Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Simon Ward wrote: > _I_ think this discussion is healthy, and will give people ideas on > what > to look out for when the licence is released. Sure, I wouldn't dispute that it's healthy. I would just observe that perceived failings may actually not have been failings for several months. As I said it would be good, very good indeed, to get the new licence published - a lot of this has already been addressed, and thus it's ultimately wasted effort which could productively be spent on finding the failings with the _current_ draft. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Frederik Ramm wrote: > You have quoted me out of context. Had you not removed the next > part of > the sentence, people would have known that I was just taking the, er, > mickey ;-) And to think that I was, as ever, deadly serious. Anyway, enough frivolity, I've got some nodes to move. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> If sets up his local copy of Potlach (the tool of >> choice for such operations!) and randomly moves 1.000 Central London >> nodes > > Could I point out that Potlatch doesn't let you select more than one > object at once so, actually, JOSM would be the tool of choice. You have quoted me out of context. Had you not removed the next part of the sentence, people would have known that I was just taking the, er, mickey ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Frederik Ramm wrote: > If sets up his local copy of Potlach (the tool of > choice for such operations!) and randomly moves 1.000 Central London > nodes Could I point out that Potlatch doesn't let you select more than one object at once so, actually, JOSM would be the tool of choice. Could I also observe that Germans can _never_ spell Potlatch. That isn't the reason I called it that (actually talk-fr is spot on there) but it should have been. Follow-ups to talk-de, probably. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Dair Grant wrote: > Richard Fairhurst wrote: > >>> b. A file containing all of the alterations made to the Database >>> offered >>>under this Licence, including any additional Data, that make >>> up all the >>>differences between the Database and the Derivative Database. > > Assuming I choose option (b), how does this work if the alterations > are all > subtractions? > [...] > But it does seem a bit like jumping through hoops, when it would be > simpler > to say "I truncated all coordinates to 4 decimal places" or even > "the DD is > a subset of the information in version X of the D, and here's a > copy of > that". IMO (and insert all the other abbreviations here), "I truncated all coordinates to 4 decimal places" is a valid diff. If people want to get pissy about "machine readable", then supply the diff as a Perl script which comprises some XML parsing and a load of sprintf. ;) cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
> > I'm tempted to say that if the data base is modified using some kind of > original data input - from your GPS, from your company archives, from > your Grandma's local knowledge - then ist has to be shared; if, on the > other hand, you only apply algorithms or noise to it, then keep it an > just tell us that your work is based on the so-and-so planet file. But > I'm sure this, too, doesn't catch everything. > > We must do everything we can to avoid making things more difficult for > people than they are now (they are difficult enough already). > Agreed. There are a number of reasons to define a Derived Dataset as something that contains additional original input and not as the same dataset processed automatically into some other format. 1) It avoids people having to share tedious numbers of large datasets that are slightly different from the last one and may have been used to produce a product with a very short life-expectancy anyway. 2) It clarifies that people don't have to expose proprietary storage, indexing, analysis or manipulation techniques unless they want to. My company does not support a licence that allows people to see how we store data internally, it is going to be hard enough to stay ahead of the free-software movement without exposing all ones secrets at the outset! 3) The core reason for the share-alike element for this project in the first place is to ensure that people share their knowledge about where features are and share corrections to this dataset. 4) Because if people don't want to expose their internal data formats then they only have to combine the OSM data with some other dataset to create a Collective Work and then they don't have to expose anything further downstream in their processing anyway. To be clear, is anyone fighting for a licence that does require users of the data to expose all their analysis and manipulation software techniques even when no new facts or corrections have been made to the OSM dataset? If no one wants that then I am sure the licence can be constructed so that it isn't necessary. Regards, Peter > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 05:44:23PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > You don’t know what use something is until someone does something > > unexpected with it, and then you find that it is useful after all. > > That's right, while we're at it why don't we require that everyone who > uses OSM data also publishes a years's worth of bank statements; who > knows, they might come in handy some time. Those bank statements are almost certainly not derived from OSM or any other free data. > Sarcasm Who’s the one being silly now? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Hi, Simon Ward wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 04:47:25PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Apart from this being pretty much useless to anybody > > You don’t know what use something is until someone does something > unexpected with it, and then you find that it is useful after all. That's right, while we're at it why don't we require that everyone who uses OSM data also publishes a years's worth of bank statements; who knows, they might come in handy some time. Sarcasm aside, we need to find a way that ensures we get what we want (most) and at the same not introduce so many restrictions that in the end even the hobbyist prefers to buy Teleatlas because it's easier for him to comply with their license. