lot of picking over the actual wording of their offer; looking at the legal-eze, hairsplitting terminology or imagined loopholes in order to justify the fork projects existence. Have fun. Cheers, Chas ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
This is exactly right. On 7/6/2011 5:35 AM, Chris Barham wrote: Hi Andrew, On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 21:29, Andrew Harveyandrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: snip Are you moving to the fosm db? If so, great! Less problems with trying to merge your data into fosm, and we can all get back to mapping. Do you have any concerns over the switch? I have concerns. The FAQ here gives valid reasons to fork an open source project: http://fossfaq.com/questions/52/what-does-it-mean-to-fork-an-open-source-project and the multiple forks of OSM may have ignored the advice to only fork When you have exhausted all other options. Forks are not a guaranteed success. They may have good reasons, ideals and differing opinions, but the parent project has a brand, and for OSM it's a powerful one. As an example everyone has heard of MySQL, but what about Maria? Mysql - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysql#Forks_of_MySQL Personally I don't care about the licence. I feel that the forks and this resulting dilution of effort will become a drain on all the projects (united we stand/divided etc etc), and have become a shouting match where the 'political' goals of the forked projects are trumpeted over the stated reason for the thing being there - an open map. Cries of We're more open don't help when you can't rustle up the hosting fees or development volunteers. So a fork must become popular. More popular than other forks or the parent project. Was this the real reason for your post with mention of FOSM (and no other OSM spin-offs), and seeding fear uncertainty and doubt regarding *possible* data deletion.. you were recruiting? I'd like to think all this rather dull licence bickering will play out and OSM will continue and strengthen. It's sad that people with agendas are talking up the 'possible' deletion of data, and rushing off to fork. That energy could have been used towards working on ways of keeping or replacing the data in OSM. A satisfactory local example where things turned out well is where Nearmap made it's generous offer to allow pre-existing data to remain under the new licence. However on this list there was little rejoicing, there was a lot of picking over the actual wording of their offer; looking at the legal-eze, hairsplitting terminology or imagined loopholes in order to justify the fork projects existence. Have fun. Cheers, Chas ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 6 July 2011 22:35, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: I'd like to think all this rather dull licence bickering will play out and OSM will continue and strengthen. It's sad that people with agendas are talking up the 'possible' deletion of data, and rushing off to fork. That energy could have been used towards working on ways Are ya really going to play OSM-F as a victim card here, for the longest time no one seemed to give a hoot about us aussies and the large amounts of CC licensed data we stood to loose, and now in the 11th hour you and SteveC suddenly want to care about the community in Australia? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 06/07/2011, at 9:29 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: because any CC-BY-SA derived data you add may be removed if OSM abandons CC-BY-SA at some point in the future (or may even be conflicting with your agreed CTs now...). How could I add CC-BY-SA derived data if I use GPS traces, audio recordings of names, or imagery like Yahoo or Bing? The only way I could see this happening would be if I was to deliberately go out of my way to add a CC-BY-SA source (either other imagery or a data import). Have I missed something? (An example would be nice!) I am still contributing to OSM. I also have a FOSM account (same username as OSM), but I haven't used it yet. I've just finished adding my recent Flinders Ranges trip, hopefully all these will get copied to FOSM. I'm currently working on some audio recordings from an earlier trip to Wyangala (near Cowra), then I'll probably have a break as I'll have gone through all my current data, although I might do some work on adding new ways from Bing imagery. On 06/07/2011, at 10:35 PM, Chris Barham wrote: A satisfactory local example where things turned out well is where Nearmap made it's generous offer to allow pre-existing data to remain under the new licence. However on this list there was little rejoicing I'll take this opportunity to thank Nearmap for their generosity to allow data to remain in OSM. Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7 July 2011 07:54, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: How could I add CC-BY-SA derived data if I use GPS traces, audio recordings of names, or imagery like Yahoo or Bing? The only way I could see this happening would be if I was to deliberately go out of my way to add a Actually it's potentially trivial to use CC-by-SA data, since anyone that supplied contributions under cc-by-sa are still in the database and you only have to modify previous data to then have data derived from cc-by-sa ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: This is exactly right. It's only exactly right if you don't have a problem with the new licence, with the process by which it was implemented, with mass deletion of data, with the proliferation of incompatible open licences, with irrevocable and eternal rights grants, with future relicencing at OSM-F's whim, etc. Dismissing the objections of people who don't share your viewpoint as some kind of hidden agenda or shitstirring for shitstirring's sake is immature, childish and unproductive. Failing to understand that others genuinely have different viewpoints from you is a glaring failure for a man who's supposed to be a leader in an open 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] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
On 7/6/2011 3:20 PM, Sam Couter wrote: Steve Coastst...@asklater.com wrote: This is exactly right. It's only exactly right if you don't have a problem with the new licence, with the process by which it was implemented, with mass deletion of data, with the proliferation of incompatible open licences, with irrevocable and eternal rights grants, with future relicencing at OSM-F's whim, etc. Dismissing the objections of people who don't share your viewpoint as some kind of hidden agenda or shitstirring for shitstirring's sake is immature, childish and unproductive. Failing to understand that others genuinely have different viewpoints from you is a glaring failure for a man who's supposed to be a leader in an open community. Wow, you infer a lot from my four word sentence. Do you have any evidence to back any of it up? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
As others have said.. 1) Ive moved to fosm since the lockout 2) Im feeling pretty disillusioned at the whole thing, and seriously wonder if its not worth just paying 5 bucks for a map that I cannot share, rather than deal with the politics of a staggered mapping project 3) Ive made a couple of edits, but really am feeling like theres so much duplicated work now that its almost just not worth bothering Sadly, I think others are starting to fall into these groups too, which is a pity as Ive just discovered some huge unmapped areas around the snowy mountains that I have lots of GPX tracks from (but unfortunately almost zero aerial imagery, from nearmap, bing, any of them). Its hard to get motivation to do work, in the knowledge that either a) work will be deleted or b) someone will have a huge headache trying to merge any work if it is duplicated. David On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 22:35 +1000, Chris Barham wrote: Hi Andrew, On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 21:29, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: snip Are you moving to the fosm db? If so, great! Less problems with trying to merge your data into fosm, and we can all get back to mapping. Do you have any concerns over the switch? I have concerns. The FAQ here gives valid reasons to fork an open source project: http://fossfaq.com/questions/52/what-does-it-mean-to-fork-an-open-source-project and the multiple forks of OSM may have ignored the advice to only fork When you have exhausted all other options. Forks are not a guaranteed success. They may have good reasons, ideals and differing opinions, but the parent project has a brand, and for OSM it's a powerful one. As an example everyone has heard of MySQL, but what about Maria? Mysql - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysql#Forks_of_MySQL Personally I don't care about the licence. I feel that the forks and this resulting dilution of effort will become a drain on all the projects (united we stand/divided etc etc), and have become a shouting match where the 'political' goals of the forked projects are trumpeted over the stated reason for the thing being there - an open map. Cries of We're more open don't help when you can't rustle up the hosting fees or development volunteers. So a fork must become popular. More popular than other forks or the parent project. Was this the real reason for your post with mention of FOSM (and no other OSM spin-offs), and seeding fear uncertainty and doubt regarding *possible* data deletion.. you were recruiting? I'd like to think all this rather dull licence bickering will play out and OSM will continue and strengthen. It's sad that people with agendas are talking up the 'possible' deletion of data, and rushing off to fork. That energy could have been used towards working on ways of keeping or replacing the data in OSM. A satisfactory local example where things turned out well is where Nearmap made it's generous offer to allow pre-existing data to remain under the new licence. However on this list there was little rejoicing, there was a lot of picking over the actual wording of their offer; looking at the legal-eze, hairsplitting terminology or imagined loopholes in order to justify the fork projects existence. Have fun. Cheers, Chas ___ 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
