Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote: The idea that the OSM database just reproduces geographical facts is, quite frankly, laughable. I would like to join the laughter so please show me an example of a non-geographical fact in the database. Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote: On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote: The idea that the OSM database just reproduces geographical facts is, quite frankly, laughable. I would like to join the laughter so please show me an example of a non-geographical fact in the database. Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value of the highway tag is not a geographical fact. The whole craft section, lots of the non_physical stuff. And I'm sure there's more. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Geo-referenced facts? And, all of your examples other even less potential to be a protected work than your typical way. Simon Am 08.07.2011 09:10, schrieb Maarten Deen: On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote: On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote: The idea that the OSM database just reproduces geographical facts is, quite frankly, laughable. I would like to join the laughter so please show me an example of a non-geographical fact in the database. Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value of the highway tag is not a geographical fact. The whole craft section, lots of the non_physical stuff. And I'm sure there's more. Regards, Maarten ___ 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Maarten Deen wrote: Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value of the highway tag is not a geographical fact. Sure they are. If I walk about 20 yards from my front door, there's a no entry sign at a certain lat/long. If I walk a bit further along, facing the other way, there's a one way sign at another lat/long. From those two geographical facts[1], I can deduce that a particular road is oneway. Therefore I tagged http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/1058809 with oneway=yes. Same goes for turn restrictions, maximum speeds, and certainly over here, highway tags. The one major exception in the OSM database is administrative boundaries. cheers Richard [1] ok, and also the fact I get shouted at when I cycle up it the wrong way -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-license-change-effect-on-un-tagged-nodes-tp6541123p6561846.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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-08 09:10, Maarten Deen wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote: On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote: The idea that the OSM database just reproduces geographical facts is, quite frankly, laughable. I would like to join the laughter so please show me an example of a non-geographical fact in the database. Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value of the highway tag is not a geographical fact. The whole craft section, lots of the non_physical stuff. And I'm sure there's more. Yeah, I just looked out of the window and realized that the streets have no names painted on them. And there are even no boundary lines in the landscape. Man, I really should get out more often. Bye, Andreas PS: Sorry for the sarcasm but I decided that I've better things to do than nitpicking on the exact definitions of words or terms. You can spare any replies because I will just ignore them. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 02:18:46 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote: Maarten Deen wrote: Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value of the highway tag is not a geographical fact. Sure they are. If I walk about 20 yards from my front door, there's a no entry sign at a certain lat/long. If I walk a bit further along, facing the other way, there's a one way sign at another lat/long. From those two geographical facts[1], I can deduce that a particular road is oneway. Therefore I tagged http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/1058809 with oneway=yes. Same goes for turn restrictions, maximum speeds, and certainly over here, highway tags. The one major exception in the OSM database is administrative boundaries. IMHO that's stretching the geographic bit very far. Sure, the fact that there is a sign is a geographic fact, but the fact that that signifies something for the road or object that's there is just convention. And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about the location or presence of a road that makes it motorway or tertiary. That is only because it is designated as such. That designation can change anytime, but by doing so you don't change the geography of the place. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 08/07/11 10:31, Maarten Deen wrote: IMHO that's stretching the geographic bit very far. Sure, the fact that there is a sign is a geographic fact, but the fact that that signifies something for the road or object that's there is just convention. And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about the location or presence of a road that makes it motorway or tertiary. That is only because it is designated as such. That designation can change anytime, but by doing so you don't change the geography of the place. Now define road. ;-) - 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 02:18:46 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote: Maarten Deen wrote: Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value of the highway tag is not a geographical fact. Sure they are. If I walk about 20 yards from my front door, there's a no entry sign at a certain lat/long. If I walk a bit further along, facing the other way, there's a one way sign at another lat/long. From those two geographical facts[1], I can deduce that a particular road is oneway. Therefore I tagged http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/1058809 with oneway=yes. Same goes for turn restrictions, maximum speeds, and certainly over here, highway tags. The one major exception in the OSM database is administrative boundaries. IMHO that's stretching the geographic bit very far. Sure, the fact that there is a sign is a geographic fact, but the fact that that signifies something for the road or object that's there is just convention. And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about the location or presence of a road that makes it motorway or tertiary. That is only because it is designated as such. That designation can change anytime, but by doing so you don't change the geography of the place. -- [GG] But these are facts, this copyright discussion is not about geographic facts only, and no list of facts can be copyrighted, just the method of organization of facts can be copyrighted. The discussion is also about if the inevitable limitation/deviation from reality (be it geographic or nomenclatural or other facts), that a geodatabase such as OSM represents, can be characterized as creative work. My opinion is that as we are not intentionally deviating from reality with the intent of being creative, it cannot be a creative work and so not be copyrighted. This has been supported by a number of courts in 4-5 countries among Austria (and I think Netherlands, not sure) Some of us think that any human activity on data results in creative work that can be copyrighted. Note that this is just about the database, not about the resulting tiles or printed maps. Regards Gert Regards, Maarten ___ 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 08/07/11 13:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about the location or presence of a road that makes it motorway or tertiary. That is only because it is designated as such. That designation can change anytime, but by doing so you don't change the geography of the place. One bit of earth or tarmac is pretty much the same as another. What makes them a road? - 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] [OSM-talk] offering adapted databases
shifting to legal On 7/8/2011 3:50 PM, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Steve Coastst...@asklater.com wrote: Lets say you make a map and someone wants the data. First, are you acting in the spirit of the license? Let's assume yes. That gets you 99% of the way there, despite your technical detail analysis. I'm not really sure what the spirit of the license is, so I don't think it's safe to assume I am acting within the spirit of the license. Is CloudMade acting within the spirit of the license when they display maps containing proprietary data which can be bought for only $295/year? I don't see how they are, but apparently you think they are, right? I have no idea, I don't work there. Next, you don't have to make the database available. You can make the db available, or the code. What code? I generally don't write all the code and then run the code. I add a few things here, run a little bit of SQL there, find some mistakes and run some more SQL, build some indexes, transfer some files to EC2, run some scripts on EC2 which are too memory intensive for my home machine, transfer some files back, etc. Making the code available doesn't work. Well that's what the license says, there's community norms around this stuff http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline It feels like you're just looking for a reason to say no. It's extremely simple: It's there because of the concern you have. Just publish or point to the code. Declaring it 'doesnt work' isn't helping or true. No license is going to be 100% perfect. Do you understand that? We would all have a lot more time for you, I think, if your attitude was ok the license is basically done, we've spent years on it, lets get it done and move on to version 2 rather than I'm going to hold out with increasingly outlandish scenarios until they delete my data. Personally I think your questions about how much time to keep the db for, for example, are reasonable. The problem is I could sit here for 10 minutes and come up with 10 reasonable looking questions like that about any license and we would never get anywhere. So, my preference is we just finish this phase and then work on implementing a bunch of fixes. But this stasis of concerns in perpetuity isn't going to work. If the LWG declared they would look at all those kinds of problems in a 'version 2' would you join us? Adding a question, because your point about storage brings up a potential semi-solution: What if I just store every database I ever use on a hard drive, and if someone asks for a copy I send them, for the cost of a hard drive plus shipping, everything? I believe the GPL has an 'at cost' clause somewhere, and personally I think that's reasonable. Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
