[OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
The problem I have is a bit different. Someone (who has actively declined the CT) has been using nearmap to trace in some roads under construction in the Canberra area. Some of these roads are now complete and open to the public. It would be pointless of me to add information to the nearmapped ways (E.G it's name) since it seems certain that these ways will be deleted from OSM. However it is critical that these roads appear on the map right now, so that emergency services have access to the most up-to-date information available. The only way, I see, out of this mess is for me to map a new set of residential roads, using my actual GPS tracks, alongside the nearmapped ones, make then properly routable, and maybe put a layer tag on them (for the moment) to ensure that routers don't confuse the issue. Once all the nearmap data has been removed then I would remove the layer tags. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Hi, Nick Hocking wrote: The only way, I see, out of this mess is for me to map a new set of residential roads, using my actual GPS tracks, alongside the nearmapped ones, make then properly routable, and maybe put a layer tag on them (for the moment) to ensure that routers don't confuse the issue. Well if you are prepared to do this work, and if it is clear that the other mapper doesn't support the license change, and if you think simply staying with the current status for a while is not an option (since you need to add road name), then I'd just delete the other person's data and replace it with yours. The map will not be worse for it, and the other mapper can hardly complain. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## 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] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5 June 2011 21:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Nick Hocking wrote: The only way, I see, out of this mess is for me to map a new set of residential roads, using my actual GPS tracks, alongside the nearmapped ones, make then properly routable, and maybe put a layer tag on them (for the moment) to ensure that routers don't confuse the issue. Well if you are prepared to do this work, and if it is clear that the other mapper doesn't support the license change, and if you think simply staying with the current status for a while is not an option (since you need to add road name), then I'd just delete the other person's data and replace it with yours. The map will not be worse for it, and the other mapper can hardly complain. He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data, so far I'm told the SES and other emergency services use their own GPS/mapping solutions. So unless he can backup his claims he's only going to be vandalising the map, and here you are cheering him along after you so carefully worded things earlier to try and prevent any kind of edit waring or map vandalisim. As others have pointed out, the best way to handle the change over would be to start a new database and copy data into it that is allowable. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
Hi, John Smith wrote: He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set of data with street names surveyed by someone who agrees to the CT, there's no reason to prefer the former. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## 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] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5 June 2011 22:35, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, John Smith wrote: He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set of data with street names surveyed by someone who agrees to the CT, there's no reason to prefer the former. He made the same claim to talk-au without backing up his assertions when questions so his claims could be verified. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5 June 2011 22:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Where the claim was made has no relevance for my assessment that it does not make a difference. As I said, you tried so hard to word thing to reduce the change of an edit war and now you are cheering some along to do the exact opposite, so I'd say it makes a lot of difference at this point in time. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] PGS coastline
My account used for importing PGS coastlines just got an email asking that it agree to new contributor terms - has anyone already declared this is OK during the import-checking phase of license change? Asking on mailing list, since there should be about 32 other accounts used for the import and controlled by other people, so presumably we want them all to make a consistant decision. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PGS coastline
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:56 AM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: My account used for importing PGS coastlines just got an email asking that it agree to new contributor terms - has anyone already declared this is OK during the import-checking phase of license change? Asking on mailing list, since there should be about 32 other accounts used for the import and controlled by other people, so presumably we want them all to make a consistant decision. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog PGS is the first listed in the import catalog page and marked as PD and Okay. Any reason to think otherwise? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PGS coastline
Isn't PGS in the public domain since it's a work of the US federal government and in addition was automatically generated from Landsat imagery, which is also in the public domain? On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:56 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote: My account used for importing PGS coastlines just got an email asking that it agree to new contributor terms - has anyone already declared this is OK during the import-checking phase of license change? Asking on mailing list, since there should be about 32 other accounts used for the import and controlled by other people, so presumably we want them all to make a consistant decision. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PGS coastline
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalog That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is mail address legal@... valid?
