Re: [OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested
+1 for both items On Dec 20, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > Dear All, > > LWG would like feedback on a couple of items relating to cleaning > tainted data as we all prepare for the data base transition. > > Draft minutes are here. > > https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZIQSl0xXpUFbqTeknz61BYgfCINDTzlAWomOiGxhgG8 > > Of particular interest are: > - can node positions be cleaned by moving to a new position? > - is a mapper declaration of odbl=clean interesting and helpful in > reconciling the data base? > > As seen here: > > "We discussed the moving of nodes and whether they could be clean: We > have seen a concern expressed where an node is moved by an agreed > mapper and that is the last position, should it not be deemed clean > (even if created dirty)? Conclusion: Yes, we are OK with that, the > assumption being that the move is made in good faith with a reference > source, (survey, Bing imagery, …). We consider that the creation of an > object and its id to be a system action rather than individual > creative contribution. Tags on the same node must be considered > separately. The LWG would like to adopt this as policy and would be > grateful for community feedback. > > Frederik has recently proposed a new tag, odbl=clean, to be set by > mappers who will vouch for the odbl compliance of any object. The LWG > would like to adopt this as policy and would be grateful for community > feedback." > > We look forward to your thoughtful, insightful feedback. > > Best regards and Happy Mapping, > Richard Weait on behalf of LWG > > ___ > 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] instead of replacing data can I just revert to the last known "clean" version?
On Dec 16, 2011, at 12:03 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > I think it would be good to have a tag that mappers can use to say "this > object is clean, I have personally checked the history and/or reverted it to > a relicensable state, any contributions by non-agreeing users are not present > in the current version any longer". +1 replacing tainted data is a pain with current tools. there must be a some support to define an object (not just a changeset) as clean. This is the only chance to keep object history. This should apply to all nodes if this tag is set on a way. At least for nodes without additional tags this should be a reasonable assumption. No one will really draw or verify way nodes independent from creating/verifying a way. tainted nodes with additional tags should retain only the position. This is really important to keep connectivity of the road network intact. if the node tags are tainted we can not keep them. For relations this seems be to tricky and I would not go that far to push a odbl clean flag to it's members > > Then, if you revert an object to an earlier version, you'd just add that tag > to express then even though the object history does contain contributions by > non-agreers, it can remain. > > I am experimenting with using the tag "odbl=clean" for this, and will build > support for that into the OSMI relicensing view. But the matter still needs > to be discussed properly, and with OSM Inspector not being an "official" site > in any way, it is not for me to say whether such a tag would be honoured when > the day comes. > I assume the LWG will follow your implementation as Simon's later post in this thread indicated. The final switch is on DB level so we should do some dry run and compare with yours well before April 1st > Bye > Frederik > > ___ > 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] Fwd: Re: Two questions to LWG
On 2 Sep 2010, at 4:52 , TimSC wrote: > > To LWG, > cc legal talk > > You have not provided an acknowledgement of my recent emails of 11th Aug, > 18th Aug (beyond Grant's message of 27th July). Obviously, you are busy but I > also don't have time to keep going through my emails and your minutes to see > if any discussion has taken place. I first raised the produced works/CC0/PD > compatibility issue with you back on 25th May. > Who are you to demand a response from people working in their spare time? You are not even willing to spend the time to read minutes and emails but expect individual response. If every mapper of the 10-20k active mappers expects this then tell me how the LWG or OSMF can do this? hire 500 lawyers to repeatedly answer the same question? What I have learned only a lawyer or a court desicion can give final answers. Whatever LWG says is less than an advise and absolutely not binding. and just to be clear, I am not an osmf member or in any way involved in the license change. Just tired of endless discussions and disrespect of the work these guys are doing. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] osm copyright violation?
this is a technical description not an attribution. they offer also google streetview and ther Google copyright is in the main window I will contact them ask to add it. The use of the date itself is fine as far as I understand the license On 17 Oct 2009, at 20:06 , Richard Weait wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Ciprian Talaba > wrote: >> Hi Apo, >> >> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Apollinaris Schoell > > >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Isn't this a violation of the osm copyright? Can't find any >>> attribution >>> on the website. >>> >>> http://hotpads.com/search/#lat=37.34232140492519&lon=-121.85159683227539&zoom=24&listingTypes=rental,sublet,room,corporate&includeVaguePricing=false&loan=30,0.0525,0&visible=new,viewed,favorite >>> >>> What should be done about this type of applications? Is it enough to >>> contact them and ask to add the attribution in the map or is they >>> way they >>> do it not possible at all and they have to share their data if >>> they want to >>> use osm. >>> >>> -- >>> apo >> >> You can find more information about the process in the wiki: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution >> > > They mention OSM here. > http://hotpads.com/pages/info/aboutUs.htm > > ___ > 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
[OSM-legal-talk] osm copyright violation?
Hi Isn't this a violation of the osm copyright? Can't find any attribution on the website. http://hotpads.com/search/#lat=37.34232140492519&lon=-121.85159683227539&zoom=24&listingTypes=rental,sublet,room,corporate&includeVaguePricing=false&loan=30,0.0525,0&visible=new,viewed,favorite What should be done about this type of applications? Is it enough to contact them and ask to add the attribution in the map or is they way they do it not possible at all and they have to share their data if they want to use osm. -- apo ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
