Hi Tobias,
thanks for your valuable feedback. I agree with your opinions regarding
3D model repositories, collaborative work etc.
Tobias Knerr:
I'm a bit worried that this might be too strongly tied to the Heidelberg
OSM-3D globe. In particular, I have the following concerns:
* Is there, or will there be, an equivalent to the OSM planet files,
i.e. a possibility to download the entire content of your repository
(including metadata)?
At the moment it certainly is strongly linked to "our" OSM-3D approach.
However, the idea is to make the models of course available to any other
3D viewer that wants to use them.
So far the models can only be browsed via the website and downloaded
manually in .zip format. So there is no "Download All", let alone an API
or Web Service for the repository data.
This is definitely desirable and on the "wishlist" for future features.
* The VRML format is an odd choice. Afaik it is not commonly used in the
3D OSM community. What are your reasons for choosing it?
That's right. The reason for choosing VRML for the time being is the
internal compatibility with our OSM-3D databases. This is to be changed
in the future or at least an automatic conversion (with e.g. MeshLab)
should be integrated, so that the user doesn't have to bother about the
format.
* Will yo make the source code for the website freely available, and do
you plan to accept outside contributions?
Due to security issues (uploads to our servers) this is currently not
planned. However, in general I do agree and would like to make it
OpenSource. I have to discuss this with colleagues first :-)
However, the
models can just as well be freely used for any other purpose (ODbL
license).
That's a worrisome choice, too - it seems that the models stored in the
repository will therefore become incompatible with OSM data if we ever
choose to use the relicensing clause of the Contributor Terms to switch
to a different license?
In my opinion, it would be more future-proof to define legal terms for
your repository that would always at least allow the models to be used
under the same license as the one used by OSM at that point in time. An
appropriate legal arrangement would have to be found, but I think that
this would be an important effort.
OK, maybe I got something wrong here. I chose ODbL because I thought
that it is the new OSM license?! Admittedly, I don't know much about the
recent license change and might have confused something.
But in general I get your point, that the license should always "be the
same as OSM". I don't know, though, how to formulate that properly in
the licensing terms. If you know more about this, you could maybe
suggest a concrete licensing text.
So... it is basically a working platform, but still many open issues
remain :-)
Cheers,
Matthias
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