Michael Collinson mike@... writes: Hi Jukka, Yes, it is still in use and we read everything and we we do try to respond. Have we missed something? Mike License Working Group Hi, It is just about a proper way of attributing OSM in a Web Feature Service (WFS). I posted a question first to this mailing list on May 16th and then to the members of License Working Group on May 20th and another try on June 1st. Not so hurry to get an answer, I just wanted to know that the question has arrived and the working group is aware about it. The service itself is up and configured now so that the WFS service metadata includes links to OSM license page. I have also a separate web page describing the service and OSM license in mentioned there as well with. Service metadata is always available from http://188.64.1.61/cgi-bin/tinyows?service=wfsversion=1.1.0request=getcapabilities and it contains AccessConstraints section with the following text Contains Map data from OpenStreetMap contributors http://www.openstreetmap.org/ under CC-BY-SA license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ Additional OpenStreetMap constraints http://www.openstreetmap.orgcopyright?copyright_locale=en Contains spatial data from the National Land Survey of Finland (NLS) under NLS open license http://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/ilmaisetaineistot The data from the service do not necessarily contain any hint about the origin of the data or the licenses. In WFS users are supposed to chech such things from the service metadata. However, WFS services can be used without studying the metadata throughly. An example of direct data access and the output: http://188.64.1.61/cgi-bin/tinyows?service=wfsversion=1.1.0request=getfeaturetypename=tows:osm_polygonmaxfeatures=1 -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is mail address legal@... valid?
For me as a personal contributor, it looks great as is. It goes out with every extraction(?). You are making attribution credit reasonable to the medium (CC-BY-SA and CC-BY). You are crediting OpenStreetMap and properly identifying the CC-BY-SA license. You also have a link to http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright for second-level attribution ... we are following exactly such an approach with all direct extractions from OSM (Planet, CGIMap, Rails API); you should find the text in Planet and CGIMap already. It will work with ODbL too. You are not crediting all 400,000 OSM registrants in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit. [1] but ODbL fixes that. ;-) Mike [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode Section 4(c) last sentence On 05/06/2011 16:33, Jukka Rahkonen wrote: [snip] It is just about a proper way of attributing OSM in a Web Feature Service (WFS). I posted a question first to this mailing list on May 16th and then to the members of License Working Group on May 20th and another try on June 1st. Not so hurry to get an answer, I just wanted to know that the question has arrived and the working group is aware about it. The service itself is up and configured now so that the WFS service metadata includes links to OSM license page. I have also a separate web page describing the service and OSM license in mentioned there as well with. Service metadata is always available from http://188.64.1.61/cgi-bin/tinyows?service=wfsversion=1.1.0request=getcapabilities and it contains AccessConstraints section with the following text Contains Map data from OpenStreetMap contributors http://www.openstreetmap.org/ under CC-BY-SA license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ Additional OpenStreetMap constraints http://www.openstreetmap.orgcopyright?copyright_locale=en Contains spatial data from the National Land Survey of Finland (NLS) under NLS open license http://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/ilmaisetaineistot The data from the service do not necessarily contain any hint about the origin of the data or the licenses. In WFS users are supposed to chech such things from the service metadata. However, WFS services can be used without studying the metadata throughly. An example of direct data access and the output: http://188.64.1.61/cgi-bin/tinyows?service=wfsversion=1.1.0request=getfeaturetypename=tows:osm_polygonmaxfeatures=1 -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ 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] Phase 4 and what it means
Sadly I agree. Steve stevecoast.com On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:19, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: The problem I have is a bit different. Someone (who has actively declined the CT) has been using nearmap to trace in some roads under construction in the Canberra area. Some of these roads are now complete and open to the public. It would be pointless of me to add information to the nearmapped ways (E.G it's name) since it seems certain that these ways will be deleted from OSM. However it is critical that these roads appear on the map right now, so that emergency services have access to the most up-to-date information available. The only way, I see, out of this mess is for me to map a new set of residential roads, using my actual GPS tracks, alongside the nearmapped ones, make then properly routable, and maybe put a layer tag on them (for the moment) to ensure that routers don't confuse the issue. Once all the nearmap data has been removed then I would remove the layer tags. ___ 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] Phase 4 and what it means
