Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM Database Re-Build
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:16:47 +0100, Michael Collinson wrote: The numbers: http://matt.dev.openstreetmap.org/treemap.png - each square represents one user, weighted by size of contribution. Green=accepted, Red=Declined or has not responded. This displays an 800x600 grey image with black border for me. 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 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
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] Phase 4 and what it means
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:48:54 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Maarten Deen wrote: Well the license team does not *gain* anything from you signing the contributor terms, so what should they do for you in return? The license team is part of OSMF and OSMF does gain a lot in signing the contributor terms. It gains the right to exploit the data in the database. Another funny word, exploit. When I read the Contributor Terms it says that OSMF has the right to license the database under one of currently two licenses, with the option of asking (!) the community to enhance that choice of licenses in the future. Exploitation does also mean using something in an unjust and cruel manner. I'm under the impression that that's how you see what I wrote. But exploitation in general is using something. You can for instance exploit a mine. And that perfectly covers the royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. OSMF gains the right do do anything with the data as long as it does not breach copyright etc. Certainly there is a gain there. It gains the right to exploit the data. Regards, 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 5-6-2011 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] How to remove my data since 2006
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 12:09:41 + (UTC), Ed Avis wrote: Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes: Nothing will be removed on 1st April. 1st April only means that you will not be allowed to edit *with your old account* if you haven't agreed to the CT. Can you clarify this? I understood that the CTs were per-person, not per-account, so if you are unable to agree to them for existing contributions you would not be able to open a new account either (since to do so you'd have to agree to the CTs for your earlier contributions too). CTs will allways be per account. There is nothing linking seperate accounts together or even to an actual person. There is only an e-mail address. Any one person can also create multiple accounts and choose to accept or not accept the CT for his currently exisiting account as he wishes. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] JOSM and spam
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:57:57 +0100, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi It would be great if someone could convince the JOSM people to remove the ODbL blurb in JOSM, people get scared and spam everyone who hasn't agreed to the new license. I do not appreciate getting lots of ODbL FUD spam, Is that what prompts people to send messages to total strangers to accept the ODbL? I've received 4 of those already and yes, they are quite annoying. One was even so read in that he could claim that soon my edits would be deleted. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:39:11 +0100, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 09/02/2010 11:24 AM, TimSC wrote: 1) How is the future direction of OSM determined? Community consensus? OSMF committees with OSMF votes? Something else? Consensus decision making doesn't mean a 100% plebiscite vote or minority veto power. It means an honest attempt to converge on a compromise. Given this, the ODbL does represent community consensus. It represents a compromise between many different ideological positions present in the community around the norms that have emerged in discussion over the years. If it's not your personal dream licence for OSM, welcome to the club. But, as I say, consensus means compromise. I do wonder how you can talk about consensus or compromise if part of the issue is how do we get in touch with people that have contributed. It's easy if everyone was on a mailinglist or the wiki. But they aren't. There hasn't even been an announcement made trough the mail system on www.openstreetmap.org. How can someone then possibly say that consensus or compromise has been reached? BTW: not that I've been asked, but currently I would vote against the move to ODbL. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Noise vs unanswered questions
Rob Myers wrote: On 09/02/2010 12:55 PM, TimSC wrote: The question I was asking was primarily about HOW we reach that consensus, which you did not address. If you had specifically answered my questions, it would have helped. My understanding (such as it is) of how OSM works comes from having watched it online over the years. The public record shows that there have been several years of conference events, mailing list discussions, working group and board meetings and other events dedicated to deciding on the licence issue. This has resulted in consensus. The actual discussions, debates and votes at events across the different fora have led over time to a compromise that upsets just about everyone equally (apart from those jurisdictions with valid concerns about losing major contributions, who are quite rightly more upset). The current situation as I see it is that a group of contributors (possibly supported by the OSMF?) wants to move to ODbL and that a group of contributors does not want that move. Perhaps there are also people wanting to move to yet another license, and maybe people are indifferent. How big either of these groups are is unknown to me. There was some discussion on how the group wanting to move should be measured, by number of people, by number of edits/contributions possibly only measured over a certain period, but AFAIK no consensus has been reached there. If that is consensus to you... Let's put it this way: if that is consensus to the people wanting the move and the people in charge of the license that governs OSM, then I guess the license move is imminent and undebatable. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Community vs. Licensing
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:12:21 -0400, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:37 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, we contributors are being treated with contempt alright, besides not being asked what we contributors want, since this whole thing started it's been nothing but dirty tricks to try and get the license changed. No, JohnSmith, still you present a skewed vision. Every time OSM contributors have been asked, they have supported ODbL (or license change before ODbL had a name). All the way back to SotM Manchester. And all the way forward through polls and surveys and more SotM conferences. All the time, collaborative discussions and Maybe I've been living under a rock, but I don't recall a poll or a survey where I've been asked if I want a license change and which license I want. I do know that people can currently accept the new ODbL license, but they are not asked to decline it if they want that, so you will not get the negative vote from that. I must agree with John's feel here: I've not been asked if I want it, I'm only asked to accept it or not. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Frederik Ramm wrote: Duane, I wonder how Frederik is going to rationalise having the Kosovo information removed, I haven't made a statement about the Kosovo information. I'm sure that whoever has imported it has made sure it would be compatible with future license changes as suggested on the imports Wiki page for ages. That's a bit silly. So you're supposed to ask permission to use the data with the current license, and with any possible imaginable other license, as noone will be able to predict how OSM will look like in 10 years. And even if the general direction is known, it's not much use to ask to agree to a proposed license as this may not be the future license. How many of the contributors will agree to that? It's like saying yeah, we now have CC-BY-SA-2, but this may change in the future and please sign this blank sheet of paper. My view: IMHO dataremoval is bad. Tag the old data which cannot be relicensed with CC-BY-SA-2 and leave it there. Possibly bar it from getting changed (except deleted) in the API, but my feeling is that the people moving the license are the ones that have to make sure the old data will remain and will not be misused. You cannot expect #random mapper to roll over and play ball on every decision of the OSM board or license committee. Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons
Rob Myers wrote: On 08/29/2010 08:21 AM, Maarten Deen wrote: So you're supposed to ask permission to use the data with the current license, and with any possible imaginable other license, as noone will be able to predict how OSM will look like in 10 years. It's because no-one can predict how the environment in which OSM exists will look in 10 years. The longest running free software and free culture projects have had to change their licences to reflect the changing environment in which they exist. OSM will be no different. I am not saying OSM may not or can not change its license. I'm merely pointing out that it is impossible to ask from a contributor to accept the current license *and every imaginable other license* because we don't know how the license will change in the future. That, basically, is the same as asking to sign a blank sheet of paper. Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