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 04:47:25PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Apart from this being pretty much useless to anybody You don’t know what use something is until someone does something unexpected with it, and then you find that it is useful after all. A lot of free software was created to scratch a personal itch, the authors probably thought they might be useless to anyone else, but released as free software on the off‐chance someone would find a use for it. In some cases people do find a use, they modify it so it can scratch their itch too, and everyone benefits. > (By the way, *for how long* would I have to make a database available > after using it in a one-off gig like the T-shirt?) It should probably be defined in the licence. For software, the GPL (v3) says: 6.b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. As long as someone gives me a t-shirt based on free works, I’d like to be able to get them too. > improvement shared. If sets up his local copy of Potlach (the tool of > choice for such operations!) and randomly moves 1.000 Central London > nodes while urinating on a pile of Ordnance Survey maps and becomes a > famous perforance artist then we don't *really* require him sharing his > "improvement" even though it surely elevated OSM from the banal into the > artistic Olymp with him. …and if someone else would like to use those randomly moved nodes for their own act? The idea of making things free is so people can build on other peoples’ works and allow others to build on that in turn. It’s not up to us to say how people should be able to do that, but we can try to enable all sorts variations that would never have crossed our minds as much as possible. > But if we say you have to basically share everything you do to the > database (as I understand the license to require now) then we make it > unneccessarily hard for people to work with the data. Back to the software version again: If you make modifications to software licensed under the GPL there is nothing making it difficult for you to work with it (freedom 0 is about having the freedom to use the software). When you release it to another party, and only then, you are obliged to propagate the same freedoms you received to them. I’ve asked this elsewhere on the list but I haven’t seen anybody answer it: This is not difficult for software, why should it be, or is it, any different for data? > We must do everything we can to avoid making things more difficult for > people than they are now (they are difficult enough already). I see it as difficult to work with at the moment because CC-by-sa doesn’t apply meaningfully to data, not because of the share‐alike. A new licence that does apply meaningfully to data and keeps the share‐alike condition will make things easier for people than they are now. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Hi, Dair Grant wrote: > Perhaps it's not worth treating the "translating the Database to a > less-expressive form" case as different to any other modification case. > > But it does seem a bit like jumping through hoops, when it would be simpler > to say "I truncated all coordinates to 4 decimal places" or even "the DD is > a subset of the information in version X of the D, and here's a copy of > that". I think this bit need serious work as it might, if handled carelessly, stifle creativity. Say you take a planet dump or excerpt, make a shapefile, drop it into your favourite GIS tool, run some kind of rendering or filtering on it, maybe arrive at an SVG or PNG file, load it up in a graphics editor, make more changes, and after a number of steps arrive at something that looks cool on a T-shirt (like e.g. http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/shirt.png). The typical long night design job. It is clear that you have made at least one derived database, and it is clear that you had some kind of "experience" at the end. Somewhere in between the database ceased to exist but this is something that is not part of your creative process, not something you even think about as you go back and forth between PostGIS, renderers, GIS software, bitmap editor, whatever. You might not even remember how you achieved a certain result. You are also very likely to throw away all intermediate results once your T-shirt design is sent to the printer as they are now irrelevant. If I am not mistaken, then the new proposed license, as it stands, would require you to (a) identify the final "derived database" in the processing chain and (b) save it and make it available to everyone who gets a T-shirt. Apart from this being pretty much useless to anybody (yes, Simon, I know that there may arise a situation where the world has been destroyed and the only thing that remains is the CD-ROM that was distributed with the T-Shirt from which we can now salvage a bit of OSM... but let's stick to those scenarios with a higher probability of entry for the time being!), it will burden the creative process with administrative decisions, apart from the fact that not everybody who designs a T-Shirt necessarily has the means to host a database for downloading. (By the way, *for how long* would I have to make a database available after using it in a one-off gig like the T-shirt?) This is a very murky area. We cannot even say that you only have to share additions or improvements to the database - because what is an improvement? If someone re-aligns a street in his local database copy based on precise measurements he has access to, then I want this improvement shared. If sets up his local copy of Potlach (the tool of choice for such operations!) and randomly moves 1.000 Central London nodes while urinating on a pile of Ordnance Survey maps and becomes a famous perforance artist then we don't *really* require him sharing his "improvement" even though it surely elevated OSM from the banal into the artistic Olymp with him. But if we say you have to basically share everything you do to the database (as I understand the license to require now) then we make it unneccessarily hard for people to work with the data. I'm tempted to say that if the data base is modified using some kind of original data input - from your GPS, from your company archives, from your Grandma's local knowledge - then ist has to be shared; if, on the other hand, you only apply algorithms or noise to it, then keep it an just tell us that your work is based on the so-and-so planet file. But I'm sure this, too, doesn't catch everything. We must do everything we can to avoid making things more difficult for people than they are now (they are difficult enough already). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using JOSM + Yahoo Maps Aerial Imagery for Public Domain Release
Hi, bvh wrote: > Is using google imagery for OSM ok for the areas where they allow > mapmaker? Has anyone asked Ed that? Yes but he sort of evaded that question. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I am trying to restrain myself from replying to any of the other 9876 > messages in this thread because It Has All Been Said Before. Me too. ;-) - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Ward > Sent: 11 October 2008 09:50 > To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:17:50AM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > > It shouldn't be about specifically contributing back to OSM. Ivan has > > > already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests > > > used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines. > > > > Could I please ask that you wait for the current licence to be > > published - and, if necessary, lobby for it to be so - before > > complaining that it fails DFSG, or in fact any of the other points > > under discussion. > > My responses in this thread have been in response to Peter Miller's > clarifications for the brief brief of the requirements for the new > licence (and successive messages putting various points across). > > I cannot comment on the new licence because I haven't seen it. I have > only the old draft to go on, but that's a moot point because I was > commenting on the brief. > > _I_ think this discussion is healthy, and will give people ideas on what > to look out for when the licence is released. > Personally I am not prepared to wait for the foundation to deal with this issue, we have waited too long and also I don't think it is healthy for the foundation to try to do it in isolation of the community. There is clearly a lot of enthusiasm within the community to work on the licence and produce a detailed brief and set of use cases and we need to engage with that enthusiasm. We have identified some important issues over the past week and are getting them thrashed out one by one which is great. When the licence appears we will be able to be much more constructive in our feedback than if we hadn't been doing this before hand. Fyi, I have a call booked with SteveC for later this afternoon to discuss how we link this work on legal-talk in with the work he has been doing. I will give an update on the list after the call. Regards, Peter > Simon > -- > A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a > simple system that works.-John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Spam] Re: Paid services from OSM
Thanks. I have taken a look at these useful links and added them to the bottom of the licence page under 'external links' This is starting to look more and more like a software licence to me! Regards, Peter > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Ward > Sent: 11 October 2008 09:53 > To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 07:39:24AM +0100, Peter Miller wrote: > > Btw, can someone provide a link for a primer to the requirements for > > 'DSFG-compliance' > > [DFSG]: http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines > [FAQ]: http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html > > Simon > -- > A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a > simple system that works.-John Gall ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using JOSM + Yahoo Maps Aerial Imageryfor Public Domain Release
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bvh > Sent: 11 October 2008 11:23 > To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using JOSM + Yahoo Maps Aerial > Imageryfor Public Domain Release > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 01:58:19AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > their aerial imagery from. - Ed Parsons once said that Google had to pay > > extra for "traceable" aerial imagery as the "normal" licenses would not > > have been suitable for using the material in an application like > > MapMaker. If none of us makes too much noise then we'll all get away > > Is using google imagery for OSM ok for the areas where they allow > mapmaker? Has anyone asked Ed that? > I am very sure it is not allowed. If it was allowed then Ed would have made that clear on any number of occasions recently, notably at SOTM and at FOSS. It is clear to me that Google are intending to leverage their user-base (100 million used of Google Maps each year I believe) to build/own/exploit the mapping for these areas and gain more market share as a result. I have had some indication that source data for these areas may be made available at some point in the future, but I suspect that it will be on the free-beer principle not the free-speech approach. Ed assured me recently that Google is still keen to support OSM and I hope we will hear some positive developments at some point but have no further information about anything. For now it looks to me like they are building up a big asset to further differentiate themselves from Yahoo/Microsoft in developing areas of the world. Personally I am more interested in whether Google's lead it this area pushes other search engines our way as being the only way of competing with Big G. Consider the parallels in the Microsoft/Linux fight, where anyone who was not Microsoft supported the Linux bandwagon (IBM/Sun/Del/Intel etc). Will Yahoo and Microsoft become major supporters of OSM, or will they get TeleAtlas/Navteq to survey India, or will they do their own version of Map Maker and if they do will there be enough people prepared to enter the data? Will TeleAtlas/Navteq build their own communities to improve their data? I am not sure they have communities at all in these countries to leverage. I think Microsoft/Yahoo etc will have to go open-source through OSM which will be interesting to say the least. Peter > cu bart > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Using JOSM + Yahoo Maps Aerial Imagery for Public Domain Release
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 01:58:19AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > their aerial imagery from. - Ed Parsons once said that Google had to pay > extra for "traceable" aerial imagery as the "normal" licenses would not > have been suitable for using the material in an application like > MapMaker. If none of us makes too much noise then we'll all get away Is using google imagery for OSM ok for the areas where they allow mapmaker? Has anyone asked Ed that? cu bart ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 07:39:24AM +0100, Peter Miller wrote: > Btw, can someone provide a link for a primer to the requirements for > 'DSFG-compliance' [DFSG]: http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines [FAQ]: http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:17:50AM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > It shouldn’t be about specifically contributing back to OSM. Ivan has > > already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests > > used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines. > > Could I please ask that you wait for the current licence to be > published - and, if necessary, lobby for it to be so - before > complaining that it fails DFSG, or in fact any of the other points > under discussion. My responses in this thread have been in response to Peter Miller’s clarifications for the brief brief of the requirements for the new licence (and successive messages putting various points across). I cannot comment on the new licence because I haven’t seen it. I have only the old draft to go on, but that’s a moot point because I was commenting on the brief. _I_ think this discussion is healthy, and will give people ideas on what to look out for when the licence is released. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Forking - was Paid services from OSM
>> If someone forks the project then the fork should be able to >> operate on exactly the same basis as the original project. > > On closer inspection, this will never be possible. If you fork OSM, It's worth noting that it isn't possible to fork OSM on the same terms at the moment, even keeping the same licence. For an example, consider where Australia will be in 50 years time. The current OSM database can solve that problem, a fork based on the planet dump would be unable to. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