On 05.06.2011 02:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: means for them. I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just holding out until the last minute; and I know there are some who simply wanted to delay their decision until later. These have actively declined the license. What about all these mappers who can't be reached any more? Anonymous edits (uid=0)? I have some recent statistic of a comparably small community. For Thailand currently 31% of all contributors (that are still visible in the planet as last author) have not responded. Of these 162 mappers a quite large number of 41 (25%) has not contributed over the past two years. Quite likely they won't respond to the email ever. These edits sum up to 2,18 percent of the total nodes. I have the feeling that remapping this data has a lot less potential for a conflict than remapping data of a somewhat active contributor who recently declined but may change his mind. How to deal with these edits? What to advise in regard to abandoned accounts? My statistic only counts contributions in this small area. for more reliable figures the global last edit date would be needed. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
I am also very hesitant to have a specific date now and basically support Kai's concept. Mostly the date thing is caution, I would like to move to Phase 4 as soon as possible but think we can then take our time getting as much ODbL coverage as possible. It is also disparate situations. At one extreme is ripping out and not replacing data where there may be a delayed solution available. At the other extreme, there is a local mapper or mapping party fixing up their local area with content equal to or better than a contributor who has clearly and publicly stated that they have no intention of ever accepting. [BTW, we will certainly make a full dump available upon the Phase 4 switch-over] Since the unknowns and what-ifs are now falling away fast, I suggest we focus in on what critical mass is and do what we can do to achieve it. My initial criteria with some examples are: - We should have the numbers. ODbL coverage weighted by size of contribution is looking great [1] but we are not there yet. I would like to have done our best to reach the large number of previous small and lapsed contributors and had a response. This is just beginning to come in this weekend. This may have important impact on local mappers. - Local mappers and communities have had a chance to assess actual rather than hypothetical impact in small areas and regions. - Large-scale individual contributors who would like to accept the new terms but feel they can't for some reason have been helped where practical and possible. - Where a specific import or derivation issue exists, short or medium term possibilities have been exhausted. In Australia, we may get a straight yes/no answer from Nearmap on keeping current contributions. In the UK there is the ambiguous position of OS Streetview data. Champions for individual blank and yellow tagged entries in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue welcome. Mike [1] http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/treemap.png On 05/06/2011 03:23, Kai Krueger wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: Now I sense some uncertainty among mappers as to what phase 4 exactly means for them. I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just holding out until the last minute; and I know there are some who simply wanted to delay their decision until later. Yes, there are a number of people who have declined to relicense as it is the only way available to formally voice ones disagreement with any of a) the new licence, b) the CT or c) the process. Nevertheless, they remain adamant supports and enthusiasts of OSM. Just that they happen to disagree with what is best for the project and without being able to see into the future it is pretty much impossible to say for sure which cause of action is the best for the project. So it is important to try and not alienate either side as much as possible. Phase 4 is critical in this respect, as it is the first time ones decision has actual consequences for mappers and starts locking users out of the project, some of whom have put a huge amount of effort into OSM to ensure it has become a success and deserve everyones respect. So it is bound to give bad blood and result in highly emotional debates. Frederik Ramm wrote: Do not delete and re-map anything beforedate. We will send out a message to everyone who has not agreed to the license change, and inform them that after that date, mappers are likely to purge non-relicensed data and that if they want their data to remain, they need to redecide before that date. Out of the listed options, I would personally prefer this option most, as it imho leaves the most options open. However, rather than a specific date, I would advertise the date to be the time at which a critical mass is reached. I.e. when it becomes clear that sufficient data has successfully been relicensed that the damage due to data loss will be acceptable to the overall project. That then really is the point of no return at which one can start a graceful damage control by replacing no relicensable data. At that point I presume OSMF will decide on a formal date on which phase 5 will begin. In order to give all data users enough time to adapt to the new license and consider the consequences, I would expect OSMF to set this date at least a month or two in advance, which will then still give mappers a reasonable amount of time to start fixing up the holes that the relicensing process will produce in the data. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Phase-4-and-what-it-means-tp6440812p6441026.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
I don't think that edit wars to deliberately change the licence status of bits of map are the way forward - for either side. It's just as unacceptable from the pro-ODbL camp as from the pro-CC camp. However, I can understand that if mappers believe that large amounts of data will be deleted (which is a self-fulfilling prophecy to some extent) then they will want to recreate it. One way might be to create a second, 'ODbL-pure' database where there is full licence to rip out anything from contributors who don't support the ODbL change. Then if this version of the map becomes better than the current OSM it can replace it. Indeed, that could be a gradual changeover rather than a big bang. None of this reduces the need to reach out to all contributors, whichever side of the licensing debate they are on, and for all sides to find a constructive way forward rather than hardening positions and seeing who blinks first. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5-6-2011 2:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: Any misunderstanding in this area will lead to friction: mapper A thought he still had time to reconsider; but mapper B goes ahead and deletes/re-maps A's work (possibly with less precision or other things that A doesn't like). A, who intended to stay with OSM but was just playing a little game of stubbornness and protest, is infuriated (how could you throw away my super precise mapping!), and B has wasted his time. If that is your attitude towards the license change, then I really do not understand why all these phases are necessary. If the object of the game is to change the license regardless of anything, then just change it already. Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5 June 2011 22:35, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: John Smith wrote: He is yet to back up his claims about people using the data I don't think it makes a difference. If I have one set of data with a questionable copyright situation and no street names, and another set of data with street names surveyed by someone who agrees to the CT, there's no reason to prefer the former. Being more accurate (traced from high quality imagery, versus GPS) could be a reason to prefer the former. I'm not certain about how the person in question would take this, but you'd want to be careful not to get into edit wars about this. The original person could quite easily put their more accurate ways back, and copy the names from the newer ones (since they can be CC licensed). Do we want to encourage people to delete perfectly good data because they don't like the licence? -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On 5 June 2011 10:09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just holding out until the last minute; As far as I can tell, doing that is the only way to say I don't like the licence/CTs/process/whatever, but I will re-license my data. Accepting is taking as a vote for liking the new license, and I quite a few people that are going to do it at the last minute for this reason. The group of people who want the new licence and the group of people that will accept the licence isn't quite the same. I for example have had to say No, because you now have to give an answer to edit, but would almost certainly change that to a Yes at the last minute (subject to figure out how to split incompatible data into it's own account). -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Phase 4 and what it means
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote: On 05.06.2011 02:09, Frederik Ramm wrote: means for them. I know for a fact that among the current disagreeing mappers there are some who intend to stay with OSM and who are just holding out until the last minute; and I know there are some who simply wanted to delay their decision until later. These have actively declined the license. What about all these mappers who can't be reached any more? Anonymous edits (uid=0)? I have some recent statistic of a comparably small community. For Thailand currently 31% of all contributors (that are still visible in the planet as last author) have not responded. Of these 162 mappers a quite large number of 41 (25%) has not contributed over the past two years. Quite likely they won't respond to the email ever. These edits sum up to 2,18 percent of the total nodes. I have the feeling that remapping this data has a lot less potential for a conflict than remapping data of a somewhat active contributor who recently declined but may change his mind. How to deal with these edits? What to advise in regard to abandoned accounts? Frederik the great is only interested in remapping Silesia (Schlesien) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_the_Great#Warfare and does not care about the data loss, leader loss or anything else. He seems to be almost joyful in his statements about finally getting rid of these pesky and annoying people so he can do what he wants, it always amazes me to read his postings. but seriously, the license team is not concerned about porting the licenses to other jurisdictions, but once you have signed the new contributor terms, they will not ever have to ask you again. This process is about you giving up all your rights, not them doing anything for it in return. The quality of the license is poor, the support in the open source community is next to zero, the fragmented nature of the documents is annoying, there are many unanswered questions as well, the missing compatibility with creative commons is a serious roadblock, the way the whole thing is being managed is a disaster. But once enough people have signed away their rights the license can be changed at whim and adjusted so that it will mostly work, and if it does not, tough luck. We, the osm fork team are working on preserving your work and your contributions under the existing license. I personally wish that the leaders of OSM were not so us against them, they are pushing people out. Osm fork now has the resources to host the tiles and also does not have the bandwidth problems that osm does. The only thing that is missing is a good rendering solution for drawing updates, we are working on new software to do a better tiles at home to render in a distributed fashion. When these things are in place your maps of Thailand will not be lost, your data will be available and the tiles will be usable also going into the future. I wish that OSM was not so monolithic, but there does not seem to be any compassion or understanding for allowing multiple tiles, multiple license or multiple layers in osm proper. There is only one license, one layer (ok two with cycllemap) and only one way, that way seems to be pushed down on everyone. What we really need is the ODBL to be a fork, an experiment that should first work and then be an option, but the decision was made and we cannot do anything about it. With great sadness to I write these words and hope that you will all have the strength and the courage to resist the pressure to give up your rights and demand a fair treatment. mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
